Maravi

It's really not easy

It's really not easy
By Editor
Sunday September 09, 2007 [04:00]

Michael Sata's cry that it is not easy to be in the opposition or to maintain an opposition political party because of poverty is true. But poverty is not the only explanation for why we are having serious problems with our multiparty political experiment. The true reason is that any political system that does not increase, but decreases, the level of national unity is bound to face a lot of problems and stands very little chance of succeeding.

It is increasingly becoming clear that we are having serious problems in implementing the neo-liberal political and economic concepts that we adopted over the last two decades.

It is increasingly becoming clear that a unique African democracy is not something which will emerge from a rational blueprint; it will emerge from practical experience and improvisation in the course of a hard struggle. The rational blueprint we are talking about is the liberal multiparty democracy in which political participation and exclusion stem from periodic elections with many parties contesting for votes cast on individual basis.

Our experience over the last 16 years of multiparty political dispensation in Zambia, is that for this type of political setup to function effectively and efficiently, there is need for extensive competition by contestants including individuals, groups or parties for government; political participation that provides the choice for the electorate to elect candidates in free and fair elections; and civil and political liberties that enable citizens to express themselves freely.

Problems are bound when these conditions do not obtain in the social and economic world of political actors or when multiparty politics is taken in its minimalist dimension. By minimalist approach, democracy does not entail rule by the people but it is simply a method by which decision-making is transferred to individuals who have gained power in a competitive struggle for the votes of the citizens.

Clearly, this approach is simplistic in view of our complex problems where, because of inadequate consensus on democratic norms and values as well as insufficient counter-pressure from society, our successive political regimes fail to give adequate heed to elite abuse, corruption and legitimate demand for political and social rights. Even with competitive elections, the possibility remains that political minorities will be excluded from the political process and face an insecure future.

We should also not forget the history of how we came to these multiparty political dispensations. During the Cold War era, the priority by Western states for economic and national ties meant that corrupt regimes elsewhere were supported despite their record on human rights violations and absence of democracy.

When the Cold War was over, governments made reluctant moves to multiparty democracy. Reluctance in itself was a pointer to the fragility of the basis for competitive politics. While our politicians in power viewed multi-partism with suspicion and dismissed it as Stone Age politics, academics too contested its validity. It is argued that, born and bred in the industrial West, multiparty politics is not the best fit for Africa where socio-political structures and potent identification are more of ethnicity and less of classes.

It cannot be denied that the mixed results that accompany political trials and tribulations in Africa led to perverse perception of our key institutions. Some have openly lamented about the criminalisation of state; others like Sata of the politics of the belly; and disorder as political instruments.

Others have condemned corrupt leaders, manipulative elite and uncivil nationalism. No wonder if the imposition or reluctant adoption of multiparty politics failed to provide substantive answers to the myriad of problems we today face, including economic decline, intense conflicts, inadequate channels of political communication, and lack of responsive political institutions. On occasions, the problems were intensified giving rise to questions as to how the neo-liberal precepts take our realities into consideration.
The process of controlled de-colonialisation failed in the reformation of generally acceptable polities.

The inherited states remain weak, imposed, and cohesive machinery ran by force than by consent. The host of factors that hinder the development of institutions also delayed the development of vibrant nationalism and nation states that were the trustees of progress in the West.

In short, the states and political systems remained much in the making of the colonial order, swimming in the sea of conquest politics. Our post-independence political leaders took over the political kingdom in its enticing form. Well-versed with repressive and oppressive past, they embraced the single party system as an essential mode of rule. Political plurality was decried as a bottleneck for the project of nation-building and national unity. Arrested, in the process, was the growth of vibrant social, political and economic institutions. Traversing across a range of crises, states have nearly lost the legitimacy so necessary for sensible governance.

