IN SEARCH OF A WORKABLE DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA: CONSENSUAL OR MAJORITARIAN?

IN SEARCH OF A WORKABLE DEMOCRACY IN AFRICA: CONSENSUAL OR MAJORITARIAN?

The various political crises in many African countries today have aroused concern from contemporary political thinkers and philosophers as to the effectiveness of political system. Many of the crises are attributable to the majoritarian (multiparty) system of democracy where, according to many critiques, the political office holders tend to do the will of their political parties, ignoring the concerns of the others. As such, some thinkers suggest a return to consensual system of democracy (one party system). However, a close scrutiny of the methodology of consensual democracy reveals that it is no longer fitting in contemporary African society, considering the liberal nature of this society. This essay therefore seeks to show that the goal of consensual democracy - unanimity in decisions - is not practicable in the present context of African society due to the current socio-cultural settings in Africa. What is suggested is a refinement of the present practice of liberal democracy.

Supporters of consensual democracy seek a system that can foster dialogue amongst everyone, leading to a consensus or unanimity whereby everyone participates both formally and substantively in the decision making of their society. People can participate formally when they are represented by their representatives, and substantively when their representatives are able to express the people’s views during the decision making process. Kwasi Wiredu suggests that African contemporary society crises will cease if Africa adopts a consensual method of democracy^1. For him, contrary to majoritarian democracy where the majority takes the power and makes decisions which may not favour the minority, consensual democracy leads to the consideration of everyone’s views being properly and justifiably represented in the decisions of any society. For Wiredu, democracy is ‘axiomatic’ and in principle, should aim at consensus or unanimity. Wiredu’s statement about the usefulness of consensual democracy is as follows:

Reconciliation is, in fact, a form of consensus. It is a restoration of goodwill through a re-appraisal of the significance of the initial bones of contention. It does not necessarily involve a complete identity of moral or cognitive opinions. It suffices that all parties are able to feel that adequate account has been taken of their points of view in any proposed scheme of future action or coexistence.²

Wiredu buys into statements such as ‘elders sit under the tree and talk until they agree’³. He believes that all human beings have identical interests in any decision or choice they make, no matter the disparity that may be experienced during the deliberation. This identical interest, Wiredu thinks, is realizable through proper communication. Such identity in interest is said to be revealed when people are logically persuaded to see reasons for their differing views or choices, whereby in the long run they would ‘willingly’ compromise. Following the reasons given, Wiredu then advocates for a non-party polity, a system which he says is capable of bringing lasting solutions to the contemporary political crises in Africa. In such a view, even if political parties exist, they should only serve as avenues for channeling all desirable pluralisms. Precisely, the point here is that Africa should drop the system of majoritarian democracy in favour of consensual democracy if she is to go forward. Before assessing Wiredu’s advocacy, it deems necessary to take a brief survey of why majoritarian democracy – the system Wiredu says we should drop – is said to be corrupt.

Majoritarian democracy is said to be corrupt and breeds violence simply because it imposes the majority’s views on the minority. It deprives the minority their rights and freedom of active participation in the actual decision making of the society. Leaders in majoritarian democracy tend to fulfil the obligations of their party, and in that way, do not substantively represent the people per se. This is said to be different from representatives of consensual democracy who do not have any party to whom they have to pay allegiance and whose obligations they have to fulfil. Since they are not attached to any party, they are then said to be unbiased, considering everyone’s opinions. In brief, consensual democracy seeks to secure substantive representation of every citizen in the decision making process. The proponents of consensual democracy believe that fostering this non-exclusive system of polity will help restore, as well as safeguard the bonds that constituted the ancient African communities. Wiredu suggests that unless we adopt such a consensual system of democracy, the crises we experience today in Africa are bound to persist. However, a closer look at the consensual democratic method reveals that its practice is not likely to fit the political and societal settings of contemporary African society.

