My Reflections on Democracy

 

When; however, democracy is, in practice, centered on building  political party opposition and competition for the administration of the nation, a cycle of selfish pursuit of political power and its affiliated benefits takes precedence in political participation

 In 508 BC Cleisthenes, serving as the highest magistrate of Athens and, mandated to give the Athenian Constitution a new footing, introduced a system of political reforms. He called the reforms Demokratia- meaning rule by the people. 

Cleisthenes’ reforms  introduced a system of societal administration various societies of the World would, in time, adopt and adjust to their distinct social set-ups.

The concept of democracy, while undergoing various discourses as scholars attempt to comprehend its philosophical meaning, scope of its practical application and expected impact from its application, where any, has gained more depth and breadth.

Abraham Lincoln gave the concept of Democracy a bit of a simplified definition when he called it “the government of the people, for the people, by the people.” By this, the majority rule and supreme power is vested in the people who exercise it directly through electing leaders who make the government, with the elected leaders acting in the interests of the people they represent. 

Lincoln’s definition of Democracy clarifies the meaning of Democracy leaving no ambiguity to it. As Lincoln puts it, Democracy is a Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

Government of the people denotes Belonging and Ownership, which means that the government belongs to the people and it is theirs; for the people indicates Accountability, which means that the government is answerable to the people while by the people denotes involvement, referring to the people’s role in the formation and management of the government that presides over leadership functions in their interests. Clearly, democracy, as a concept, does provide crystal clarity on the state’s responsibility to the citizens. And by this virtue, the practice of national administration in a democratic state ought to be deeply invested in serving the common good- the shared needs and interests of the people.

When; however, democracy is, in practice, centered on building  political party opposition and competition for the administration of the nation, a cycle of selfish pursuit of political power and its affiliated benefits takes precedence in political participation. In societies where this happens, the common good is ignored as political parties advance policies from which they have either financial or political gains. Because of the shift from ,agitating for and advancing the common good, to the pursuit of self gains either at individual or party level, the political scene likely becomes one of stiff fighting for the material benefits accorded to individuals and political parties by political office. This infighting and inter-party fighting diminishes chances of unified efforts to promote the country’s interests thus retarding the country socially, politically and economically, making it susceptible to social, political and economic collapse at any moment there are powerful trigger events. 

In certain other societies, the application of democracy has been reformed. For the interests of society itself, democratic practices have had to be different from the conventional Western-spelled. There hasn’t been a reversal of the actual principles of a democracy, but rather adjustment to match it to the societies’ own realities. In Rwanda, for example, opposition politicians, political parties, media and civil society have liberty to operate but are required to observe a strict code of conduct conscious of the historical divisions in the Rwandan society and the possible dangers of their reckless activity to the reconciliation, peace and unity of Rwandans- the pursuit of which remains a continuous project.

While opposition parties are crucial for ensuring a system of checks and balances in the leadership of a nation, it’s worth questioning the nature and extent of the opposition. 

Does a politician and/or political party (opposition in this case) object to a government decision in, only, the interests of the constituencies they represent? Or does it also happen that opposition politicians and political parties do oppose government decisions regardless of whether such decisions, when implemented, would benefit the people? 

Do opposition politicians and parties support policies and decisions not good for the masses provided they serve certain political end-points for them?

The extent to which opposition parties limit the adoption and implementation of developmental projects should be scrutinized in order to ascertain how deeply-concealed political motives curtail socio-economic transformation.

It is, also, of great necessity to rethink our definition and understanding of political parties “non-allied” to the leading party and the state. We should imagine whether calling them opposition parties does not ignite, in them, a psychological and ideological buildup of an oppositional stance towards the leading parties and, eventually, government.

More so, as societies seek to build governance models that respond to emergent demands of the people while charting course for long-term national development, questioning whether conformity to the conventional modus operandi for opposition political parties as, provided for in Western literature, is paramount.

If there was a change of name from Opposition to Correction Parties, would there be a change in the way opposition parties behave towards leading parties and the state? What impact would this have to the country’s political  environment, in particular, and to society, as a whole?

On a similar note, there is a need for understanding the circumstances under which opposition parties should cooperate and not cooperate with the leading parties in case issues at stake do not have provisions within the constitution and the laws of the country, and, possibly, not align with opposition party agenda.

Democracy, in my opinion, contributes to the upward-mobility of a society once defined, perceived and applied in the right context of  society, yet it impedes growth and development of a society once democratic undertakings are not specific to the realities of the society concerned.