|
|
September 12, 2004
The opposition’s role
Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar writes about opposition parties in a democratic system
LET us talk of another key ingredient of democracy: the role of the opposition. A viable, vocal opposition ensures that democracy is at work. It checks the lapsing of the majority party or coalition into taking action which does not carry the nation with it.
The opposition must do three things; (a) act as the conscience of the nation and ensure that major government action is in the national interest. (There is almost never any doubt about what is in the national interest, but political expediency tends to incite partisans to cloud the issue). It must nag the government, rap it on its knuckles, or confront it when it feels that the government is remiss of the will of the majority; (b) it must ensure that national resources and government action are directed where the short and/or long-term interests of the nation lie; (c) it must recognize that bold, not watered down, action has more potential for success. An effective opposition is one of the essential mechanism for checks and balances in a modern democracy. An opposition is a government in waiting. It should learn to wait, and meanwhile to contribute positively to the welfare of the people.
Democracy allows such intervention by the opposition in parliament. Extra-parliamentary techniques of either the government or opposition are always detrimental to the country and reflect a lack of understanding that in modern robust democracies usually only 40-45 per cent of the popular vote (and not of the population) results in the formation of governments. As mentioned earlier, usually less than 50 per cent of the registered voters vote. These registered voters are often 50-60 per cent of the population. In countries with a high population growth even lower percentages have the right to vote as larger percentages are below the age of voting.
In much of the Third World over 50 per cent of the population is below the age of voting. Thus the government in a democracy with adult franchise and a high population growth rate has the mandate of 9-12 per cent of the population (or less than 20-25 per cent of the adult population). This is a statistically significant number and purports to reflect the choice of the majority. Key oppositions in robust democracies get 35-40 per cent of the vote (which is 10-11 per cent of the population). Thus extra-parliamentary activity can be mobilized by both the government and the opposition.
Due to the lop-sided constituencies sometimes a party getting a higher number of total vote ends up in the opposition as it wins fewer seats in the parliament. Therefore the German model with two votes for every voter, one for a specific person, and one for a party is worthy of adoption.
A politically mature electorate recognizes an election as a contest of wills, party programmes and the leader’s charisma. It also understands that the winner must not only be allowed to govern for the period mandated by the constitution of the country, but be fully supported by the opposition in such governance on democratic principles. This support of democracy and the national interest must be emphasized. There must be a clear understanding of the rules of the game. And if rules are not followed the result is almost always not in the national interest. Nor does it serve the people. And a game without rules, or with partisan rules, destroys institutions. With weak institutions there can be little democracy. Without rules of the game, democracy does not develop roots. And like a rootless tree falls when the going gets a little tough.
There is an intermediate stage in the development of democracies. This stage is typified by a plethora of political parties. A great many of them wish to achieve power or monetary gains, usually both, by exercising only their nuisance value. In this stage coalitions are the norm. And the business of government is hamstrung by the need to balance a lot of vested interests or points of view. The government is less effective at such a stage. Then a shakedown takes place. Mergers, via pre-election coalitions, become the norm. Many fringe groups drop by the wayside, reducing the number of bona fide political parties to a number, which can be counted on the fingers of one hand. If this does not happen and regional parties gain in strength, the union or federation begins to lose its validity.
A second factor in the development of democracies is the position of the political parties vis-a-vis nationalism. The strength and effectiveness of the ‘foreign hand’ and the resolve of the political parties to put their own thirst for power at a lower level than what is good for the country, takes time. This damages both democracy and the economy. People suffer. Those nations are fortunate which do not have demagogues pretending to be democrats in this stage of their development.
All governments develop a logic of their own, an inner dynamic which maintains a balance between the status quo and change. Unless the leader’s will and programme are strong, tradition, inertia and vested interests usually win out. But a good government ensures that as much change as possible is achieved. It also ensures that change, which is brought about, is in the national interest. It should favour those oppressed by the status quo, and also work for those who are unable to work the system. This is done by changing the system or more often by developing subsystems, or at other times, by merely realizing the potential of the existing system.
