Address at the AGM of the SADC Electoral
Commissions Forum
Dar Es Salaam, Tanzania 27 September, 1999
Your Excellency, President Benjamin Mkapa
Chairperson of the Forum, Justice Lewis Makame
Chairperson of the Electoral Commissions of Southern
Africa
Ministers, Ambassadors and High Commissioners
Ladies and Gentlemen:
Throughout the post-colonial period, the so-called
political class and the intelligentsia of our Continent
have searched for ways and means by which our countries
could achieve good governance and stability.
Representing as they did the truly popular impulse
towards an end to foreign rule and the attainment of
national independence, all our leaders could and did
justly claim that what they sought was that the people
should govern.
But as our independent states were being born, the
Continent's leadership, while proclaiming their adherence
to the principle that the people shall govern, understood
the complexity of the challenge of good governance and
stability.
In most instances, these societies were multi-ethnic,
multi-lingual and multi-religious.
The overwhelming majority of the population was rural,
uneducated and poor. The countries themselves were poor.
Economically, they were linked to the erstwhile colonial
power through the export of raw materials and the import
of manufactured goods.
The relatively wealthy, the educated and the powerful
within the new nation were a tiny minority. They were
concentrated especially in the capital.
Many among these saw themselves having greater affinity
with the former colonial power than with the villages
from which they originated and where their extended
families still lived. They accepted assimilation into
the culture, the language, the mores and society of
the coloniser as a mark of progress and civilisation.
Though they saw themselves as modern and superior,
relative to the majority of the people, they and these
masses had been socialised into acceptance of strictly
hierarchical systems of government and authority.
The patriarchy, as well as traditional and colonial
government all portrayed the structuring of society
into the proverbial "chiefs and Indians" as
part of a natural order of things. Everybody also understood
that the new state, like the colonial state it was displacing,
would enjoy a hegemonic position with regard to ensuring
access to opportunities and resources.
Inevitably, therefore, the state had to be built into
a powerful, venerated and awe-inspiring social institution.
Necessarily, those who managed this institution had
themselves to be seen to be powerful and therefore awe-inspiring.
Inherent in this is the imperative that these powerful
persons should remain powerful until death deprives
them of the capacity to exercise power.
This becomes all the more important if these abused
their power to gain undue wealth and advantage for themselves,
their relatives and friends by illegal or immoral means.
In this situation, the simplicity of government, the
reduction of protocol, the enhancement of transparency,
accountability and accessibility are seen as the enemies
of "good governance", as it would be defined
by those in power.
In these circumstances, the exercise of power must
be accompanied by abstruse, solemn and meaningless state
rituals, at times buttressed by the integration of fear-including
superstitions with these rituals, to ensure that a great
gulf is maintained between the rules and the ruled.
In many instances, the response to the complex of issues
we mentioned as characterising many African countries,
was that the only way to ensure good governance and
stability was to establish one-party states, while allowing
elections to take place within this system.
It would be correct to say that this system has now
collapsed. I do not know of any serious contemporary
African politician or intellectual who, today, argues
in favour of such a system. Rather, the proposition
that will be advanced is that even if free and fair
elections take place within such a constitutionally
entrenched one-party system, the mere fact of the confinement
of political opinion into one political party, however
permissive of divers views within the unique party,
constitutes a denial of democratic rights.
For our purposes today, let us accept that this thesis,
presumably born our of negative African experience,
has become part of the established orthodoxy on our
Continent.
The other part of this experience is that because of
the hegemonic position of the state, control of state
power by the power elites concentrated in the capital
became a matter of life and death in many of our countries.
In this situation, the military also saw itself as
a political player, as entitled as any other grouping
to accession to political power by any means whatsoever.
Accordingly, where the objective of politics is the
seizure of state power to use this power to address
narrow interests, the aim of ensuring that the people
shall govern ceases to be a meaningful factor in national
political life.
