Democracy is not Nirvana

Time and again this big word, democracy, gets thrown at our faces, and around as the yard stick of political maturity of a state. Abraham Lincoln famous declaration of democracy as the government of the people, by the people, for the people has stood the test of time – over a century – as a valid measurement. In apartheid South Africa, democracy most importantly stood for the much-cherished equality for black people. The Afrikaans in their oppression of black people perhaps did not assume that oppression would breed more defiance, but they agreed to give black people their rights and that was South Africa’s nirvana. Mandela’s African National Congress inherited the battle of the anti-apartheid struggle and today stands in turmoil because it appears that one man’s quest for presidency, Jacob Zuma, is the thread that knits or the stink that disembowels the once mighty African movement. We should learn that democracy is not satisfaction or political “happiness” if there is anything of the sort. In any election, everybody is in it to win. There is a loser and a winner in every democratic or undemocratic contention of political power, thus a democratic election is not necessarily a nirvana event, as we would like to think. A typical case is the recent political fiasco in Madagascar, two conflicting leaders with two conflicting sets of supporters and soldiers, all flexing their political muscles until one manages to oust the other. It is playing out in Thailand, Kenya, Ukraine and the list goes one. A democratically elected leader is forced out of power and accused of running the country like a private ranch while his nemesis, too young to be president rejects a political referendum and is eager to lead a transitional government with the support of a good portion of the army, and to arrest his opponent at he first clear opportunity. Clearly there is more to it that the eye can see and hopefully when it all unravels, if it ever does, we will get to know what is really going on in Malagasy. But both sides are clearly not in it for democratic reasons. Every one who wants to oust a sitting leader claims to be democratic enough to warrant the removal of his opponent and as soon as he settles in, the guys on the outside start brandishing their democratic credentials in the same manner. In African traditional culture, leadership was more a result of consensus than competition. It depended on cultures and norms and not on popularity or persuasion. In democracy, the freedom to vote for whoever you trust is a good thing, but in it, the tricksters flourish, hence the saying, politics is a dirty game. Most of the time, it does not matter how you win votes but if you win votes at all. In many African countries, citizens incorrectly allude democracy to total freedom, to happiness, which always turns out to be short lived. The political cycle or season is short and unforgiving. In Kenya, there is an eternal search for liberations, but from whom, for what, they may not know. In riding itself of colonialism, it expected a post-independence flourish of brotherhood. With this complete struggle to deliver the all supreme political power to the next messiah, the disappointments come rolling in for the ordinary person. If a country is able to rid itself of an oligarchic class of leaders or billionaires then who takes care of their wealth and prestige? Does the new all powerful political class redistribute ill-gotten wealth to all citizens, fairly and squarely? In Zimbabwe, the other political powder keg in Africa today, is a classic case of expecting too much from one human being. Mugabe has failed Zimbabwe miserably but in the titanic struggle with Morgan Tsvangirai, do we expect the later to change Zimbabwe, especially after inheriting the broken systems of the public social services, assuming he ever let is grip loose off power? If he manages will Zimbabweans be patient enough (10 years and more) with him so that he can fix the mess? How do you deliver effective democracy in a place as vast as the Congo where even the leaders have no control of big swathes of country? In America, where democracy is highly developed, a similar voter apathy had also grown because in a democracy, it does not really matter who is in office because, the system essentially runs the government, except in the case of an imminent depression like it is in the US when every one begins to feel the pinch in the decisions made at the top. Democracy is not the delivery of good life. It is the opportunity it offers to the apolitical citizen who wishes to work day and night undisturbed for personal or joint prosperity of the nation. If you have a whole country shouting about an election for eight months of a year every day, you lose many work hours. We cannot move politics from the foreground of our respective nations, but we must learn to assist the democracy to grow and get on with the living of our lives. We can play politics but we cannot eat politics. The food on the table will come from the work democracy will give us the freedoms to do. kelviod@yahoo.com