Maravi

‘A govt that is fighting all key stakeholders’

‘A govt that is fighting all key stakeholders’
Written by Editor

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, democracy will begin to weaken and completely disappear in our country. Citizens of democratic societies have the opportunity to join a host of private organisations or associations.

Many of these are concerned with issues of public policy, yet few are controlled or financed by the government. The right of individuals to associate freely and to organise themselves into different sorts of non-governmental groups is fundamental to democracy.

When people of common interests band together, their voices can be heard and their chances of influencing the political debate increased. As Alexis de Tocqueville, the great 19th century French political observer, wrote, “There are no countries in which associations are more needed to prevent the despotism of faction or the arbitrary power of a prince than those which are democratically constituted.”

The myriad groups to be found in democratic societies can be classified in several ways. Those that function primarily to pressure government with regard to particular issues are referred to as interest groups, or lobbies. Private interest groups, such as business associations, professional groups or trade unions usually have an economic stake in the policies they advocate, although they may also take public positions on issues far outside their area of specialisation. So called public interest groups, like social welfare organisations, seek what they perceive to be a public, or collective good. This does not make such public interest groups wiser or more virtuous than those with private interests.

Rather, the degree of self-interest is often secondary in the positions they take on public issues. Both types of interest groups are active in any democracy. Both pay close attention to public opinion, making every effort to widen their base of support as they seek simultaneously to educate the public and influence government policy.

Interest groups serve as a mediating 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.

Clearly, democracy is more than the sum of its institutions. A healthy democracy depends in large part on the development of a democratic civic culture. Culture in this sense does not refer to art, literature, music or dance, but to the behaviours, practices and norms that define the ability of a people to govern themselves.

A totalitarian political system encourages the culture of passivity and apathy. The regime seeks to mould an obedient and docile citizenry. By contrast, the civic culture of a democratic society is shaped by the freely chosen activities of individuals and groups. Citizens in a free society pursue their own interests, exercise their rights and take responsibility for their own lives. They make their own decisions about whether to join a political party or not. These are personal decisions, not political decisions.

Clearly, democracy needs a highly enlightened citizenry. Education is a vital component of any society, but especially of a democracy. As Thomas Jefferson wrote: “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was and never shall be.”

In contrast to authoritarian societies which seek to inculcate an attitude of passive acceptance, the object of democratic education is to produce citizens who are independent, questioning and analytical in their outlook, yet deeply familiar with the precepts and practices of democracy. It is said that people may be born with an appetite for personal freedom, but they are not born with knowledge about the social and political arrangements that make freedom possible overtime for themselves and their children. Such things must be acquired. They must be learnt.

This brings us to the concerns raised by Reverend Malawo Matyola that the government was fighting with all the key sectors that were advising it on various issues; it was quarrelling with all key sectors of society such as the Church, donors, civil society, media and citizens with opposing views. Well, democracies make several assumptions about human nature. One is that, given the 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.

The voices of democracy are many and include those of government, its political supporters and opposition, of course. But they are also joined by the voices of trade unions, organised interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders, traditional chiefs, writers. All these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic process of their country. 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 tested by adversity.”

But we also know 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 societies. 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 over-emphasis 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 for their demands, the society can shatter from within. If the government exerts excessive pressure to achieve consensus, stifling the voices of the people, the society can be crushed from above.

The answer is that there is no single or easy answer. Democracy is not a machine that runs by itself once the proper principles and procedures are inserted. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance. It is for this reason that the culture of democracy is so important to develop. 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. The various sides to a dispute can then meet in a spirit of compromise and seek a specific solution. In this way, it’s easy to see that coalition-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. By working to establish coalition, 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. 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 the truth and understanding.

This said, it is clear that the approaches we sometimes take of threatening to crush this and that opposition or dissent does not work in a nation that has opened itself to democracy. To do that, it will require us, in the first place, abandoning any pretentions to be democratic.

It is also important for those in our politics, for those in government to realise that it is not possible for them to call others to virtues which they themselves do not make an effort to practice. We therefore ask our politicians, especially those in government, to respect themselves and to be exemplary in their daily democratic practices and indeed in their lives. There is also need for them to realise that politics is an area of great importance for promoting justice, peace, development and community among all. Politics is certainly not a dirty game. It is a clean game that is being made dirty by men and women with dirty practices and thoughts.

And for our politicians in government, it’s time they realised that although they have the authority to make decisions, all of us as citizens of this country have the right and duty to share in that authority. And if they regarded politics as a vocation, a way of building up society for the common good, they will have no difficulties following this and insisting on monopolising power and decision making in the country.

It is comforting that many of our citizens today have the courage to stand up to those in power and challenge their decisions and actions. Our country needs more and more of such men and women. A life of ignoble ease, a life of that peace which springs merely from lack either of desire or of power to strive for great things, is as little worth of a nation as of an individual.

We should not admire a man or woman of timid peace. We should admire the man or woman who embodies victorious effort; the man or woman who never wrongs his or her neighbour; who is prompt to help a friend; who has those virile qualities necessary to win in the stern strife of actual life. It is said that it is hard to fail; but it is worse never to have tried to succeed. In this life, we get nothing save by effort. Far better is to dare mighty things, to win glorious triumphs, even though checkered by failure, than to take rank with those poor spirits who neither enjoy much nor suffer much because they live in the grey twilight that knows neither victory nor defeat. These are men and women who fear the strenuous life, who fear the only national life which is really worth leading. They believe in that cloistered life which saps the hardy virtues in a nation, as it saps them in the individual; or else they are wedded to that base spirit of gain and greedy.

There is therefore need for all of us to boldly face the life of strife, resolute to do our duty well; resolute to uphold righteousness by deed and by word; resolute to be both honest and brave, to serve the high ideals, yet to use practical methods.

Labels: GOVERNANCE

posted by MrK @ 3:10 AM