Maravi

Meeting of political party presidents

Meeting of political party presidents
By Editor
Saturday June 23, 2007 [04:00]

The meeting of leaders of our opposition political parties and the ruling MMD is highly welcome. And this meeting should be used to increase cooperation, unity and understanding among our politicians and their political parties. If cooperation is to be established among our political leaders, the primary requisite is to eradicate the cause of dissention between or among them.

Inter-party dialogue, inter-party talks or inter-party cooperation cannot remain just mere words; it has to be visible in concrete actions where those in government, those in the ruling party have to show the way.

Cooperation among our politicians requires that all parties respect each other and that all of them in turn recognise and respect the government as a legal institution. Dialogue and cooperation among our political leaders should be for us both a gift and a project and something that we all must work to achieve.

But it should not be forgotten that cooperation and understanding are the fruits of honesty, truth and solidarity; they are the tranquility of order.
To guarantee cooperation, dialogue and understanding, all are called to maturity, tolerance and responsibility.

Democracies thrive on openness and accountability. We know that one of the most difficult concepts for some of our politicians to accept is that of ‘loyal opposition’. This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don’t necessarily have to like each other, but they must be tolerant of one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in discourse or dialogue.

No matter who is in power, both sides should agree to cooperate in solving the problems of the nation. Those in the opposition should continue to participate in public life, with a knowledge that their role is essential in any multiparty democracy worth the name. They should be loyal not to the specific policies of those in government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state, and to the multiparty democratic process itself.

As we have stated before, the competition for power, for public office in a multiparty democracy, after all, is not a fight for survival, but a competition to serve.
In a multiparty political dispensation, we need the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflicting views as well as the necessity for tolerance. It should be borne in mind that human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires. And multiparty democracy is no different, and it is important to recognise that many of these tensions that we are experiencing today in our country, even the paradoxes, are present in every multiparty democracy.

A central paradox exists between conflict and consensus. Multiparty democracy is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing conflict. At the same time, this conflict must be managed within certain limits and should result in compromises, consensus or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An over-emphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive multiparty democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, the nation can shatter from within. If those in government exert excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the nation can be crushed from above.

The answer is that there is no single or easy answer. Multiparty democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted; it needs – as we have already stated – the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.

The conflicts that we face today are not easy questions, and the broad precepts of multiparty democracy only provide guidelines for addressing and analysing these issues. It is for this reason that the culture of democracy is so important to develop. Individuals and groups must be willing, at the minimum, to tolerate each other’s differences, recognising that the other side has valid rights and a legitimate point of view. The various sides to a political dispute whatever its nature, magnitude or complexity can meet in a spirit of compromise and seek a specific solution that builds on the general principle of dialogue, cooperation and accommodation. Such a process has the added benefit of building the trust necessary to resolve future problems.

Coalition building is the essence of democratic action. It teaches interest groups to negotiate with others, to compromise and to work within the constitutional system. By working to establish coalition, groups with differences learn how to argue respectfully and peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic manner and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity. Multiparty democracy is not a set of revealed, unchanging truths, but the mechanism by which, through the clash and compromise of ideas, individuals and institutions, the people can, however imperfectly, reach for truth.

Multiparty democracy is pragmatic. In a multiparty democracy, ideas and solutions to problems are not tested against a rigid ideology but tried in the real world where they can be argued over and changed, accepted or discarded.

We shouldn’t forget that this multiparty democracy we are pursuing in itself guarantees us nothing. It offers us instead the opportunity to succeed as well as the risk of failure. There are many multiparty democracies that have failed. Our multiparty political dispensation is then both a promise and a challenge. It is a promise in the sense that if we work together, we can govern ourselves in a manner that will serve our aspirations for personal freedom, economic opportunity and social justice. It is a challenge because the success of the multiparty democratic enterprise rests upon the shoulders of its citizens and no one else. In the end, we get the government we deserve.

It is in this spirit that the leaders of our political parties should approach inter-party dialogue. They should always bear in mind that no one has the monopoly of wisdom. And moreover, those who think they have got the best ideas should not fear to put them on the judgement seat of reason. There should be no preconditions in inter-party dialogue. These talks should not be a platform for personal confrontation or contest; let us use these talks to address the legitimate concerns of our people and not necessarily of our leaders.

Labels: EDITORIAL, PARTIES

posted by MrK @ 3:47 AM