Checks on government needed

DEMOCRACY gives weight to majority opinion above all else and nothing more, including natural law. Democracy is also morally neutral. It is only a method of making a decision (by voters at an election in countries that enjoy universal suffrage) as to which political grouping is to govern, and importantly, that vote is not necessarily a “moral basis” for making such a decision.

Proportionality, unelected party-appointed parliamentarians, bribes, threats, patronage, undisclosed political party funding, intimidation, deception, T-shirts, food parcels, etc corrupt moral decision-making for the voter!

It is critically important to understand the relationship between the authority of the government and the consent of the people (voters who exercise their right to vote as well as registered voters who have not voted), especially because my view is that, and I understand Christianity’s also, popular consent is in tension with the modern secular view and indeed Jacob Zuma’s.

Modern secular liberalism and the ANC see this relationship as one-way traffic: political authority originates with those who qualify to vote (actually turn out to vote) and is transferred to the government as an act of consent with no checks and balances – see the Freedom Charter.

But this is most certainly not what the constitution envisages.

The ANC stance on this is, I suggest, deliberate and not just overly simplistic, but carries with it the fatal implication that the office of government lacks any inherent moral purpose or limit. There are a number of reasons: ý The neglected challenge of building a capable state post-1994, which represented one of the greatest moral challenges of that time – in fact this imperative remains;

ý The great tragedy, during a time of rapid change while the ANC has been at the helm, has been the paucity of robust democratic debate specifically designed to issue in policies that which promotes “just judgment” or the “common good”: validating a contention that political truth is not validated by parliamentary majorities.

The practical evolution of these concepts cannot just be left to be debated at Luthuli House and then handed down to South Africans whom the ANC arrogantly expects to be forever grateful.

Like the rest of Africa, the South African democratic journey has not progressed much beyond elections: democracy is not easy and is also all about disagreement, but which is at the heart of all political debate where persistency in achieving morally acceptable compromise is essential;

ý The real problem revolves around “principles” embodied in the constitution that are so broad that one cannot possibly disagree with them – like application of “the rule of law”.

It must surely be clear that to state or rely on a principle without its definition and an idea of its intended application is both irresponsible and unintelligible.

Politicians cannot take proposed new laws or changes to laws as fully formed from Luthuli House theorists and then apply them.

Law-making should be both deductive and inductive, which are to a large extent inhibited by the current processes;

ý In line with “colonialism must fall” it is now contended that democracy’s principles and institutions do not defer to African cultural views and therefore do not yield to the African culture relating to the “receiving gifts” and that corruption is entirely a western concept;

ý Bribery however, is not endemic to Africa and the elephant in the room is always going to be corporate multinationals and foreign state-owned agencies known to secure large project contracts in this way;.

ý The question of political wisdom – or lack of it – an art of acquiring a body of principle that has to be brought to bear within concrete political experience.

It is a serious mistake to construe political wisdom only as a kind of internal global positioning system (copying and doing what they are told), enabling parliamentarians and leadership to find their way through the minefield of political life.

A body of political principle is also not a mere assortment of political ideas or concepts.

It has to display broad coherence, reflecting its origins in a coherent but changing worldview. There is no doubt a need for more “conviction politicians”, to become members of parliament and who are no longer part of some sort of reward system – the first successful step onto the ladder of patronage.

There is also a desperate need for communities of constructive dissent to evolve, to incubate new ways of living together and to stimulate social change.

Nation-building is a daunting, never-ending task.

Andrew Tainton, Bushy Park, Port Elizabeth