Maravi

‘Going wild’

‘Going wild’
Written by Editor

In life, it’s very important to be clear about things.We cannot build something that we don’t have a clear understanding of. Mike Mulongoti on Tuesday clearly revealed that there are some serious inadequacies on the understanding on what type of a democratic Zambia we want to build.

Mulongoti says it is difficult to have a specific definition of democracy these days because non-governmental organisations and strange journalists are now governing together with the government. He complains that democracy was going wild. Mulongoti says in schools, people were taught that democracy was a government of the people, for the people, by the people but it is no longer like that these days.

It is difficult to understand what Mulongoti is talking about. As Lincoln once defined it, democracy is government of the people, by the people and for the people. No one can have any quarrel, regardless of their ideological persuasions, with Lincoln’s definition of democracy.

For us, democracy means that governments are closely linked to the people, arise from the people, have the support of the people and devote themselves entirely to working and struggling for the people and the people’s interests. To us, democracy implies the defence of all the rights of citizens, including the right to dignity and honour. For us, democracy means fraternity and true equality among men and women and equal opportunities for all men and women, for every human being who is born.

For us, true democracy is government of the people, by the people, for the people – a government in which all the people participate.

Clearly, for us democracy does not begin and end with elections, with citizens voting in an election and after that leave everything – everything – to the elected politicians to deal with as they please. For us, democracy is a process of continuous participation by citizens in the governance of their country, all citizens have a right to participate in the shaping of their destiny directly without fear of reprisal.

For us, democracy is more than a set of constitutional rules and procedures that determine how a government functions. For us, in a democracy, government is only one element co-existing in a social fabric of many and varied institutions, political parties, organisations and associations. This diversity is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organised groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government for their existence, legitimacy or authority. Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation in both government and in their own communities.

In an authoritarian society, like the one Mulongoti seems to be dreaming of, virtually all such organisations would be controlled, licensed, watched or otherwise accountable to the government. In a democracy, the powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and sharply limited. As a result, private organisations are free of government control; on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions.

In this busy realm of democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom and the responsibilities of self-government – unpressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.

Of course, democracies make several assumptions about human nature. One is that, given a chance, people are generally capable of governing themselves in a manner that is fair and free. Another is that any society comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who deserve to have their voices heard and their views respected. As a result, one thing is true of all healthy democracies: they are noisy.

And the voices of democracy include those of the government, its political supporters and opposition, of course. But they are joined by the voices of non-governmental organisations, trade unions, organised interest groups, community associations, royal establishments, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and writers, small businesses and large corporations, churches and schools.

All of these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic political process. In this way, democratic politics acts as a filter through which the vocal demands of a diverse populace pass on the way to becoming public policy. As former United States president Jimmy Carter once said, “The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself – always changing, infinite in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tasted by adversity.”

Citizens cannot be required to take part in the political process, and they are free to express their dissatisfaction by not participating. But without the lifeblood of citizen action, our democracy will begin to weaken. The price that citizens who try to participate in the affairs of their country are made to pay is increasingly becoming very high. They have become the targets of all sorts of repressive actions by those in government. It is very clear that those in government don’t want citizens to participate in the affairs of their country on their own terms. The only participation they seem to welcome is that of those who support them, who praise them, who defend their actions – wrong or right.

The right of individuals to freely participate in the governance of their country is fundamental to democracy. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th century French political observer, wrote, “There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted.”

NGOs and the media, which Mulongoti is deriding, serve as a meditating force between the isolated individual and a government that is usually large and remote. It is through the interplay of these groups – and through the process of open debate, conflict, compromise and consensus among them – that a democratic society makes decisions affecting the welfare of its members.

For politicians like Mulongoti, it seems the direct participation of all these groups and individuals in the governance of their country is a bad thing, a stumbling block. Mulongoti sees all this as weakening government and its authority to govern. This is not correct because democracies require that their governments be limited, not that they be weak. Viewed over a long course of history, democracies indeed do appear fragile. Democracies have by no means been immune to the tides of history; they have collapsed from political failure, succumbed to internal division or been destroyed by foreign intervention. But democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resilience over time, and have shown that with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of conflict. And it is the very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics that give it resilience. The process of debate, dissent and compromise that some politicians like Mulongoti are worried and concerned about that in fact give democracy its underlying strength. Certainly, no one has ever accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: democratic decision making in a large complex society can be a messy, grueling and time-consuming process. But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with a confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow ledge of a small fraudulently obtained electoral victory.

For us, democracy is a system of governance founded on the deeply held belief that government is best when its potential for abuse is curbed, and when it is held as close to the people as possible.

And moreover, citizenship demands a positive contribution of everyone, old and young, to building our nation’s future. And this includes voting, running for office, volunteering in a civil society organisation, fighting corruption, paying taxes, obeying the laws.

What our people are seeking is genuine democracy in which the leaders are servants of the electorate and not its masters.

For use, democracy is a system in which the state has the authority to make decisions but the people themselves have the right and duty to share in that authority. When people in government start to think it’s only themselves and their supporters who have the absolute right to govern, at the exclusion or marginalisation of all others, then there is division and frustration.

As for Mulongoti’s complaint about strange journalists now governing together with the government, we can only refer him to what Nelson Mandela once said: “A critical, independent and investigative press is the lifeblood of any democracy. The press is one of the pillars of democracy. A bad free press is preferable to a technically good, subservient one. None of our irritations with the perceived inadequacies of the media should ever allow us to suggest even faintly that the independence of the press could be compromised or coerced.”

Clearly, it is not democracy that is going wild in Zambia, it is Mulongoti and his intolerant undemocratic friends who are going wild.

Labels: DEMOCRACY, MIKE MULONGOTI, NGOCC

posted by MrK @ 2:07 PM