Maravi

There's no sensible alternative to dialogue

There's no sensible alternative to dialogue
By The Post
Thu 15 Mar. 2012, 13:00 CAT

FOR whatever his limitations and deficiencies, Daniel Munkombwe is an intelligent politician who one ignores at his own peril.Those in government and all the other political forces operating in Southern Province should heed his advice and approach matters in a manner that makes meaningful dialogue possible.

Those who are opposed to the government's realignment of some districts in that province should know how to engage the government and argue their case peaceably and with civility. As Munkombwe has correctly observed, trying to blackmail those in government won't do.

There is no need for arrogance. What is needed is humility, ability and willingness to listen to others. There is need to dialogue, sharing our own beliefs with others. And this is not a choice for us since we have opted to live in a democratic and plural society. Dialogue is a must for us and is an essential path for the promotion of peace and unity in our country.

And above all, dialogue is rooted in the nature and dignity of human beings. In dialogue, one can compare different points of view and examine disagreements, without thinking that they are the owners of the absolute truth.

In dialogue, compromises have to be reached. And the nature of compromise is that you can compromise on fundamental issues. Insignificant things, peripheral issues, don't need any dialogue or compromise. If you are not prepared to compromise, then you must not enter into or think about the process of dialogue at all.

Concessions are inherent in dialogue. In dialogue, you have to accept the integrity of the other person. When you dialogue, you must be prepared to compromise. In dialogue, one can compare different points of view and examine disagreements. And as we have repeatedly pointed out, negotiated solutions can be found even to differences that have come to seem intractable and that such solutions emerge when those who have differences reach out to find the common ground.

Today we live in a highly inter-dependent world which is bound together to a common destiny. And as such, it is no longer possible to ignore the feelings of others. A democratic society needs the commitment of citizens who accept the inevitability of conflict as well as the necessity for tolerance.

We need to learn how to manage our differences because differences will always be there in a democracy. Gone are the days when all of us are expected to see things the same way and believe in the same things.

It is regrettable to not that the political arena is full of greed, vanity, dishonesty, lies, cheating, hypocrisy and double standards. All political issues must be governed by truth, honesty, morality, patriotism and sacrifice.
There is no perfect form of human government.

Abuses can take place in every system, but the fundamental value of democracy is to allow the participation of citizens in the government of their country. In this regard, democracy as system of government is consonant with human rights and the respect of human dignity and freedom. Again we say, gone are the days when everyone was supposed to think the same way, belong to the same party, and support the same policies and programmes.

True believers in multi-party democracy, in a plural society, welcome dialogue and debate over views contrary to their own because they realise that they themselves may not always be right. They recognise that there is a specific role to be played by each different organisation in a spirit of unity amidst diversity.

This value of respect of diversity and dialogue mean a realisation that those in government play a very important role but that they are not the only actors in a democracy.

To govern is to communicate. Given the chance, people are generally capable of governing themselves in a manner that is fair and free. And those in government must always bear in mind that any society comprises a great diversity of interests and individuals who deserve to have their voices heard and their views respected. And the voice of democracy is not only that of the president, his ministers and the leaders of his ruling party.

The voices of democracy include those of the government, its political supporters and opposition, of course. But they are joined by the voices of trade unions, organised interest groups, chiefs and their indunas, community associations, the news media, scholars and critics, religious leaders and so on and so forth. All these need to be heard, need to be respectfully listened to and engaged by the government.

All these groups are free to raise their voices and participate in the democratic political process. In this way, their participation acts as a filter through which the vocal demands of a diverse populace pass on the way to becoming public policy. Gone are the days when the only voice that mattered, the only view that mattered was that of the president. This country can no longer be governed by presidential decrees.

People want to be consulted; people want to meet and talk to their leaders, including the president. And it doesn't matter how right those in government are in what they want to do; they still have to consult, engage the people. Consensus or accommodation, on anything, has to be reached through debate and compromise. This helps build the trust necessary to resolve future problems. It helps build coalitions.

And coalition building 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 coalitions, 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.

Gone are the days when the president could wake up and announce that he has directed this and that to be done and expect everyone to keep quiet, expect everyone to accept his orders without questioning. Giving orders, taking unilateral decisions, is the easiest thing for anyone in power to do. But there are consequences.

In a democracy, people are not open to this kind of thing. They want to participate, they want to be consulted - they want to be part of the daily decisions that are made by their leaders.

It is therefore important that this government mulls over things and considers the feelings of the people over the various things it is doing, including the re-alignment of districts and reorganisation of provinces.

There are many good programmes or initiatives that this government is coming up with that are failing to win popular support. Why? Our simple explanation is that there seems to be a problem with communication. The government is not engaging people well and encouraging them.

Democracy is communication: people talking to one another about their common problems and forging a common destiny. Of course, consulting people, dialoging with people is time consuming and can be costly. Certainly, no one has ever accused democracies of being particularly efficient in their deliberations: democratic decision making can be a messy, gruelling 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 force.

It's time Michael Sata gets back to his old self and starts to deploy his great mobilising skills and engage the people so that they can buy into his policies and programmes. Issuing orders, directives or threats won't do.

It may do for the few people he has appointed to government or state jobs who cannot take him on for fear of losing their jobs or positions. But it won't do with the general population that don't depend on his appointments for their daily survival. He can take unilateral decisions inside his government, but he won't get away with it when his decisions get out to the people.

Something is not working well. Something has horribly gone wrong. How else can one explain the government's failure to win public acceptance for its very correct, good policies and programmes?

Labels: DANIEL MUNKOMBWE, SOUTHERN PROVINCE

posted by MrK @ 5:40 PM