Maravi

How democratic are our political parties?

How democratic are our political parties?
By The Post
Sat 30 Oct. 2010, 08:50 CAT

The observations made by Fr Patrick Chibuye, of Mpika Catholic Diocese, on the state of democracy within our political parties deserve favourable considerations.

Our political parties have a fundamental and indispensable role in the governance of our country. There are, however, a number of institutional guarantees that our political parties will have to fulfill if they are to effectively meet our expectations from them. And one such institutional requirement is intra or inner-party democracy.

Our political parties are said to be the building blocks of our democracy. And indeed if they are truly the building blocks of our democracy, then they cannot afford not to be democratic themselves for to do so will be a contradiction both in terms and in values. This very important institutional dimension is, however, lacking in most of, if not all, our political parties. As such, any initiative to address this democratic deficit will be both noble and pertinent.

Our political parties have a fundamental and indispensable niche in the governance of our country. Indeed, so fundamental are our political parties to the operation of our politics that their role and significance are often taken for granted. As a matter of fact, our democracy is inconceivable without political parties, hence we talk of multi-party democracy.

Internal democracy within our political parties enhances a necessary viable democratic culture within our political parties as well as society at large. Furthermore, democratic procedures may have positive effects on the representation of ideas of the electorate and may strengthen our political parties by attracting new members and creating space for fresh ideas. And democratic internal procedures may provide necessary vertical linkages between different deliberating spheres, as well as a horizontal linkage between competing issues within our political parties.

Of course in advocating for increased intra-party democracy, we are not calling for uniformity within all our political parties. This will be wrong because no one-size-fits-all approach should be adopted. We say this because the benefits of intra-party democratisation depend on many things and as such different methods may be appropriate for different parties. And if wrong methods are used by a political party to pursue intra-party democracy, internal unity within our political parties may be threatened.

But whatever methods are used, they must result in more improved and acceptable ways of choosing leaders for the party in a more free and fair way. And they should also increase the participation of all members in the affairs of the party. Internal democracy should reduce the dominance of elites, non-competitive leadership elections, discriminatory selection of candidates and clientelism.

We see increased participation of all members to be the central element of intra-party democracy. Representation of ideas of various groups within a political party can often be better guaranteed by stimulating participation than by the sheer organisation of party elections. We say this because this participation involves the influence of rank and file members on the party’s policies, as well as representation at party activities and in party bodies. In most of our political parties, if not all, continuous or at least regular consultation of grassroot members is not present, which poses major threats to the representative relations between party leaders and members. Democratic policy making should involve a participative process of policy development in forums, debates, consultation meetings and other platforms and should decentralize the mandate of decision making to the rank and file of the political party.

Clearly, a proper measure of democracy should be put into effect in all our political parties. Once this is done, unity will be achieved in our political parties and the militancy will be greatly increased. If this is done, our political parties will be able to achieve more even with their poor or very limited financial resources. Members should be free to hold meetings and to speak out; trivial formalities should be done away with; and the party accounts should be open for all to inspect. Our political parties need democracy just as much as the whole nation needs it.

With the present challenges and problems facing our country, all leading bodies, members and cadres of all our political parties should give the fullest expression to their initiatives. These initiatives must be demonstrated concretely in the ability of the leading bodies, the cadres and the party rank and file to work creatively, in their readiness to assume responsibility, in the exuberant vigour they show in their work, in their courage and ability to raise questions, voice opinions and criticise defects, and in the comradely supervision that should be maintained over the leading bodies and the leading cadres.

But the exercise of such initiative depends on the spread of democracy in party life. It cannot be brought into play if there is not enough democracy in party life. Only in an atmosphere of democracy can large numbers of people be brought forward.

Anyone should be allowed to speak out, whoever he may be, so long as he does not make malicious attacks, and it does not matter if he says something wrong. Leaders at all levels have the duty to listen to others. Here, two principles must be observed: say all you know and say it without reserve; don’t blame the speaker but take his words as a warning. Unless the principle of “don’t blame the speaker” is observed genuinely and not falsely, the result will not be “say all you know and say it without reserve”.

Education in democracy must be carried on within all our political parties so that their members can understand the meaning of democratic life and the way in which democracy should be put into practice. Only in this way can we really extend democracy within our political parties and at the same time avoid ultra-democracy and the laissez-faire which destroys discipline. Inner-party democracy is meant to strengthen discipline and increase militancy, not to weaken them.

Arrogance, the airs of a self-styled hero usually creep into our political parties after some electoral victories. Flattery of the leaders starts to grow within the party. There is need to guard against such a situation.
Many things may become baggage, may become encumbrances, if we cling to them blindly and uncritically. Having made mistakes, you may feel that, come what may, you are saddled with them and so become dispirited: if you have not made mistakes, you may feel that you are free from error and so become conceited. All such things become encumbrances or baggage if there is no critical awareness.

Some party leaders have become arrogant and high handed in their behaviour towards the members and cadres of their political parties, always blaming others but never themselves, always seeing their own achievements but never their shortcomings and always welcoming flattery but never criticism. Our political parties must endeavour to eradicate these defects.

There is need for the leadership of our political parties to be fair and kind to other members of their parties, especially those who are competing with them for leadership positions within the party. Rough handling and marginalisation of other outstanding members will always leave a strong legacy of bitterness and resentment - the walking wounded. This will cultivate tendencies towards extensive defensivism, and also to habits of counterfactionalism in some cases, with party cadres running the danger of falling excessively into the same factional politics - of palace manoeuvres and electoral putsches. There are also some worrying signs in almost all our political parties of the dangers of disciplinary measures being used to settle political differences. The principal cause of all this is careerism, patronage and ambition. And this is much more so in the ruling party. But this is not to say the opposition political parties are immune from it. All need to be extremely vigilant about the grave dangers of abuse of their parties and their resources for careerist and patronage purposes.

And as we have repeatedly stated, experience has repeatedly shown that a political party divided into hostile groups loses its militancy. Protracted inner-party strife inevitably results in party members’ concentration on discords. The party becomes distracted from political struggle and day-to-day work among the masses and loses its influence. The cure for all this is effective intra or inner party democracy.

Labels: DEMOCRACY, PARTIES, PATRICK CHIBUYE

posted by MrK @ 4:41 PM