Even where a pretence at holding democratic elections
is maintained, it becomes nothing more than a charade
to give as much legitimacy as possible to the capture
of state power by one power elite or another.
Let us accept that the actual African experiences we
have sought to describe, of an abandonment of the earlier
principle that the people shall govern, arose out of
the tensions and contradictions characterising our societies,
which we mentioned towards the beginning of this address.
I am certain that all of us would also agree that any
democratic settlement in countries such as Rwanda, Burundi
and Sudan, to mention only some, would require that
special constitutional and political measures are introduced
to ensure both majority rule and the protection of national
minorities.
In the past, both Ghana and Nigeria were victim to
a succession of military coups. Since Ghana returned
to democratic rule there has been no further recurrence
of these coups.
On the contrary, Nigeria has experienced a seesaw of
the restoration of democracy and of military rule. All
of us hope with all our hearts that this cycle in Nigeria
has now come to an end.
Nevertheless, our scholars and politicians and indeed
our Electoral Commissions need to ask themselves the
question - what happened in Ghana which did not happen
in Nigeria such that these two countries began to diverge
in their experiences!
We make these references to Rwanda, Burundi, the Sudan,
Ghana and Nigeria to emphasise the point that we have
no choice but to construct genuinely democratic systems
of government within the specific context of our national
realities.
It would therefore seem that the first thing we must
do is to make an honest assessment of the situation
in our countries. This assessment should seek to identify
such distinguishing features as would be relevant to
the specific architecture of the democratic system we
seek to construct in each of our countries. In our own
case, that assessment, combined with our convictions
about ensuring that the people shall govern, led us
to a number of conclusions which found both constitutional
and political expression within our national life.
As a confidence building measure, we made a temporary
Constitutional provision for an enforced coalition among
the major parties, which come together in a Government
of National Unity in 1994.
Some argued that this was inherently undemocratic as
it would deny the elected majority party the possibility
to govern, unfettered by parties which would have lost
in elections that, hopefully, would be free and fair.
Our own view as the leadership of the ANC was that,
in the interests of peace and stability and a common
ownership of the democratic settlement by all racial
groups, we were prepared to sacrifice any advantage
that would derive from not being forced to govern as
part of a coalition government.
In terms of our new Constitution, there is no constitutional
requirement for us to form a coalition government. Nevertheless,
both the ANC and the IFP thought that the invaluable
prize of peace, stability and inclusive political processes
required that they should continue to work together
as government partners. Consequently, these two parties
continue to serve together in both the national and
the provincial KwaZulu-Natal governments.
We took a similar approach with regard to the possible
prosecution of agents of the apartheid system who might
have been guilty of gross violation of human rights.
We therefore argued for the establishment of the Truth
and Reconciliation Commission rather that the institution
of our own version of the Nuremberg Trials. We remain
convinced that this Commission has done sterling work
with regard to the guarantee of peace and stability
and therefore the possibility to entrench the democratic
system and to create a climate conducive to development.
This process resulted in two important developments
with regard to our country's jurisprudence.
One of these was that the state had to forgo the right
to prosecute what were justiciable offences. The other
was that the victims of apartheid repression themselves
had to forgo the right to sue for civil damages.
Some might argue that all this did grave injustice
to our established jurisprudence. But what cannot be
questioned is that it bought our country and people
the necessary stability.
In turn, this made it possible for the ordinary law
to apply and the Constitution to come into force, which
would have been impossible if we had had to declare
a state of emergency to contain the violence of those
who would have resisted prosecution for the crimes they
committed in defence of the apartheid system.
In addition to all this, we adopted a constitution
with an entrenched Bill of Rights and which also recognises
group rights. We have a Constitutional Court whose essential
task is the protection of the Constitution and therefore
the rights of individuals and groups as reflected in
that Constitution.
It would seem that in response to these experiences,
by and large the African Continent, including the southern
region represented at this meeting, has decided that
a multi-party system of government is the only correct
way to go.