The goal of consensual democracy, which implies attaining the substantive agreement of all the members of a society in the final decisions of that society seems impractical in, and unfit for, contemporary African society. It is a square peg in a round hole. Looking deeply at this goal, it seems attractive to adopt such a system. Its different merits as are mentioned by its proponents makes it appears very attractive on the surface. For example, its proponents think that consensus brought about reconciliation, peace, harmony and other positive results in the ancient African societies that practice it, such as the Ashanti in Ghana, and as such, is likely to do same in the contemporary era. Now the question is, ‘can consensual democracy succeed in contemporary African society, despite its seeming success during the primitive era?’ From all indications, it seems its success in the present time is unreachable considering some reasons which will be given.

No one would doubt that society is changing every day. Even crude African society is continually being enlightened. There is now greater emphasis on the concepts of human rights, freedom and responsibility. This has led people to be able to recognize their needs and desires as independently of others’. The western concept of individualism is gradually pervading the minds of Africans, especially the educated ones who are educated in the western tradition. This is different from primitive African society which was largely dominated by the ideology of Ubuntu. The idea of community dominated the society then in a way that people believed they could thrive only through mutual dependency. Such ideology was able to thrive then because of the crude and agrarian nature of the society whereby people had to depend on others for completion of their farm work. Such societal settings seems to fit the practice of consensual democracy and I believe that is why it was able to thrive then, in societies such as the Ashanti and other African communities. Consensus, in the sense of the proponents of consensual democracy must have been the only means of achieving such mutuality by then and in that case, people had to structure their mindset towards shared agreement. Let us not forget that any belief or idea is just a construction of the society or a person’s mind construct as constructivists would assert. But this simple agrarian era is gone. This is a new era where people believe in individualism and freedom of expression. Considering that it would seem difficult for people to reach unanimity in any decision concerning societal issues, consensual democracy as envisaged by its proponents is likely to yield futile results in contemporary African society.

Furthermore, proponents of consensual democracy supports their argument with logical persuasiveness – that people will come to realize their latent interest when logically persuaded. Logical persuasion in this context implies someone being enlightened with the use of logical or reasonable arguments to realize what is good and what is bad so as to refine his/her choice if need be. However, such an idea seems not to take into consideration that this is the age of enlightenment. Many people in Africa are now educated to understand the use of logic to assess their choices themselves, unlike about 100 years ago when only a few people were educated in Africa. So it seems that if the one with great power of logical persuasion is to be the one to convince the rest of the masses to see reason with a particular point of view, there is likelihood of such deliberation going ad infinitum as there will be many opposing reasons from the vast number of enlightened people in the present African society. The presence of such perpetual conflicting ideas renders consensual democracy impracticable in the present African continent. The saying, ‘elders sit under the big tree and talk until they agree’⁴ is far from achievable in this liberal age that Africa is gradually assuming. Let us not forget group dynamics too - that there are controversial personalities of people in the society that would not want to buy into a particular view, even if everyone agrees to it.

A possible objection to my view would be in the form of a question. One may ask, ‘were there no such controversial personalities in the primitive era when consensual democracy used to work?’ Such objection presupposes that the presence of different personalities of people cannot deter the success of consensual democracy as it did not deter it in the past. A possible response to such objection is inherent in what I have said already; that it was the belief in Ubuntu that conditioned people’s minds in the primitive era and such conditioning made them believe the only way to succeed was in community agreement. In the present African society, such belief is gradually being eroded. Hence, consensus is unlikely to succeed now. Rather than introducing consensual democracy, which sounds so archaic and unattainable in the present day Africa, I think the better way to solve the power crises in the contemporary Africa would be to formulate new ways of thinking; ways which seek to achieve the common good of all. Emmanuel Eze makes an important point in saying that the goal of democracy should be creating mechanisms or rules of managing individuated desires⁵.  Such a system is likely to be much more effective than consensual democracy in that the rules and mechanisms so formulated would be able to incorporate both the majority’s and the minority’s interests under one umbrella. Instead of yearning for a seemingly unrealistic system, the system of polity that should be sought is that which promotes equal rights and freedom for all. Consensual democracy is more suitable in small groups or villages, not for large nations as is suggested for African countries.

