Power-sharing the answer to democracies
IT IS worth first acknowledge the importance of voting. In the context of South Africa, this right did not come in a state of tranquil.
In other words, many people who were the catalysts of this right were slaughtered by the racist regime of apartheid. Thus, in honour of those people it becomes imperative for the citizens of South Africa to utilise this right in order to advance this country for the better. In fact, voting is the only opportunity for citizens to shape the power dynamics (to a lesser extent) of their country. In this opinion piece, I argue that in the post-apartheid South Africa, casting ones vote is just a part of active citizenship and not the beginning and the end in itself.
The concept of democracy emerged from the ancient city of Athenians in Greece. They defined democracy as the people’s power. For the Athenians, democracy was beyond just balloting, it involved political participation such as rigorous debates on issues that affected them.
Over the years, different theorists tried to conceptualise a democracy that is suitable for modern capitalists societies which are far more complex than primitive societies. Interestingly, there is no widely accepted model of democracy; our democracy has always been extolled for being one of the best democracies in the world.
Such is fairly true, there aren’t many countries with similar historical exigencies who managed to attain the kind of democracy we have. For example, if one takes a look at our Zimbabwean neighbours who were also colonised by Britain, it becomes clear that their “democracy” has long been in calamity with little to no leeway of positive change as things stand.
What we have at the moment is a majority form of democracy and that is problematic. Most, if not all, South African political parties often expound that they are the exponents of democratic centralism. What this means is that, if a political party wins elections, all of its MP are expected to be politically expedient in order to advance the party mandate.
This is sometimes done at the expense of the views of the minority. If an MP decides to offer an antithetical perspective to that of his or her party; that MP can in fact lose their job even if they stood for the right thing.
To further drive this discussion, most political parties have (including the ruling party) abused this right to hire and fire MPS who ought to veer from the party command. This was seen when a number of MPS (such as Andile Mngxitama) denounced Malema’s iron fist rule and were later fired from parliament by the EFF.
More to the above, this majoritarian democracy has led to enamours corruption whereby the opposition did not have power to avert it.
In all of the aforementioned instances, it is clear that the will of the people is unheeded for personal gains. Therefore, democracy becomes meaningless when it is not rooted in the interests of the people.
Therefore, the most suitable and possible solution for the aforementioned undemocratic hurdles is a form of Constitutional democracy (power-sharing) whereby the opposition will have some form of power even instances whereby the ruling has managed to secure an overwhelming two thirds majority. Such can assist in alleviating inequality.
Sonkqayi is an Education Masters Degree student at Wits University.