The winner takes all ‘huu haa’
Two basic elements undergird a democracy which is being nursed and nurtured to be generally acceptable to its people.
Advertisement
The two are debate and research. The principle influencing them is not for a structure that is a once and for all because it would be tying hands behind backs into perpetuity for following generations.
Lately, the Institute for Economic Affairs ( IEA) has come back into its own essence and is conducting consultations. That is doing the research and debate on whether this country ought to endure the populist electoral dictum “winner takes all” (WTA)-posture for governance.
The other side thinks a resolution of political parties and funding from public purse should supersede. The demerits of the WTA are precisely that democracy’s very crucial ticket after the ballot box is what lies in the meaning of “majority carries the vote”. This is as old as ancient Greek mythology where it all emanated from Socrates through Plato to Aristotle.
Secondly, ‘the first past the post’ which is WTA’s other name, has worked groggily and briskly throughout the centuries, except that changes have occurred and there are varieties parallel with different countries and indeed institutions globally; but these have not completely shaken the fundamentals led by WTA.
However, the differences in body mandates and execution hold the umbilical cords of the case for advocating review after all that is what has been the main cause of the variations. So for example, there is democracy in Soviet Russia and the same title for the system and a practice in the United Kingdom where the Scots are due to elect to stay in or opt out.
Proportional representation or national coalition?
That is what makes the exercise of the right worthwhile and tests the barricades per se and resilience of what is there by a new generation lest hands be tied over something that does not work because it is not in sync.
The problem which impedes a concurrence with the protagonists to change here sits in the fog of that phraseology “per se”—on its own in other words. It becomes more troubling where the advocates do not confirm whether they are juggling for preference between proportional representation and national coalition.
Proportional representation is normally derailed by demographic dynamics. People migrate at will and not according to some electoral mechanised law; and though under WTA there is room for transferred voting, it is not the same as in proportional representative system of government but a lot more—not cheap in costs.
Put simply, it is also not stable as the experiences from experimentation in other advanced countries have toyed with its attraction to answer the same difficulties seen here and now labelled undemocratic and at worst, so-called “Rawlings-phobic”, not a decent description of the present constitution because it is not correct and throws unnecessary mud, unwanted in the scheme of things as the IEA means for their effort.
The next fabric in the frame which might be examined as the alternative is a national coalition government. From history to empirical evidence, a coalition is wobbly and does not give direction and stability in governance.
The latest substitute known as “power sharing” [certainly a well-meant alter ego—Kenya and Zimbabwe] in Africa is a sham. That probably might have led satisfied the bits in the inherited European model which is the source of the current national anxiety.
It seems that the campaign wants just inclusion or inclusive government, which is neither proportional representative nor coalition government. These have been tried before. They generally failed. The benefit of hindsight suggests two factors might have been overlooked.
The case is that there might be or, that there is a probable hybrid which might be wrested, worked on in a review of the three formulae because the combination looks like pregnant with that sort of acceptable and indeed a workable potential for a resolution in a hybrid from them.
That requires critical studying in tandem with references to adopting some significant elements in indigenous modus Vivendi [Malaysia, Singapore]. The absence of a deeper-than-now thought along these lines gives enough credence to blame the general fiascoes on rush and less in sober thinking.
Series of bungled constitutions
It is fair to say the defaults are excusable by the fact of the reasons of time and sheer international political and diplomatic pressures as classic circumstantial evidence with reference to Kenya and Zimbabwe cauldrons for examples.
Again it is possible to find a parallel in the same apparent faux pas in the recent US attempt to sideline the Egyptian plan for a Gaza ceasefire and follow on with their own proposal [instead of considering even a composite between their own and the Egyptian intervention].
Time is on the side of the proponents and the country to examine in depth to add on a re-jig of the European brand of democracy inherited or passed on wholesale for governance here. In fact that package and the need to take a serious second look at has not happened here except for crafting series of bungled constitutions after every putsch in this country.
One positive example of inclusiveness relates to President Nkrumah because his own persona and drive to co-opt into the service for country among the brightest and the best human resources the country is endowed with despite partisan complaints from the CPP. The objections by the party members, presented as political enemy syndrome, was underlined by the fear of losing out on jobs that they felt must be for party members.
But there was also patriotis; but it is moribund these times unfortunately. In the days of the recent years, Presidents Hilla Limann and John Kufuor [3rd and 4th Republics respectively] used the same mindful approach with certain appointments but both were felled and fouled by apparent caving in to political partisan politics in this country.
Advertisement
The problem would be solved if the politicians and leaders campaign on the basic principle that the political opponent is not the enemy and can be invited on their own credentials, irrespective of known or unknown political affiliations or leanings. The creed which tops the inclusion is the individual’s merit.
That neutralising happens to be the apparent united opposition from Parliament, the politicians, in the shape of their preference for bringing the nagging issue of whether the state should fund political parties.