Maravi

Undesirable but democratic, legal

Undesirable but democratic, legal
By Editor
Wednesday August 08, 2007 [04:00]

It is certainly not desirable for the government to be subjected to demonstrations during the Southern Africa Development Community (SADC) heads of state summit in Lusaka. No government would like to find itself in such a situation. Yet it is the way a government reacts to such demonstrations that clearly defines its character, its democratic credentials. Undemocratic governments would not accept or tolerate such demonstrations or any humiliation when hosting such an important gathering.

Few African governments would tolerate such demonstrations. But we see such demonstrations on our television screens in more democratic countries when they are hosting very important international meetings. We saw it in Gleneagles; we recently saw it in Heiligendamm. The British and German governments didn't stop the demonstrators who included not only their nationals but also others from other countries whom they had given visas to come and demonstrate.

If we had our way, we would rather have the disagreements resolved long before next week's meeting so that there are no demonstrations.

But there is nothing undemocratic in the decision by the Oasis Forum to carry out demonstrations during the SADC heads of sate meeting. It may be undesirable but certainly not undemocratic as justice minister George Kunda is trying to allege. And not everything that is undesirable can be said to be unlawful. What the Oasis Forum is trying to do may be undesirable, especially on the part of the government, but it is certainly not unlawful.

There is need for us to realise that human beings possess a variety of sometimes contradictory desires. People want safety, yet relish adventure; they aspire to individual freedom, yet demand social equality.

Democracy is no different, and it is important to recognise that many of these tensions, even paradoxes, are present in every democratic society. A central paradox exists between conflict and consensus. 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 result in compromises, consensus or other agreements that all sides accept as legitimate. An overemphasis on one side of the equation can threaten the entire undertaking. If groups perceive democracy as nothing more than a forum in which they can press their demands, society can shatter from within. If those running government exert excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the nation can be crushed from above.

But there's no easy or single solution to this complex problem. What is needed is a lot of tolerance and a lot of balancing acts. This is so because democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. Building democracy in our country will therefore require the commitment of all its citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.

And its important to recognise that many of the conflicts we will face in our efforts and endeavours to build a democratic country will not be between clear-cut "right" and "wrong", but between differing interpretations of democratic rights and social priorities.
These may not be easy questions, and the broad precepts of democracy may only provide guidelines for addressing and analysing these issues. It is for this reason that developing the culture of democracy is very important. Individuals and groups must be willing, at a minimum, to tolerate each other's differences, recognising that the other side has valid rights and a legitimate point of view.

And they should try to meet in a spirit of compromise and seek a specific solution to the problem. Consensus building is the essence of democratic action. We say this because it teaches interest groups to negotiate with others, to compromise and to work within the constitutional system. And by doing so, groups with differences learn how to argue peaceably, how to pursue their goals in a democratic manner and ultimately how to live in a world of diversity.

It is in this spirit that we should approach what appears to be a highly divisive constitution review agenda. As Chairman Mao Tse Tung put it, " let hundred schools of thought contend". Through clash and compromise of ideas, however imperfect, our people will be able to arrive at a constitution-review process that is most acceptable.
There is no need for the government to try to crush the Oasis Forum.

It may be an irritation to those in government, and to some of its leaders, a little prickle but they have every right to do what they are doing and to be what they are or want to be. The best way to deal with conflicts that arise from people's exercise of their democratic rights is through democratic methods; it’s by more and more doses of democracy. If the government is not able to reach some compromise, understanding or accommodation with the Oasis Forum, then the latter have every right to demonstrate or protest the government's approach on the constitution-review issue.

For all its deficiencies, our Constitution still has some democratic credentials because it does protect some fundamental freedoms. In our country, citizens have the right to gather peacefully and protest the policies or actions of their government or of other groups, with demonstrations, marches, petitions, boycotts, strikes and other forms of direct citizens’ action. And these protests or demonstrations are often designed to attract the attention of the news media, of those in government and of the international community. A high-profile meeting like the one we will be hosting next week certainly provides a good opportunity for attracting such attention.

Protests or demonstrations are a testing ground for any democracy. The ideals of free expression and citizen participation are easy to defend when everyone remains polite and in agreement on basic issues. But protestors or demonstrators - and their targets - do not agree on basic issues, and such disagreements may be passionate and angry.

The challenge then is one of balance: To defend the right to freedom of speech and assembly, while maintaining public order and countering attempts at intimidation or violence. To suppress peaceful protest or demonstration in the name of order is to invite repression; to permit uncontrolled violence or protests is to invite anarchy.

Again, there's no magic formula for achieving this balance. In the end, it depends on the commitment of the majority to maintaining the institutions of democracy and the precepts of individual rights. Democratic societies are capable of enduring the bitterest disagreement among its citizens - except for disagreement about the legitimacy of democracy itself. It is in this spirit that we feel we should approach the tension or conflict that is building up in the nation over the constitution-review process.

But still we feel there is a way that the conflict over the constitution-review process can be handled to avoid distracting attention from the other equally important and urgent issues facing our region, the SADC region. Demonstrations during this meeting will definitely be undesirable but certainly democratic and legal. And the only way to deal with something of this nature, something that is undesirable but democratic and legal, is by deploying democratic methods and not repressive or illegal measures.

Labels: EDITORIAL, OASIS FORUM

posted by MrK @ 3:46 AM