My recent article, “When Democracy Fails,” introduced the seldom
analyzed dangerous outcomes of democracy today with focus on
ethno-incongruous Africa.
In the day’s news, over 1000 Buddhists, in a wave of renewed
religious violence, razed over 50 “Muslim” homes and shops in Myanmar
(Burma); this coming as a continuation of a three year onslaught against
the Muslim minorities in the Southeast Asian nation. Over 250 Muslims
have been killed and 140,000 displaced since 2011 when Myanmar, a nation
of 60 million transferred to democratic rule. There is similar
‘anti-Halal’ Buddhist ethnic intolerance in near-by democratic Sri
Lanka.
Evidently, ethnic charged democracy conflicts are not peculiar to Africa.
I am want to believe that Buddhists, like the majority of human
beings are innately peace loving people, perhaps even more peace loving
than the average. The massive displacement but limitation of deaths
testifies to their ways. Democracy or the deemed lack of it appears to
be the single factor that this intolerant violence can be related to; as
with the crises and political splitting of the Gaza from the West Bank;
the protracted leadership, ethnic and religious crises in Nigeria,
recurrent violence in Kenya, Ivory Coast and even Eritrea. The
‘problems’ in Zimbabwe; the deadly new clime in Egypt. Are we missing
something as we embrace or invite democracy as the ultimate solution to
our problems? Are there more important considerations if not solutions
better appropriate for the time and clime?
In modern societal planning, democracy is touted as the ultimate
solution to challenges of national development and the process of
democratic transition is graded and scored; but how true and useful is
this, and have we reviewed the results of its implication in all and
most especially new democracies? Does it solve the problems or does it
in its current form, potentially create new and more dangerous
intrastate explosive crises and war?
The tough question that opened up in my earlier discussion, was, when
democracy fails—to give us what we want—what do we do? One of the known
challenges of democracy visited earlier was, ‘Tyranny of the majority
(TOM).’ Ideally, TOM refers to the majority influences via democratic
choice processes, where the choices of the majority could be highly
inconsiderate and harmful to the current minority; but in appreciating
the majority-minority dilemma of current democratic systems—as is
occurring in Myanmar today–the mere process of defining majorities and
minorities and the co-dependent relationship of a government that hopes
to remain in power on these, most prominently in ethnic and religious
divided countries, identifies and precipitates social rifts that may
ever prove irreconcilable and hold the promise of continued hate and
ethno-religious violence. TOM cultivates and germinates genocidal
thinking. Soon after democracy is initiated, the larger ethnic group
invariably enters into a Faustian pact with the government.
It needs to be pointed out that commonly implicated social groups are
not only the traditionally recognized ‘developing’ world ethnic and
religious groups, but also include socio-economic groups, ‘elite,’
‘class,’ ‘caste,’ and the like, found in ‘developed’ states. In Europe
and America, the recent ‘Occupy’ riots were a result of democratic TOM
and its class delineation. A one percent ‘elite’ financial majority
oppress 99 percent ‘masses’ financial minority. Eritrea’s G. Ande thinks
the problem in Africa and the ‘developing world’ is our ‘preparedness,’
for democracy. Increased policing with sophisticated riot control
apparatus and decreased privacy with invasive citizen spying programs is
the way western societies curtail the real and existing potential for
TOM violence. Are some of us ready for this?
With the re-introduction of democracy to Nigeria, reportedly in
certain quarters, pen was put to paper and a reliable prediction of a
violent disintegration of the nation in just so many years was made.
Nurturing ethnic and religious divides is at its peak and physical and
verbal violence is the new order of the day.
Parliamentarianism, the political system used in Israel, Germany,
Mauritius, Trinidad and Tobago, etc. is more favorable for nations that
are ethnically, racially, or ideologically divided. In contrast to the
presidential system, voters are not narrowed down to selecting that
individual leader—the president–but choose their legislators who among
themselves decide who the Prime minister should be. With the
parliamentary system, you vote for the ideological ideas of your party
as a whole, rather than vote for an individual. The leader is from
within the legislature and not without, thus decisions are made via more
broad based electoral processes and not top down as in a presidential
system where all executive power is vested in one externally derived and
imposed person.