The role of the opposition is not merely to oppose government action, nor merely to be subversive, but to be a regulator. And, as said earlier, it must behave as a government in waiting. The party in power must also behave like the government and not just the party it is drawn from. But in most democracies this is not how it is. All this stems from the ‘winner takes all’ practice in a party-based democracy. The opposition is left out in the cold. The winning party is in power.
Perhaps we should change the name of the opposition in democracies. We may call them “The Group”. Far too many ‘oppositions’ are misled by the word ‘opposition’ which currently describes them technically. In present democracies the role of the government and the opposition is poorly understood. Even when the top leadership of the oppositions have some understanding of their role, the epithet ‘opposition’ is translated into nothing but opposing the government by the leaders as well as the rank and file of party workers.
Confrontational positions are adopted rather than regulating positions. The nation, its people, and democracy, all suffer. The government also needs to have the sagacity to learn to live with a parliamentary conscience group. Indeed it should be able to use the efforts of the conscience group to improve its own functioning by reducing errors of strategy or judgment. It should also have a feel for what those who did not vote for them feel about important matters.
The role of the opposition is not merely to oppose government action, nor merely to be subversive, but to be a regulator. It must behave as a government in waiting. The party in power must also behave like the government and not just the party it is drawn from. But in most democracies this is not how it is. All this stems from the ‘winner takes all’ practice in a party-based democracy. The opposition is left out in the cold. The winning party is in power
The conscience group should protect the nation from the tyranny of the majority. A democracy exists for every citizen. Political ideology (or race, religion or ethnicity) do not remain descriptions of citizens. This is the basic reason why democracy developed, to make nationhood and the will of the majority take precedence over race, ethnicity, or strong arm oppression by a few. It also ensures that both majorityism and minorityism (via pushy pressure groups) do not dictate government action
One method to achieve this is to pay salaries to a shadow cabinet provided by the conscience group and assign them research staff and offices. Then it will be fairer to expect work from them, rather than negative slogans and efforts that are ultimately detrimental for the economy, and often also the state. This would institutionalize another system of checks and balances, which is the hallmark of democracy. It would put political talent in the service of the nation rather than the current usual penchant to drag down the country to get at the government. It would also make transitions of government from one party to another easier and smoother.
Laws must be made to reflect the traditions, culture, religion and needs of society. Laws should not remain static, but the principles on which these laws are based should be jealously guarded. Usually these principles are truth and mercy, justice and benevolence, consistent application and due process of law should be available to everyone, acceptance of other belief systems and points of view and a moral responsibility for all the citizens of the nation.
Law should reflect society in its totality. If it attempts to exclude any of the major ingredients, which form a particular society, or tries to go directly to what falls within one’s personal view of ‘universal human conditionalities’, it falters and becomes an inaccurate or even unfair reflection of society. So-called secularists miss this point and try to propose laws with insufficient relevance to a particular society. They both follow the dictates of their human conscience and also ‘play to the gallery’. These are groups and countries which consider themselves the bastions of humanism and who shut their eyes to the existence of ethnicity, culture and religion in society. The human rights records of such nations and of secularists in their attempts to apply human rights principles are dismal. They feet they know best. They do not. Only society does — composite society, in all its humanity, ethnicity, religion, culture, tradition, economics, history, past experience and future aspirations. Nothing can be excluded. Secularism tries to ignore or exclude religion. Dogma ridden religionists try to force their own world view of humane behaviour, which usually excludes other viewpoints and other religions, and so on. Both need the mirror of society, which they hardly use.
In these matters can democracy come to the rescue? Not perhaps democracy in isolation, on a perfect island, but a democracy deeply immersed in that society. It bears repeating, laws that are promulgated should reflect the needs of society in its totality.
Excerpted with permission from
How Governments Work: A Ramble through the Philosophy and Practice of Government
By Muzaffar A. Ghaffaar
Ferozsons, 60 Shahrah-i-Quaid-i-Azam, Lahore
Tel: (042) 630 1196-8. 277 Peshawar Road, Rawalpindi Tel: (051) 556 3503. Mehran Heights, Main Clifton Road, Karachi. Tel: (021) 583 0467 UAN 111-62-62-62
ISBN 969-0-01866-3
246pp. Rs450
|
|
