Guided Democracy As Consensus And Deliberation?

AS political commentators, we are tempted as part of our continuous dialogue to prod at the motives or the meaning of what others pronounce.

We endeavour to interpret what others say or think through our own codes and values about what we think constitute democratic practice. Oftentimes, the risk is there that we are likely to conclude impulsively without deeper reflection or probing the intentions of the political processes we observe.Thus, I fully comprehend that the temptation is overwhelming to get riled up when the notion of ‘guided democracy’ finds its way into the political discourse of the Secretary of the Swapo Party Youth League, Elijah Ngurare.It is this kind of angry intonation that was lucid in Gwen Lister’s discussion about guided democracy in her column last Friday.Some of the issues Lister raised in relation to the Swapo Party Youth League have merit.Lister has a point when she implies that the Youth League does not take the lead in the political construction of democratic debates.Similarly, some of the arguments that come out of the SPYL are plain bunkum and opportunistic, and have no wiggle-room in a forward-looking society.They simply don’t speak of deeper-held convictions about our political process and the kind of tolerant society we need to construct.However, defending an adverse view, I want to interrogate and possibly debunk the common thread of Lister’s argument in as far as it relates to ‘guided democracy’.My suspicion is that my colleague takes a rather dim view of ‘guided democracy’, and in particular the context in which it is argued.In doing so, Lister avoids a fresh discussion about this nascent notion of guided democracy, even in the face of sharp explanations by Ngurare on this subject.Yet, this should have been the starting point for a serious intellectual, or if you prefer, a partisan political discussion about the direction Swapo may want to take for the next Congress.As a caveat, I need to mention that all politics is contextual and so is democracy.Let me also hasten to add a disclaimer here: in no way do I want to imply that we need to move the direction of democratic despotism in defence of narrow political interests or our supposedly exceptional political contexts in which democracy takes shape.Bad things were done in the name of freedom and led people through the path of the Gulag.And Lister has reason to be highly sceptical about guided democracy.Such a concept could be used to stifle open and healthy electoral competition.It could also dangerously mean the will of an individual reigning supreme while democracy is principally about processes that should protect individuals and group interests.But it is also erroneous to view political equality or democracy excessively in terms of the ballot, particularly the internal processes or nominations in political parties.It is here where Ngurare has a valid point.Ngurare qualifies his stance with marvellous precision and expresses confidence in democracy as an enduring principle when he argues that the Party must exhaust ‘all internal democratic processes’.While the 2004 Congress was a good starting point for electoral competition for top positions, the whole process was amateurish and left the ruling party in a frail position.Therefore, adopting a reductionist view of democracy as open competition for positions without underpinning the shortcomings of ballots is not helpful.In Swapo’s context, guided democracy makes sense if it is a means for the ruling party to deal with its recent fractured past.The intention here is not necessarily denying the grassroots (or a grassroots democracy) an opportunity to propose candidates for the top positions as Lister infers, but we could safely assume that such a process would need validation by the party rank and file.In that sense, Lister’s notion of the grassroots being denied an opportunity does not take us far either, for the grassroots are implicitly part of the democratic discussion in the lead up to the party congress.Furthermore, in focussing excessively on the “grassroots” and their say through the vote, my colleague ignores the opposite view that democracy can also function through deliberation and consensus.Democratic competition is not necessarily the only means through which political parties promote long-term democratic benefits.Such an approach could be self-defeating too.For a democracy to mature, leaders just don’t need to contest each other for positions at elections, but they also need to convince each other about the collective interests that they must defend.This argument is valid because much of the strategic political bravado and jockeying takes place within the Politburo, the Central Committee and the regions or branches.So, if political deal-making takes place within these bodies and consensus is reached on the candidates before Congress, we will need to be convinced as to how democracy would be sacrificed through such a democratic process.My principal reservation about democracy as defended by Lister is derived from another typical liberal fear of what Alexis de Tocqueville famously described as ‘tyranny of the majority’.In other words, electoral democracy could undermine debate and consensus.Similarly, it could crush minority voices in the name of the spoken majority.Yet, quite simply the majority is not always right and wisdom cannot be determined by the simple show of hands.To conclude, it is within such a context that Ngurare’s doctrine of a guided democracy should be given a chance to succeed or to fail spectacularly.