Additionally, regular elections must be held. Preferably,
these elections should be managed by independent electoral
commissions. They should also be open to certification
by domestic and international government and non-governmental
observers as having been free and fair.
All of us draw comfort and encouragement from the fact
that those who determine what is good and bad in the
modern world, and have the resources to award prizes
to the well-behaved, give us positive marks for having
moved to multi-party systems of government.
And yet, the situation in our countries that gave birth
to the concept of one-party states, has not changed
qualitatively. Some of those who believe that this reality
still makes it impossible to adopt multi-party systems
have, for better of for worse, resorted to what they
would describe as non-party democracies.
If we had the time, it would not be difficult to demonstrate
that, in reality, these systems are not sustainable
especially as we move beyond the most basic units of
local government. Nevertheless, the fact of their adoption
once more brings to the fore the challenge that, to
be sustainable, our democratic systems must respond
to the objective make-up and dynamics of our societies.
In other words, we who are gathered here at this AGM
must dare to pose questions not merely about the conduct
of democratic elections, but also about the very construction
of democracy in our societies.
To get ourselves into the right frame of mind to deal
with this complex question, we should, perhaps, recite
a catechism at the beginning of all our sessions:
We are Africans!
We are not American!
We are not British!
We are not German!
We are not French!
We are not Belgian!
We are Africans!
Let me repeat what I said earlier on.
In most instances, our societies are multi-ethnic,
mulit-lingual and multi-religious.
The overwhelming majority of the population is rural,
uneducated and poor. The countries themselves are poor.
Economically, we are linked to the erstwhile colonial
power through the export of raw materials and the import
of manufactured goods as well as an intolerable debt
burden which ensures that we, the poor, are exporters
of capital to the rich countries of the North.
The relatively wealthy, the educated and the powerful
within our nations are a tiny minority. They are concentrated
especially in the capital.
Many among these see themselves having greater affinity
with the former colonial power than with the villages
from which they originate and where their extended families
still live. They accept assimilation into the culture,
the language, the mores and society of the coloniser
as a mark of progress and civilisation.
Though they see themselves as modern and superior,
relative to the majority of the people, they and these
masses have been socialised into acceptance of strictly
hierarchical systems of government and authority.
The patriarchy, as well as traditional and colonial
government all portray the structuring of society into
the proverbial "chief and Indians" as part
of a natural order of things.
Up to now, everybody has also understood that the African
state will continue to enjoy a highly significant position
with regard to ensuring access to opportunities and
resources.
Inevitably, therefore, the state will remains a powerful,
venerated and awe-inspiring social institution.
Necessarily, those who manage this institution have
themselves to be seen to be powerful and therefore awe-inspiring.
Inherent in this is the imperative that these powerful
persons should remain powerful until death deprives
them of the capacity to exercise power.
This becomes all the more important if these abused
their power to gain undue wealth and advantage for themselves,
their relatives and friends by illegal or immoral means.
In this situation, the simplicity of government, the
reduction of protocol, the enhancement of transparency,
accountability and accessibility are seen as the enemies
of "good governance", as it would be defined
by those in power.
In these circumstances, the exercise of power must
be accompanied by abstruse, solemn and meaningless state
rituals, at times buttressed by the integration of fear-inducing
superstitions within these rituals, to ensure that a
great gulf is maintained between the rules and the ruled.
Having said all this, nevertheless we need to go back
to the principle that inspired the struggles for independence,
that the people shall govern. At the same time, we must
continue to address the issue of good governance and
stability. Surely, what this means is that we must guarantee
the development and permanence of genuinely democratic
systems in our countries by ensuring that these democracies
are properly founded within the objective realities
which characterise our countries.
Accordingly, we have to grapple correctly with the
issue of the ethnic, linguistic, religious and other
diversity of our societies. Beyond our own Continental
borders, the conflicts in the former Soviet Union and
Yugoslavia as well as Northern Ireland emphasise the
need to address these issues.
