Maravi

Rupiah’s jaundiced thoughts on NGOs

Rupiah’s jaundiced thoughts on NGOs
By The Post
Sat 08 May 2010, 04:10 CAT

It is clear that Rupiah Banda does not really understand and appreciate the nature, character and role of non-governmental organisations in our country and on our continent.

Rupiah seems to be troubled by the feeling that most non-governmental organisations in Africa were formed for political causes. He is also troubled by non-governmental organisations’ criticism of “serving heads of state”. And he finds this to be retrogressive for Africa.

George Bush, former president of the United States, once described the wide array of non-governmental organisations in the United States as “a thousand points of light”. The metaphor could also serve for the diversity, or pluralism, of democratic societies everywhere.

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 – the labour unions, organised interest groups, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and writers, small businesses and large corporations, churches and schools.

All these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic political process, whether locally or internationally. 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 another United States former president Jimmy Carter once said, “The experience of democracy is like the experience of life itself – always changing, infinity in its variety, sometimes turbulent and all the more valuable for having been tested by adversity.”

Clearly, whatever type of society we want to build, if it has to be enduring, has to be democratic. Even Marxists, who have been portrayed as not believing in democracy, believe that there is no lasting alternative.

Right from its foundation by its fathers, Karl Marx and Frederich Engels, scientific socialist thought as always been deeply rooted in democractic and supremely humanistic ideas. In the manifesto of the Communist Party, Marx and Engels state quite strongly that the first task of the working class and its party is to “win the battle of democracy”.

Vladimir Lenin, the founder of the Soviet Republic, also strongly emphasised that, “Whoever wants to reach socialism by any other party than that of political democracy will inevitably arrive at conclusions that are absurd and reactionary both in the economic and political sense.” Lenin further added: “It would be a radical mistake to think that the struggle for democracy was capable of diverting the proletariat from the socialist revolution or of hiding or overshadowing it, etc.

On the contrary, in the same way as there can be no victorious socialism that does not practice full democracy, so the proletariat cannot prepare for full victory over the bourgeoisie without an all-round, consistent and revolutionary struggle for democracy.”

However, it is important to realise that 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.

If one looks at things this way, it is not possible for one to fail to understand why we have non-governmental organisations for every aspect of our lives, political and otherwise.

Therefore, politics per se, is not a preserve of political parties only. Every organisation, every institution can participate, in its own way, in the political life of society. And without this participation, democracy will begin to weaken. Without the life blood of citizen action through non-governmental organisations of all types, democracy is an impossibility.

Listening to Rupiah and judging things by what he is saying, it is clear to us that the two most decisive factors affecting the future consolidation and expansion of democracy in our country and on the continent will be economic development and political leadership. We say this because economic development makes democracy possible and political leadership makes it real.

Non-governmental organisations provide a good check on government and at the same time help to bring government much closer to the people. Democracy, in whatever form, is a system 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.

The work of non-governmental organisations is not retrogressive as Rupiah wants us to believe. The work of non-governmental organisations actually strengthens government and democracy.

Tyrants and dictators like Rupiah have a common apprehension about having non-governmental organisations every day questioning their decisions and actions and criticising their statements and deeds. To them this weakens government and undermines them in the eyes of the people, reducing their chances of being re-elected.

This view is fundamentally wrong: democracies require that their governments be limited, not that they be weak. And to paraphrase Lenin, we would say that “without representative institutions, democracy cannot be conceived of, much less proletarian democracy”. And Lenin further said that socialism, or rather democracy, is a system in which the group should know how to handle state problems.

Viewed over a long course of history, democracies do indeed appear fragile. But they have demonstrated remarkable resilience over time, and have shown that with the commitment of their citizens they can overcome severe economic hardship, reconcile social and ethnic division, and, when necessary, prevail in time of war. It is these things that tyrants like Rupiah fear or hate that give democracy its resilience.

The process of debate, dissent and compromise that intolerant elements like Rupiah point to as weaknesses are, in fact, democracy’s underlying strength. Certainly, no one has ever accused democracy’s of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: democratic decision making can be messy, grueling and time-consuming process.

But in the end, a government resting upon the consent of the governed can speak and act with confidence and authority lacking in a regime whose power is perched uneasily on the narrow edge of force, manipulation, deceit and corruption. Coalition building, and not coercion, is the essence of democratic action.

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.

Clearly, 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 for the truth. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity of tolerance. As Nelson Mandela once observed: “If criticism is valid, it must be made.”

There is no need to fear criticism. Politicians who fear criticism are only those who are worried about being undermined by honest criticism. We say this because “no matter how hard its adversary – falsehood – may try to overwhelm it, truth refuses to yield”.

In fact, where there is more democracy, more information is available to the public for them to make more informed judgments about what is being said or done.

In this way,š no individual or institution, or indeed government, can be brought down by falsehoods, malicious criticism or attacks. This being the case why should Rupiah fear criticism from non-governmental organisations? What is it that he has done that cannot be explained and defended with facts and honest arguments?

It is clear that Rupiah’s thinking on non-governmental organisations is jaundiced, is twisted and needs some straightening.

Labels: NGOs, RUPIAH BANDA

posted by MrK @ 4:28 AM