The transfer of power turned out to be a matter of rebellion and in effect the political foundation of our post-colonial states became autocracy or personal rule. The motive behind the single party system and the reasons for political regimes to pursue such a route was historical, political and ideological. The familiar historical legacy that preceded independence was the rule of minority over majority, and that was not democracy. Moreover, colonial rule undermined local and indigenous values and institutions without creating a stable replacement. Politically, the sustenance of power and territorial unity took priority, which seemed to require unitarist, single party state.

For this purpose, the immediate past was easily replayed as political authoritarianism complimented economic authoritarianism, and both backed by the post-independence development ideology. In order to compliment this, the argument of authoritarianism had it that the political economy of development poses a cruel choice between rapid economic growth and democratic processes.
In real politics, the major powers, preoccupied with the Cold War, saw authoritarian rule appropriate for clientelism and political stability. They did not seriously recommend the need for multiparty elections and democracy.

But with the end of the Cold War, the challenge to authoritarian polity emerged from within and without. Economic and social discontent compelled outspoken individuals to criticise government for presiding over economic decline and political decay. Externally, structural adjustment measures and the donors' conditioning of foreign aid to the pursuits of good governance forced governments to introduce political reforms. The democratization wave was replenished by the controversial " end of history" as representing "the end point of mankind's ideological evolution and the universalisation of Western liberal democracy as the final form of human government". Multiparty democracy was then promoted as an alternative to single party and personal rule.

From all this, its clear why we are running into problems - the system has no roots, politically, constitutionally, legally or otherwise. And without strong democratic culture - and by democratic culture we mean the behaviours, practices and norms that define the ability of a people to govern themselves - people will enter politics to simply satisfy personal ambitions or pleasure.

They will not do so to serve the people. They will not look at politics as something very important, as an area of great importance for promoting justice, development and community among all; they will not regard politics as a vocation, a way of building up society for the common good.

They will not even realise that what people are today seeking is genuine democracy in which the leaders are honest and humble servants of the electorate and not its masters. Politics will not be seen as a vocation to serve the people. They will forget the Biblical teaching: "Whoever wishes to be first among you must be the slave of all" (Mark 10:14). Therefore, politics need people with high credibility and not individuals who are merely seeking personal aggrandisement; and not leaders who want to benefit more from their political office than the people they were elected to serve, lead or to be servants of.

There is need to reform our political system or else what Sata is complaining about will continue to be the order of the day. We shouldn't forget that when Sata himself was in the MMD government and was national secretary of the ruling party, he used to enjoy recruiting leaders of the opposition to join his party and took pride in parading his catch before the press. Now he is tasting his own medicine! What is bad is bad, and everything bad is the same; if you don't hit it, it won't fall. This is also like sweeping the floor; as a rule, where the broom does not reach, the dust will not vanish on itself.

Let us devise a political system that makes it a duty for all our politicians to serve the people whole-heartedly and never for a moment divorce themselves from the masses of our people, and to proceed in all cases from the interests of the people and not from one's self-interest or from the interests of a small group. All our politicians, whatever their rank, are supposed to be servants of the people, and whatever they do is supposed to serve the people. Their duty should be to hold themselves responsible to the people. Every word, every act and every policy must conform to the people's interest.

And if we truly want and value multiparty politics, we should make sure that both opposition and ruling party politics are treated as equally necessary and respectful undertakings. In a multiparty political dispensation governance, is not only a preserve of those in power, those in the opposition have also an important and necessary role to play.

Both those in the opposition and those in government should share a common commitment to multiparty democracy and its basic values. And no matter who wins an election, both sides must agree to cooperate in solving the common problems facing our people and our country. Moreover, multiparty politics is not a contest for survival but a competition to serve our people heart and soul.

It is extremely important that as we review our constitution we pay a lot of attention to the question of how we want to organise our country's politics and provide for it accordingly. If we don't, the form of our political organisation will continue to undermine our developmental efforts.

Labels: OPPOSITION, SATA

posted by MrK @ 4:08 AM