The decision making dead-lock with the presidential system is also
avoided, giving the system greater speed. This system will definitely
reduce ethnic conflict in ethnically charged African politics. The
populace’s role will be the selection of and voting in representative
candidates and ethno-confluent political blocks without the ‘tribal’
provoking battles that arise today from directly choosing presidential
or even local government final candidates. The 1989 Lebanese Taif
Agreement moved the ethno-religiously split nation from the problems of
the presidential system to the more appropriate parliamentary system. We
all appreciate the harmony in Muslim and Christian split Lebanon.
In the USA, the ‘electoral college,’ sits atop the ‘presidential’
system and secretly guides it. This is the same thing that the strong
Iranian nation’s ‘Guardian council’ does. There are 12 monarchies within
the borders of Western Europe, the vast majority being constitutional
monarchies. Other than their relevance safe-guarding the constitution,
the European monarchial system promotes the sense of nationalism. These
European Kings reinforce the vital recognition of person over politician
and inanimate democratic process. As Pedro Schwenzer Pfau, the
President of Asociación Monárquica Europea describes of Europe’s
monarchies: ‘The provision of a non-partisan, non-violent safeguard – “a
constitutional fire extinguisher”, should normal democratic processes
ever be threatened or break down.
This is what the Spanish Constitution calls the “moderating power” of
the King.’ No intelligent nation that hopes to prosper can leave itself
to be driven by ‘democracy’ alone, a terminology, without a form of
human control of the process. This is what happens with the current
presidential application of democracy in most African nations embroiled
in conflict. People run a nation, democracy cannot run a nation. In
Nigeria, unofficially, the king makers, the Obasanjo’s, the Arewa forum,
Northern elders, Babangida’s, Dangote’s and some more hidden brokers,
supervise and ‘safe-guard’ the inanimate democracy, albeit with
disastrous skewing toward their own interests. A supervisory system may
need to be formalized as a matter of urgency to continually conference
on the nation for the long haul.
Democratic supervisors (Viziers) with the interest of the nation at
heart can be picked from groups such as known community elders, youth
leaders, college professors, etc.
Traditional African systems of government in addition to being
‘Philosopher Kings rule,’ the form of government preferred by the
philosophers—Plato and the like—depended strongly on a council of elders
who in some traditions could pass a no confidence vote, resulting in
the ‘president’ having to exile or even kill himself. This council of
elders are the king-makers, or the house-of-parliament. Most commonly,
democratic top leadership choice was not via public participation. Apart
from choosing your elders, the populace was not involved in selection
or confirmation of the final leader.
His Royal Majesty, Otumfuo Osei Tutu Ii. Asantehene (Ghana), in his
address presented at the fourth African Development Forum held in Addis
Ababa in 2004, described the traditional African parliamentary-like
system with its better organized people’s role and route of democratic
choice. Most states, he said had a provision for participation in
decision-making by groups of the citizenry, directly or indirectly
through the heads of their clans’ lineages or families; or more directly
through various types of organizations like the Asafo Companies of the
Fantes in Ghana. ‘Eligibility for installation as king or chief was
limited to certain royal families but among many states of Ghana the
institution of king-makers was not unlike the Electoral College in some
other countries’ (like USA as mentioned above).
As we count the dead and displaced due to democratic conflicts, and
anticipate more deaths, sentiments and displacement, it would be
reasonable to re-evaluate the system and form of the system of
governance we use or pray for. There is a lot to study from and easy
access to information on and offline on systems that work, have worked
and how they work. We also must draw from our history, religion and
culture to define the methods of social structure and political
organization that can make us not only survive but excel. Evidently the
system of governor selection has purposefully not been clearly provided
in our religious doctrines (from my reading). Perhaps religion
understands that be it democratic or autocratic, it’s about who we are
and who our leaders are and not how they get there.
- NewsRealTime
- NewsRealTime
0 comments:
Post a Comment