Also, it is true that the development of any society depends on the intellectual class in that society who are in a better position to use their knowledge in creating means of fostering rapid development. Now if we are to adopt the old idea of consensual democracy which is based on reaching consensus  by every member of the society in the decision, it is true that such decision or policy will be of low quality. This is because not everyone is equipped with that reasoning capacity to make right and effective policies. Even Plato said that those to rule the ancient Greek polis should be those with high reasoning capacity: the philosophers. Following that total consensus would render the final decisions or policies low in quality, it therefore follows that consensual democracy would tend not to foster or speed the development needed in African society. This is because right and effective polices are the engines for the development of any society or nation. One can easily assume here that I accuse illiterates of not having anything to contribute towards the development of African society. Such an assumption is not too far from the fact. If I may ask, ‘which nation, very interested in rapid development of its society has ever relied on the decisions of the illiterate masses?’ Even if such illiterates had something to offer in the olden days, I believe due to the changing nature of the contemporary society, they would now have very little or nothing to offer. Allowing consensual democratic system of polity a room in Africa this present day is equivalent to retrogressing the development of the African continent.

Nonetheless, what is needed to strengthen democratization in Africa is strong institutions that will help to check and balance the political office bearers and hold them accountable. There is no doubt that effective leadership entails willing compliance by the followers to the directives given by the person or people providing leadership. Though this has been the major point of contention for the critiques of liberal democracy, I believe through the help of strong and unbiased institutions, the will of the people could be well represented and valued. Proper human rights can be restored. Credibility in elections can be achieved, as this was evident in the recently concluded presidential election in Nigeria where the presence of international organizations help to foster free and fair elections. Strenghtening institutions would enhance the transparency necessary for an effective consolidation of democracy in Africa. By institutions here, I refer to non-governmental organizations (both national and international) who can act as watch dogs to government. This would force government to ensure a proper execution of human rights and welfare of citizens. They would ensure the separation of power among the different arms of government as well as the proper enactment of the concept of rule of law. Andrew Svetlozar asserts that ‘one can measure the level of democracy through evaluating the choice of the format and performance of political institutions’⁶. If such institutions are created, there is assurance for a refinement in the democratic practice in Africa. It will ensure the realization of the statement made at the conference of EISA Annual Symposium for the sustainable development in in Africa. The statement goes thus:

Democracy gives people a choice and allows them an opportunity to engage their governors. Sustained democratic practice creates opportunities for effective participation by the people in national policy formation and implementation. Such participation serves both as a tool of resource mobilization and as a process of political legitimacy through consensus building⁷.

Finally, what is needed in contemporary African society is strong institutions to check the workings of government and political office holders and not really a return to the practice of consensual democracy. If this is done, African contemporary political conflicts would be reduced.

                                                  Endnotes

1. Kwasi Wiredu, Democracy and Consensus in African Traditional Politics: A Plea for a Non-party Polity. (Online). Available from: thempolylog.org/2/fwk-en.htm. [Accessed]: 4^th August 2015
2. Ibid
3. Gideon-Cyrus M. M & Rohio S.W (eds.) (1975). Readings in African Political Thought. London: Heinemann, p. 476
4. Refer to 1 above
5. Eze, E 1997. “Response to Wiredu.” In Postcolonial African Philosophy, edited by Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze. Cambridge: Blackwell.
6. Andrew, S 2003. The Role of Institutions in the Consolidation of Democracy in Post-Communist Eastern Europe (online). Available from: www.circap.org/uploads/... [Accessed]: 4 August 2015.
7. Conference Proceedings Report of EISA Annual Symposium. ‘In Search of Sustainable Democratic Governance For Africa: Does Democracy Work For Developing Countries?’ South Africa, November 2007.