Expulsions of political party members

Expulsions of political party members
By Editor
Monday May 12, 2008 [04:00]

THERE'S very little, if not nothing, that will be achieved by our political parties if they don't achieve high levels of democracy in their organisation. Within the ranks of our political parties, democracy should be correlative with centralism and freedom with discipline. These are two opposites of a single entity, contradictory as well as united, and we should not one-sidedly emphasise one to the denial of the other.

Within the ranks of our political parties we cannot do without freedom; nor can we do without discipline; we cannot do without democracy, nor can we do without centralism.
This unity of party democracy and centralism, of freedom and discipline, should constitute our political parties' democratic centralism. Under this, the members, cadres and leaders should enjoy extensive democracy and freedom, but at the same time they have to keep within the bounds of party discipline.

With what is going on in most of our political parties, there is need to affirm anew the discipline of our political parties, that is the individual should be subordinate to the organisation; the minority should be subordinate to the majority; the lower level should be subordinate to the higher level and so on and so forth. And whoever violates these should be seen as disrupting party unity.

One very important requirement of party discipline is that the minority should submit to the majority. If the view of the minority has been rejected, it must support the decision passed by the majority. If necessary, it can bring up the matter for reconsideration at the next meeting, but apart from that, it must not act against the decision in any way.
And if party discipline is to be maintained, orders have to be obeyed in all actions.
Members, cadres and leaders of our political parties must heighten their sense of discipline and resolutely carry out orders, carry out party policies - with cadres and people united, cadres and leaders united - and permit no breach of discipline.

As Nelson Mandela once observed, "discipline is the most powerful weapon to achieve victory...an organisation can only carry out its mandate if there is discipline, and where there is no discipline there can be no real progress." This is because where there is no discipline anarchy prevails and factions emerge. And experience has repeatedly shown that a political party divided into hostile groups loses its militancy. Protracted intra-party strife inevitably results in party members, cadres and leaders' concentration on discords. The party becomes distracted from political struggle and day-to-day work among the masses and loses its influence.

But disciplinary measures should be administered in a just and fair way, with all being equal before party rules. The right to equality before party rules is fundamental to any just and democratic political party. Whether ally or opponent on any party issue - all should be entitled to equal protection before the party rules.

The party and its disciplinary machinery should be required to deal evenly, equally and fairly with all of its members whatever their position in the party. No one should be above the party rules, which are, after all, the creation of the party members, not something imposed on them. Members of a political party submit to the rules of the party because they recognise that, however indirectly, they are submitting to themselves as the ultimate makers of the party rules. When party rules are established by the members who then have to obey, both the rules and party democracy are served.

Every political party must have the power to maintain order within itself and punish violations, but the rules and procedures by which the party enforces its rules must be known to all the members and must be explicit, not secret, arbitrary or subject to manipulation by those in charge of the party.

Mere differences of opinion, no matter how strong they may be, should not lead to expulsions of party members. And all party leaders should be open to honet criticism. If the criticism is valid, it must be made. Critics inside the party should not be crushed.
A situation should not be created where it would appear that to agree with everything the leaders say is divine, but to disagree is treason.

It seems very few of our political leaders can differentiate between a critic and a traitor. Where there is a critic, they see a traitor. In most cases they see no difference between a party member seeking to exercise his freedom of expression and a rabid political opponent out to get them. Criticism per se is non-existent. Anything else is destructive. Criticism is an expression of hate, not pure disagreement.

It seems our political leaders, especially those at the helm of our political parties, are incapable of being criticised without feeling rancoured about it. In fact, all the time the impression given is that to criticise is to condemn or curse in the biblical fashion.
It is quite true that acceptance of criticism implies the highest respect for human ideals, and that its denial suggests a conscious or unconscious lack of humanity on our part. Intolerance must surely rank as one of the worst forms of immorality in human affairs. What we are striving to say is that our political parties, at the same time as they are trying to maintain party discipline, should take pride in their critical members and avoid being stuck in a culture of zealous worship of leaders.

What seems to be distinctly lacking among the leaders of our political parties is the culture of tolerance and humility which places the humanity of others before self and accepts that all party members have a right to participate in shaping the destiny of their political parties directly without fear of reprisal.

Tolerance and respect for our fellow party members, whatever their rank, should make us allow them to express their opinions about our views and practices without inhibition, whether these seem to be unpalatable or not. At the same time, we should expect the same treatment or privilege when our turn comes. This is not something we achieve instinctively. Rather, we develop it consciously and respectfully. For, our very instincts would drive us to throttling our opponents in arguments, or, even worse, smack them with a deadly blow - expel them from the party if we are in a position to do so. In our view, all this is the result of fearing to be undermined by honest criticism. Anyone who dares to challenge our demi-gods is seen as a subvert. We are condemning ourselves to eternal backwardness if we don't change this attitude.

We therefore urge all our political parties and their leaders to give favourable consideration to Bishop George Lungu's advice against unnecessary expulsions of critical party members. As Bishop Lungu aptly put it, it is very important to respect people's opinions even if you do not agree with them.

And we shouldn't forget that democracy in any political party is in many ways nothing more than a set of rules for managing intra-party conflicts. To manage a political party in a democratic way requires the commitment of all members who accept the inevitability of conflicts, of differences of opinion as well as the necessity for tolerance.

It is for this reason that the culture of democracy in our political parties is so important to develop. Democracy is not a set of revealed, unchanging truths, but the mechanism by which, through the clash and compromise of ideas, party members can, however imperfectly, reach for truth.