Governments of national unity bad for democracy
Jul 29, 2008
IT is now clear that the warring political factions in Zimbabwe will form a government of national unity in the coming weeks comprising members of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU/PF party and the opposition Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party.
By Don Wanyama
IT is now clear that the warring political factions in Zimbabwe will form a government of national unity in the coming weeks comprising members of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU/PF party and the opposition Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party.
To Zimbabweans, whom peace and order had become elusive in the past months, this should come as a relief. They expect the country to become stable and probably the inclusion of the West’s blue-eyed boy Tsvangirai into the government will help resuscitate their ailing economy.
On the surface, this looks a juicy deal but deep down it is a travesty to justice and democracy. The purpose of holding elections is to enable voters pick a candidate they consider their favourite.
The criteria of choice may differ from aspects like tribalism, ability to solve economic problems or even physical appearance, but the rationale is that the most popular candidate at the end of the day should be declared victor.
But looking at this new fashion of coalition governments, it is obvious that Africa is slowly murdering the purpose of elections. In Kenya, which also has a government of national unity, it was common knowledge that President Mwai Kibaki had been given a bloody nose by Raila Odinga’s ODM. Unwilling to hand over power and with blood being shed, Kibaki agreed to ‘share’ power. The biggest beneficiary was the loser in the elections.
The same scenario replays in Zimbabwe. Defeated on March 29, Mugabe made it difficult for his opponent to freely campaign in the run-off. With his thugs, he terrorised opposition supporters until Tsvangirai threw in the towel. He went on to sweep the one-man poll with a ‘landslide’ victory!
Knowing how illegitimate his government is, Mugabe is now willing to ‘share’ power, probably cede some cabinet posts to the opposition and create a semblance of normalcy. Thereafter, it will look like business-as-usual. But the biggest loser in these arrangements is democracy. We should not conduct elections where people are sure they will rig blatantly and thereafter give a few concessions to their opponents and all seems well.
Of course the opposition can be blamed for this. One wonders why they choose to share power with people they have defeated in elections. But probably their decision is understandable. They are like the mother of the baby in the Biblical story of King Solomon, who unwilling to see her baby chopped and divided between her and another woman, opted to give up on her claim to ensure that the toddler lives.
The bottom line is that many leaders, unwilling to leave power, are going to use this new phenomenon as a soft landing. They will rig opponents out of victory and offer the olive branch in form of a government of national unity.
Different political parties offer different manifestos while seeking votes. Therefore, to bandy them together after contested elections is to ignore why they sought power.
In Kenya, the divisions are glaring. When the Grand Regency scandal, which led to the censure of finance minister Amos Kimunya, came to play, the cabinet cracks were along PNU and ODM lines.
The implication is that despite being in the same cabinet, the ministers put party loyalty first. They do not view themselves as one unit and this surely is not good for state affairs.
And questioningly, this concept is being fronted by the West yet they cannot adopt it themselves. Otherwise, we would have seen George Bush ‘share’ power with Al-Gore after the disputed Florida poll.
We should, therefore, have elections where the winner is declared fairly or we just forget about voting. There should be no middle line between democracy and totalitarianism.
The writer is a journalist
IT is now clear that the warring political factions in Zimbabwe will form a government of national unity in the coming weeks comprising members of Robert Mugabe’s ZANU/PF party and the opposition Morgan Tsvangirai’s MDC party.
To Zimbabweans, whom peace and order had become elusive in the past months, this should come as a relief. They expect the country to become stable and probably the inclusion of the West’s blue-eyed boy Tsvangirai into the government will help resuscitate their ailing economy.
On the surface, this looks a juicy deal but deep down it is a travesty to justice and democracy. The purpose of holding elections is to enable voters pick a candidate they consider their favourite.
The criteria of choice may differ from aspects like tribalism, ability to solve economic problems or even physical appearance, but the rationale is that the most popular candidate at the end of the day should be declared victor.
But looking at this new fashion of coalition governments, it is obvious that Africa is slowly murdering the purpose of elections. In Kenya, which also has a government of national unity, it was common knowledge that President Mwai Kibaki had been given a bloody nose by Raila Odinga’s ODM. Unwilling to hand over power and with blood being shed, Kibaki agreed to ‘share’ power. The biggest beneficiary was the loser in the elections.
The same scenario replays in Zimbabwe. Defeated on March 29, Mugabe made it difficult for his opponent to freely campaign in the run-off. With his thugs, he terrorised opposition supporters until Tsvangirai threw in the towel. He went on to sweep the one-man poll with a ‘landslide’ victory!
Knowing how illegitimate his government is, Mugabe is now willing to ‘share’ power, probably cede some cabinet posts to the opposition and create a semblance of normalcy. Thereafter, it will look like business-as-usual. But the biggest loser in these arrangements is democracy. We should not conduct elections where people are sure they will rig blatantly and thereafter give a few concessions to their opponents and all seems well.
Of course the opposition can be blamed for this. One wonders why they choose to share power with people they have defeated in elections. But probably their decision is understandable. They are like the mother of the baby in the Biblical story of King Solomon, who unwilling to see her baby chopped and divided between her and another woman, opted to give up on her claim to ensure that the toddler lives.
The bottom line is that many leaders, unwilling to leave power, are going to use this new phenomenon as a soft landing. They will rig opponents out of victory and offer the olive branch in form of a government of national unity.
Different political parties offer different manifestos while seeking votes. Therefore, to bandy them together after contested elections is to ignore why they sought power.
In Kenya, the divisions are glaring. When the Grand Regency scandal, which led to the censure of finance minister Amos Kimunya, came to play, the cabinet cracks were along PNU and ODM lines.
The implication is that despite being in the same cabinet, the ministers put party loyalty first. They do not view themselves as one unit and this surely is not good for state affairs.
And questioningly, this concept is being fronted by the West yet they cannot adopt it themselves. Otherwise, we would have seen George Bush ‘share’ power with Al-Gore after the disputed Florida poll.
We should, therefore, have elections where the winner is declared fairly or we just forget about voting. There should be no middle line between democracy and totalitarianism.
The writer is a journalist