Maravi

The unity of opposites

The unity of opposites
By The Post
Sat 07 July 2012, 13:25 CAT

WE should never deceive ourselves that the role the opposition plays is not important. It would be a mistake to write off the role of the opposition just because opposition political parties and their leaders do not always work well. Opposition political parties form a pivotal institution in a healthy democracy.

Without well functioning opposition political parties, certain sections of society lose the opportunity of being represented in a meaningful way. Opposition political parties are the bridge between government and society, both in the ways they translate society's demands into political ideas and programmes, and in the way they hold government to account on society's behalf.

Clearly, in the pursuit of a healthy democracy, opposition political parties cannot be neglected. Viable opposition political parties and effective party systems are fundamental to building democracy.

But of course different situations in different countries demand different approaches. It is not just a matter of copying and pasting. The opposition challenge must be understood within a wider context of the way society is organised.

A democracy operates on the basis that there is room for choice all the way up to the selection of the government.

A single party state, whether de facto or de jure, is not acceptable. The one party state, except at rare moments in history, is a recipe for tyranny. We have learnt from the history of others and from our history that the concept of one party rule is a disaster no matter how meritorious, how noble, how honest those running it may be.

Dialects also teaches us something about the unity of opposites. The opposition and the ruling party or parties are two sides of the same coin, same state, same government, same society. Destruction of one side undermines or destroys the value of the whole. And this is why we have always been calling for a loyal opposition - loyal to the whole and not just one side.

It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy - those in the opposition and those in the ruling party - share a common commitment to society as a whole, to the state, to the country and indeed to the people and to the basic values of the nation.

And as we have consistently stated, political competitors in a multiparty democracy don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rule of society must encourage tolerance and civility in political discourse.

And all sides must agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. Those in the opposition must realise that their role is important and take it seriously and constructively with the knowledge that their role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name.

As we have already alluded, they are loyal not to the specific policies of the ruling party, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state, and the democratic process itself. Multiparty democracy, after all, is not a system where political parties and their members and leaders are fighting for survival, but a competition to serve.

This means that opposition to the ruling party should be provided constructively without transgressing the laws, the constitution of the country or being disloyal to the nation.

Opposition political parties have to make themselves relevant to be accepted by society. The acceptance by society of a valid role for the opposition is in itself an important underpinning for its work. It is equally important that those in the ruling party accept and respect the role of the opposition, however small it may be in relation to the ruling party.

The opposition is an important scrutiniser of the work of those running government, and a supporter or critic of its policies. And members of the opposition must accept that greater burdens devolve on them in regard to scrutiny and oversight.

At the same time, those in the opposition have a duty to themselves and their voters to play the role of an alternative government, the role of a government in waiting. In more stable and mature democracies, this is well recognised and the leader of the largest opposition party is often given access to sensitive information on the basis that he or she, as leader of the government in waiting, has to be ready to perform the role of running the country at comparatively short notice.

This calls for maturity, this calls for a loyal opposition, an opposition that is trustworthy. The major challenge for the opposition is its need to be seen as credible in this role.

In order to do that, it must be as responsible, respected and united as an opposition political party and it must create policies that are relevant to the day-to-day lives of people. It must not be seen to be a bunch of anarchists, annihilators, people who are hell-bent on frustrating anything that comes from the ruling party no matter how good it may be.

Those in the ruling party also have their responsibilities to the opposition. In the first instance, sufficient space and opportunities should be provided for caring out the work of a loyal opposition. There must be an adequate level of access to sources of information to enable those in the opposition to make informed statements and decisions.

This is important because this is the only way an opposition can make a sound contribution towards the efficient running of the country and also can make its own points and demonstrate how its policies could have achieved better results.

Those in the opposition sometimes feel their views should carry the day. This is unrealistic as this would mean giving them the position of the majority and creating a majority for them where none exists. It must be accepted that those in the ruling party were elected to rule and that the opposition's role is constructive criticism and keeping alternative policies in view.

Once again, the opposition has to be adequately resourced if it has to come up with ideas, policies and criticisms that are well researched. Otherwise they could end up just wasting time and making a nuisance of themselves with bad effects not just for the opposition but for our multiparty democracy as a whole.

We understand the political challenges that are there in the opposition supporting or cooperating with government in certain things, given where we are coming from and our political culture. The opposition often has a difficult decision to make with regards to supporting the ruling party or in working to a consensus on a policy matter.

This could be statesmanlike approach and in the national interest, but the possibility of negative perception of such stances can be damaging to the opposition if not properly handled. And this is where the prerequisites Dr Fred Mutesa is raising come in.

As he correctly observes, it is not wrong for the ruling party and the opposition to work together for national development. But there should be circumstances warranting non-partisan collaboration. And such collaboration needs to be justifiable, transparent and known to the public.

The opposition may also have to be careful in relation to other civil society organisations and indeed individual interests. These may have their own disagreements with those in government and will seek to engage the opposition in their cause.

If the opposition espouses their positions, this may be misunderstood by others to mean that the opposition agrees with them. This may be far from the truth and could damage the interests of the opposition in relation to other components of society.

Again, multiparty 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 truth.

Multiparty democracy is pragmatic. Ideas and solutions to problems are not tested against rigid political outlook but tried in the real world where they can be argued over and changed, accepted or discarded.

Multiparty politics cannot protect against mistakes, end strife or guarantee economic prosperity. It does, however, allow for the debate and examination that can identify mistakes, permit groups to meet and resolve differences, and offer opportunities for innovation and investment that are the engines of economic growth.

Labels: FRED MUTESA, MMD, OPPOSITION, UPND

posted by MrK @ 1:33 PM