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in political science at the University of Paris- Panthéon Sorbonne, France.He is currently on a UN research internship at the UN Headquarters, New York.Oftentimes, the risk is there that we are likely to conclude impulsively without deeper reflection or probing the intentions of the political processes we observe.Thus, I fully comprehend that the temptation is overwhelming to get riled up when the notion of ‘guided democracy’ finds its way into the political discourse of the Secretary of the Swapo Party Youth League, Elijah Ngurare.It is this kind of angry intonation that was lucid in Gwen Lister’s discussion about guided democracy in her column last Friday.Some of the issues Lister raised in relation to the Swapo Party Youth League have merit.Lister has a point when she implies that the Youth League does not take the lead in the political construction of democratic debates.Similarly, some of the arguments that come out of the SPYL are plain bunkum and opportunistic, and have no wiggle-room in a forward-looking society.They simply don’t speak of deeper-held convictions about our political process and the kind of tolerant society we need to construct.However, defending an adverse view, I want to interrogate and possibly debunk the common thread of Lister’s argument in as far as it relates to ‘guided democracy’.My suspicion is that my colleague takes a rather dim view of ‘guided democracy’, and in particular the context in which it is argued.In doing so, Lister avoids a fresh discussion about this nascent notion of guided democracy, even in the face of sharp explanations by Ngurare on this subject.Yet, this should have been the starting point for a serious intellectual, or if you prefer, a partisan political discussion about the direction Swapo may want to take for the next Congress.As a caveat, I need to mention that all politics is contextual and so is democracy.Let me also hasten to add a disclaimer here: in no way do I want to imply that we need to move the direction of democratic despotism in defence of narrow political interests or our supposedly exceptional political contexts in which democracy takes shape.Bad things were done in the name of freedom and led people through the path of the Gulag.And Lister has reason to be highly sceptical about guided democracy.Such a concept could be used to stifle open and healthy electoral competition.It could also dangerously mean the will of an individual reigning supreme while democracy is principally about processes that should protect individuals and group interests.But it is also erroneous to view political equality or democracy excessively in terms of the ballot, particularly the internal processes or nominations in political parties.It is here where Ngurare has a valid point.Ngurare qualifies his stance with marvellous precision and expresses confidence in democracy as an enduring principle when he argues that the Party must exhaust ‘all internal democratic processes’.While the 2004 Congress was a good starting point for electoral competition for top positions, the whole process was amateurish and left the ruling party in a frail position.Therefore, adopting a reductionist view of democracy as open competition for positions without underpinning the shortcomings of ballots is not helpful.In Swapo’s context, guided democracy makes sense if it is a means for the ruling party to deal with its recent fractured past.The intention here is not necessarily denying the grassroots (or a grassroots democracy) an opportunity to propose candidates for the top positions as Lister infers, but we could safely assume that such a process would need validation by the party rank and file.In that sense, Lister’s notion of the grassroots being denied an opportunity does not take us far either, for the grassroots are implicitly part of the democratic discussion in the lead up to the party congress.Furthermore, in focussing excessively on the “grassroots” and their say through the vote, my colleague ignores the opposite view that democracy can also function through deliberation and consensus.Democratic competition is not necessarily the only means through which political parties promote long-term democratic benefits.Such an approach could be self-defeating too.For a democracy to mature, leaders just don’t need to contest each other for positions at elections, but they also need to convince each other about the collective interests that they must defend.This argument is valid because much of the strategic political bravado and jockeying takes place within the Politburo, the Central Committee and the regions or branches.So, if political deal-making takes place within these bodies and consensus is reached on the candidates before Congress, we will need to be convinced as to how democracy would be sacrificed through such a democratic process.My principal reservation about democracy as defended by Lister is derived from another typical liberal fear of what Alexis de Tocqueville famously described as ‘tyranny of the majority’.In other words, electoral democracy could undermine debate and consensus.Similarly, it could crush minority voices in the name of the spoken majority.Yet, quite simply the majority is not always right and wisdom cannot be determined by the simple show of hands.To conclude, it is within such a context that Ngurare’s doctrine of a guided democracy should be given a chance to succeed or to fail spectacularly.* Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in political science at the University of Paris- Panthéon Sorbonne, France.He is currently on a UN research internship at the UN Headquarters, New York.