GUARDIAN
Thursday, 02 December 1999
Defining popular democracy
By Edwin Madunagu
IN the early 1990s a contagious political phenomenon blew over Africa: in
quick succession, "democratic" elections were held in Togo, Benin, Ghana,
Zambia, Congo-Brazzaville, etc. Angola, of all places, also held an
election! In some of these countries (Togo and Benin) and others, including
Mobutu's Zaire (now Democratic Republic of Congo, DRC), national conferences
were held or almost held. The conference in Togo was tagged "sovereign".
Many journalists called this phenomenon "democratic revolution". We in The
Guardian agreed, by consensus, to avoid the word "revolution", and call it
"democratic wind". It was a convenient consensus which satisfied everyone: I
did not approve of the term "revolution" because I was sure there was no
revolution going on; some others opposed it because they were, by
orientation and temperament, suspicious of anything that smells or goes by
the name "revolution". As for the democratic component of the "democratic
revolution" I could not have my way, as some of my colleagues actually
believed that the elections and conferences that were taking place amounted
to democracy. It is unnecessary to ask what has become of the "democracy"
and the "wind" in those African countries they visited.
As the democratic wind was blowing, I had an extended discussion on the same
issue with a visiting non-African diplomat in Lagos. He endorsed the claim
that what was happening in parts of Africa was both "democratic" and
"revolutionary"; but on the second leg of our debate which had to do with
the concept of democracy generally, he submitted that democracy cannot be
qualified. In other words, democracy is democracy and nothing more. All talk
about "bourgeois democracy", "revolutionary democracy", "popular democracy",
"proletarian democracy", "socialist democracy", "communist democracy" etc.,
was all non-sense. Curiously, he exempted "liberal democracy" from his
generalisation, on the ground that liberal democracy was a tautology, since
democracy was, by definition, liberal.
I agreed with my visitor only on the term "communist democracy" which I
thought was a contradiction in terms unless we interpret the term strictly
as a democratic regime administered by communists", and not as a regime that
is "both democratic and communist". My argument was that democracy is a
political regime, but that communism, in the sense Marx defined the term,
will be a non-political regime of self-administration. I could not persuade
my visitor on the meaningfulness of the other listed variants of democracy,
not even when I reminded him of the proposition of C. B. Macpherson, an
influential scholar in the Democratic Theory, that democracy and liberalism
were different political philosophies which came at different times and that
at first liberalism was not democratic and that the union of democracy and
liberalism to produce liberal democracy was a relatively recent development.
What annoyed the visitor most was the reference to popular democracy.
We left the matter there, like several other matters that were left
unresolved in those hectic days. Then, a few weeks ago, my attention was
drawn to a newspaper statement by a Nigerian politician in which he accused
another politician of being opposed to popular democracy. The statement did
not contain much that was of value. I suspect that the accuser meant that
his colleague did not believe in fair sharing of the material benefits of
Nigerian politics. But what was of value was the re-tabling of the subject,
popular democracy. I did not argue with the young man, a student of
political science, who drew my attention to the statement. When he asked me
to define popular democracy, I merely requested him to give me until the
following day.
Before I list what, I believe, are the essential features of popular
democracy a number of preliminary comments are necessary to set the
parameters. First: popular democracy is articulated not abstractly, but in
concrete opposition to bourgeois or capitalist democracy. To understand
popular democracy, therefore, you have to understand what bourgeois
democracy is. And we need not go far: bourgeois democracy is what the ruling
classes of Nigeria claim to be aspiring to build: a democracy that is
erected on capitalist socio-economic foundations; that is put in place by a
ruling group in which capitalists exercise a hegemony; where the conditions
for forming parties and contesting elections are heavily monetary and out of
reach not only of the masses, but also of the middle and lower upper
classes; where rights are defined implicitly or explicitly as political
rights only, not economic, social or cultural - such as the right to work,
to education, to health care, etc.; where the citizens' political
participation is limited to voting periodically in electoral contests
between very wealthy market-oriented imperialist-inspired parties and
individuals, whose programmes and manifestos are almost indistinguishable.
The second point is that popular democracy is not a policy which a
government, once it has been elected, is free to adopt or reject. Popular
democracy goes beyond particular governments; it is a state system; in other
words it is defined by the way state institutions, including economic,
judicial, political, administrative, educational, ideological and repressive
(coercive) ones are constituted and operated. Beyond that, popular democracy
is expressed and reflected, in the final analysis, in the constitution. If
in a bourgeois democracy it is difficult to amend the state constitution, it
is even more so in popular democracy. In the latter a major constitutional
amendment can be effected only through a revolution or counter-revolution.
By popular democracy, I shall mean first of all, a democratic order in the
broadest sense of the term provided, for example, by Abraham Lincoln,
namely, "government of the people, by the people and for the people."
But more specifically, it is a secular, republican and democratic order
which, though including electoral politics and elections, goes beyond them
to the continuous mobilisation, self-activity and political self-government
of the people at all levels of social life, from the neighbourhood,
community and village levels upwards to the national; a democratic order
which gives all citizens the right to form unions and organisations to
advance their particular and general interests and political parties to
campaign and contest elections and struggle for power at all levels of
electoral contest; where the conditions for forming and registering
political parties and contesting elections exclude monetary conditions;
where, in particular, public servants, workers and toiling people can form
parties and stand elections. That is the first leg of my definition of
popular democracy. But even this first leg is a million kilometres ahead of
the bourgeois or even liberal definition of democracy.
Now to the second leg. Popular democracy is a democratic order where the
wages and remunerations of elected officials compare with those of public
officers and civil servants; where citizens are constitutionally and
financially enabled to organise politically at village and community levels
and carry out development activities; where there is a system of recall of
elected representatives; where security apparatuses are humane, law-abiding
and responsible to the people; where there is political accountability at
all levels of governance. That is the second leg.
For the third leg, popular democracy is a democratic order where human and
democratic rights include political, economic, social, citizenship and
cultural rights - in particular, the right to work, the right to basic
education and the right to basic health care; where these rights are
justifiable; and where there is a legally-binding and adequate minimum wage
and the gap between the minimum wage and maximum wage is minimum; where
there is a legally instituted system of social support for the unemployed
and destitutes; and where justice is affordable and accessible to all
citizens.
And finally, popular democracy is a democratic order where the powers of
unelected institutions (such as traditional institutions) are reduced to the
minimum; a democratic order which is anti-patriarchal, that is, where the
rights of women and children are protected and advanced; which recognises
the rights and needs of special areas and communities and takes steps to
meet them; where the principle of collective exercise of power is promoted;
where crimes against humanity are clearly defined and include the crime of
violence against women in private and public spheres and discrimination of
any type on the bases of sex, ethnic origin, religion or age.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
