IN SEARCH OF A WORKABLE DEMOCRATIC SYSTEM IN CONTEMPORARY 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 democracy1. 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]: 4th 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.