Building consensus – A possibility or an illusion?

Democratic politics is difficult.

It allows room for divergent opinions and intense debates on questions of public policy. 

This is possible because democracies guarantee citizens certain basic freedoms, which become the tools for public engagement and discourse. 

In this same democratic space is the presence of political parties that provide avenues for citizens to exercise their right of freedom of association.  

Political parties are institutions offering platforms of ideas on how to govern. In addition, they are the key actors in our electoral space, contesting for power by mobilising citizens to vote for them to enable them to implement their policy ideas.

The contestation for power, as our elections have shown, is not an exercise where political parties debate ideas in a friendly manner.

It is in this environment that we also often say, “let us do what is best for Ghana and its citizens.”

Yet the more I observe our politics and the nature of our discourses on matters of governance and policy, I can’t help but ask whether we can truly do “what is best for Ghana and its citizens.” 

I say so because doing that requires building consensus on the things that truly matter.

Consensus building

The design of democratic politics is not what makes consensus-building difficult.

Yes, work is required to build consensus in an environment where there are divergent views and the freedom to express them. 

It means that to arrive at answers on how best to address our public problems, ideas would have to be subjected to vigorous public debate – whether between citizens, citizen groups, or their representatives in parliament. 

t the end of the debate, the hope is that, in the “interest of what is best for Ghana and its citizens,” we arrive at some common ground on the best way forward.

Is this scenario possible or simply an illusion of an idealist who fails to appreciate the reality of today’s politics, not just in Ghana, but in other democratic countries? 

Witch hunting

Let us focus on Ghana for now and ask ourselves, when was the last time we saw a semblance of true consensus on the difficult questions of how best to govern the country?

On the question of accountability, every attempt to hold public officials accountable quickly descends into claims of “witch hunting”, with the result of delegitimising lawful state processes.

This is not to excuse any overreaching state accountability institutions may have engaged in, but when matters of right and wrong public conduct create division, how do we build a public system capable of addressing the needs of citizens?

Or take the issue of key public policies. Policy conversations, especially among partisans, quickly descend into an outright dismissal of its merits by those who wear different political colours from those initiating the policy or unquestionable support from people who share the same political colours as those initiating the policy. 

Again, no well-intended public policy is perfect, but treating them as binary options of good versus bad prevents us from collectively embracing the good aspects of policy, while addressing its potential fault lines.

Our institutions of governance face the same divisiveness.

We go through cycles of questioning institutions such as the judiciary, the Electoral Commission, the police, investigative bodies, etc. 

Again, this is not to excuse the improper behaviour that sometimes actors within these institutions engage in.

But, as I once asked, does it surprise anyone then when analysis of data from the Afrobarometer survey shows that trust in institutions, perceptions of institutional corruption, and evaluation of government performance are shaped by partisan attachments?

Is there hope?

Early this year, the Honourable Minority Leader gave an excellent speech on centrism.

In the speech, he drew the nation’s attention to the moral imperative of embracing a centrist approach to our democratic politics. 

In reflecting on that speech, it provided the blueprint for and the importance of consensus-building.

I discussed the speech with a good friend who said, “he was speaking about the ideal, and not the reality.”

While I concede the point, is there a way to aspire to this ideal?

I agree that when there is an election to be won, there is very little incentive for partisans to be interested in consensus.

After all, if it is politically rewarding to withhold support for a policy idea or to frame accountability as a “witch hunt” to galvanise one’s political base, then why will consensus be of interest to anyone?

The puzzle for me is simply this – if we build consensus and do that which is truly in the best interest of Ghana, will the benefits accrue to only a select group of people? It sure does feel that way sometimes when I observe the pitchfork battles on matters of governance and policy. 

The writer is the Project Director, Democracy Project.