THE MYTH OF MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY

THE MYTH OF MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY:
WHAT LESSONS CAN OTHER COUNTRIES LEARN FROM THE KENYAN ELECTION CRISIS?
Before the colonial encroachment in the Africa and the rest of the Third World, the indegenous people had already developed sytems of public administration and governace of their own.According to its traditional meaning, democracy means the rule of the people, by the people and for the people. If the African traditional political systems are examined in the light of the above Athenian definition of democracy, the obvious conclusion we shall arrive at is that the traditional African political system were perfect ' democracies'.In my article I use the terms traditional African democracy and indegenous African democracy synomimously, and the reader should understand that my use of these term does not in any way mean these systems were inferior in relation to the modern multiparty democracy which was imposed from without by the former colonizers.
The traditional African democracy evolved as the society developed in the light of the existing circumstances.I confine my discussion to Africa, but most of this discussion is similar to the rest of the Third World because of the similarity in historical development. As it developed out of the existing historical and material conditions of the society, this African traditional democracy was arguably the most stable and efficient in the African history. Its principle were egaritarianism, communalism and unitarianism. It is these principles that made it the most stable and efficient in the day to day life of the indegenous population.Mwalimu Julius Nyerere, a thinker and the First President of Tanzania embodied the principles of the traditional African democracy in his seminal theory of African Socialism. According to Karl Marx all human societies began as communalistic societies, but how each society moved away this early system was shaped by the existing historical and material conditions.
The administration of this traditional African democracy is interesting and thus it is worthy revisiting. The mode of decision was by unanimous consensus as opposed to the 'imposed Western model democracy' whose decisions are based on the majority no matter the margin. This imposed model is the so called 'multiparty democracy'.In this imposed democratic model which is oftenly imposed by bombs as in Iraq, works on the basis of the winner-takes-all. It does not matter the way how one wins the game (of election), if he wins he gets the right to tyrannize the minorities for a certain period of time. Mwalimu Nyerere in his theory on African socilaism remarks that, in the traditional African society the elders met under the tree, they talked till they agree.This statement encapsulate the essence on how the decisions were made in the African democracy prior to European colonization.
The three principles referred above were fantastic. The egaritarian principle insisted on equality and equity to all members of the society particularly in terms of securing the necessities of life.Communalistic principle emphasized the common ownership of the means of production mainly land because this society was an agrarian society. Unitarian principle unified the membesrs together as single whole regardless of the differences. In addition it encouraged cooperation and mutual assistance between the members.In essence these three principles were complimented each other.
Colonialism was like a virus in the African body politic. It introduced not only a different system, but also an antipathy or negation to the traditional African democracy. The new system imposed by the colonizer was elitist as opposed to the egaritarian African system. In this imposed model, the access to public leadership is confined the privileged few who actually rule for the satisfaction of their chosen, be it their supporters, party members, business colleagues, friends etc.The traditional African society leadership instead, it was entrusted to the experienced and those having (informal) knowledge. These were apparently elders by virtue of their age they have acquired much informal knowledge and experience. So goes the Swahili saying that, kuishi kwingi ni kuona na kujifuunza mengi, literally translated as 'one who lives longer sees and learns a lot'.
In the Western democcracy, the leadership is confined to the cunning, those who are able to solicit much votes from the electorates by any means.Dubious methods such as fraud, buying of votes, threats, lies,media propaganda, treachery etc. have been invoked in order to gather votes! It is those who have financial capacity and mostly from privileged section of society can be able to do all these tricks. Those who are able to print millions of 'cut-and paste' leaflets, banners and T-shirts and those who can have money to entertain the voters with lunch and dinners, are those who 'win' the elections.
The imposed nature of the Western democracy accounts to major political violence including the on-going crisis in Kenya. Like the body infected with a virus, the generation of antibodies is normally violent and chaotic, that is the situation of most African contries suffering from colonial virus. In Britain, the democacy evolved along the class lines- the propertied and the propertless classes. This Western model is devoid of relevancy in African socio-political milieu.Unlike the unitarian Afrian democracy, this imposed democracy is divisive. It divides the nation along trivial lines namely tribes, color, region, ethnicity or religion. In fact the so called political parties do not differ significantly in terms of their policies, even in the Western countries also.That is why they all end up verging into these nonsensical lines of division. In the West most people do not care about the elections results because they are materially well off, so most of them are not bothered by whatever party comes to power. This is witnessed by the incresing political indifference and apathy among the population in the affluent societies.People just boycot elections. But in African and in the rest of the underdeveloped world, where people live in abject poverty the results of elections matters even if no big defference these parties make.
In the Western democracy, after election the population divide behind the factions created by these parties.Normally elections are succeeded by an atmosphere of hostility between these factions, as it has been the case in Tanzania 1995, 2000 and 2005 elections. These hostilities normally continue till the next elections at which they are normally amplified. This is the the distasteful inevitable scenerio in Kenya. Division along these factions never existed in the traditional African democratic model. Due to its unitarian nature, elections were followed with a strong societal unity behind the common leadership, which served the whole population by the principles I have referred above.
Is the killing in Kenya a sacrificial price for this imposed democracy? How long can we say 'enough is enough' to the killings in the name of democracy? Are we going to wait for the killings in the next elections in Kenya and elsewhere? For what happens in Kenya, the reasons are not confined to Kenya. Under the present world economic order, even if President Mwai Kibaki could stay in power for fourty years he could not allevitate the poverty and deprivation of the Kenyan people.The underdeveloped world is 'caged' and stunted by the international capitalistic order, such that the countries of the South (including Kenya) continue to suffer from naked exploitation by their former colonizers. Out of these exploitation, for which the Western population benefit, comes rampant poverty in African and in the rest of the Third world. Unless the neoliberal order, is radically changed, then the poor countries shall not only remain poor, but shall be further impoverished. As Thomas Pogge, argues the West have responsibility for the poverty and deprivation that are behind all the violence and instability in the poor countries.
The prospect for the reforms of the global institutional order, which inflicts injustices to the underdeveloped countries, is almost nonexistent. The only path is for the African countries and the rest of the Third world in cooperation with the revolutionary movements of the West to forge a new path for genuine human societal development. In Africa, the obvious way is to create a new system based on the three traditional principles.This system I will refer to it as the 'African Democratic Socialism'. In the same way, the Asia, can create Asian Democratic Socialism in the light of specific circumstances peculiar to Asian, etc. In Africa in particular it is easy and cheap to revive the traditional system than to establish the imposed Western model.
Live the struggle for the Liberation of the oppresssed peoples of the World! Zidumu Harakati za Kumukomboa Mnyonge Duniani!
Raphael Bahati Tweve Mgaya
Warwick University
.................................................
ARTICLE ENDS