As required by the Constitution, we are in the process
of establishing a statutory Commission for the protection
and promotion of linguistic, cultural and religious
rights. We have 11 (eleven) official languages and a
Pan-South African Language Board specifically charged
with the task of promoting all languages.
The three spheres of government, the national, provincial
and local, exist as autonomous entities, again as required
by the Constitution. This then makes it necessary that
we function according to what is described as a system
of co-operative governance.
At the same time each of these spheres of government
has its own elected legislature to ensure that the voice
of the people is heard at all levels of government.
More generally, we must make the point that regular,
democratic, fee and fair elections must be an inherent
component part of the architecture of democracy of which
we have spoken. This goes without saying.
At the same time, we must also deal with the challenge
of adopting electoral systems which are themselves sensitive
to the stability we seek to achieve in our countries.
Our colleagues from Lesotho will not take it amiss
if I mention the concern that was raised in that country
and which is being attended to.
This arose from the fact that at the last General Elections,
whereas the opposition parties together were supported
by 40% of the electorate, they only secured one seat
in a 90-member legislature.
The question that must necessarily arise is whether
an electoral system which produces such a result is
desirable, especially in the context of the evolution
of an inclusive system of governance. Our region and
our continent need permanent peace and stability.
That permanence can only be guaranteed if we establish
the democratic institutions and entrench such democratic
practices as would enable us to resolve conflicts and
address contending claims by peaceful means, both within
and among our countries.
Accordingly, the regular exercise by the citizens of
the right to participate in free and fair elections
indeed constitutes one of the basic guarantees of regional
peace and stability.
Equally important is the fact that this electoral process
must enjoy the highest credibility possible among the
people as being free, fair and honest, with its results
being respected by all participants.
This process issue must, of course, also include the
compilation of an equally credible voters' roll as well
as the demarcation of constituencies according to fair
and consistent criteria. But clearly, if the conduct
of any elections is deemed to be fraudulent by the electorate,
its outcome will similarly be considered illegitimate.
This must led directly to the imperative to remove
such an illegitimate government by unconstitutional
means. Equally, the illegitimate government would itself
have no choice but to use force against the people to
secure itself.
At the same time as we sue for free and fair elections,
we must ensure that this right is exercised within a
system that is durable because it is firmely grounded
in and fully informed by the actual realities of our
societies.
A principal slogan of our own struggle for liberation,
which has continuing relevance was - power to the people!
We believe that indeed all true African patriots should
in theory and in practice propagate the concept and
the practice - power to the people!
This must mean that we work deliberately to ensure
that our populations are politically educated and politically
active. As politicians our strength and popularity should
not derive from our capacity to mislead a politically
uneducated electorate.
It must derive from our capacity to convince voters
who are able to make informed choices and are therefore
able to reject the demagogues, the charlatans and those
who betray the fundamental principle that the purpose
of government is to serve the people. This would also
further strengthen the obligation of the elected representatives
to account to those who elected them.
In any case, as our societies develop with greater
exposure to the modern systems of communication, so
will the citizens have the possibility to form their
own opinions, resulting in a reduced need for them to
depend on the politician to interpret the world for
them.
Accordingly, the old politician who, relative to the
rest of the population, was a repository of knowledge,
wisdom and power must give way to the new politician,
who truly draws his or mandate to govern form and through
open interaction with the people.
Thus if we inscribe on our banners the slogans:
the people shall govern! and,
power to the people!
so shall we arrive at the situation in which, because
the people have a right to speak, because they have
the capacity to withdraw the mandates of those they
have elected, we will take power away from those who,
driven by selfish interests, once more seek to impose
repression and violent conflict on our peoples.
In this way, as they were during our struggle for national
liberation and independence, once again, the people
will become their own liberators from repression, violence
and war.
You who are gathered here, as the Electoral Commissions
of our region, have a great and historic contribution
to make to this outcome without which there can be no
African Renaissance.
Thank you.
|