CCTS
Newsletter 9

Establishing participatory politics

Democracy
I chose the phrase 'participatory politics' because of my discomfort with the unquestioning use of the word 'democracy', aware of its neo-colonial connotations and of the defects in the Western systems held up as models for 'the rest'. Nonetheless, if conflicts are to be processed through politics, and the processing is to be inclusive, rather than discriminatory or exclusionary, it will be necessary to develop political processes, structures and cultures which can make possible the participation of all a country's people in the public decisions and actions which affect their lives, whatever their language or ethnic, religious or other identity. (I realise that in some cultures it is possible that 'the people' might be content with a benevolent autocracy, but my own values lead me to question the likelihood of this. And acquiescence and contentment are two different things. See James Scott, 1990.) Yet in many countries there are no traditions of institutions for state wide, inclusive political systems, and to begin to establish them in the wake of widespread violence is a tall order.

Politics and identity
The organisation of political life in countries with differing major population components is in any case not an easy matter. To do it without any reference to identity, or to cultural or tribal affiliation, is an alien concept in many societies (including Northern Ireland). At the same time, organising party politics around identity, while it transfers antagonisms from the military to the political arena, is to perpetuate divisions which have already proved deadly, making political victory or loss a potentially explosive matter. Although in the UK a 'winner takes all' oppositional system may have something to recommend it (as well as major disadvantages), it is unlikely to be other than disastrous where the winning party represents one particular tribe or clan (see Assefa 1993) and the leader so elected is honour bound to employ people from that group in every post over which he (or she, but 'he' it is likely to be) has jurisdiction. In such a case, a voting and governmental structure which provides for the representation of all groups would seem essential. The tyranny of a majority must still feel like tyranny to those on the receiving end, and exclusion is exclusion.
Regional autonomy may provide some kind of a solution, when tribal or ethnic divisions follow clear geographical lines; but in many countries there will be minorities present within any chosen unit of government and finding ways for them to be represented within that unit will remain a challenge. At some level, a choice will have to be made between an emphasis on individual rights and responsibilities on the one hand, and collective identities and group representation on the other.

The political regulation of conflict
According to Miall, Ramsbotham and Woodhouse (1999, 115), one of the important functions of democratic systems and structures is to 'institutionalise and regulate political conflict' and to provide 'rule-based methods of settling disputes, eg. majority voting, consensus decision-making etc.'. (See also Hampshire 2000.) This is to make possible the establishment of what Francis and Ropers (1997) call a 'civilised conflict culture' - one in which conflict is regarded as a civil matter and dealt with through constitutionally established processes. It is therefore vital that the political and legal systems which are established are ones which can successfully manage the structural conflicts within a society. Whether that is done through a system of village representation or a system of opposing parties (ie the Western model) is secondary. It is not clear to me that a consensual style of politics is de facto worse than an oppositional style. It does, however, seem highly desirable that there should be room for disagreement and that the personal power of politicians should not exceed the power of the electorate to hold them accountable. It is also essential to social well-being and stability that the business of government is carried out effectively, with some widely acceptable balance being struck between the inevitably competing goods of personal rights and freedoms on the one hand, and social protection and provision on the other.

Accountability and corruption
If politicians are to be held accountable, conflicts managed and crimes prevented or dealt with, laws or rules, and a system for their enforcement, will need to be in place, widely recognised and respected, and not liable to interference. Corruption is a major threat to democratic processes and public accountability in many societies, at the best of times. The social, political and economic chaos that accompanies war enlarges the space in which corruption and crime can operate. Once corruption has made its way into the social and political fabric, it is hard to find any place from which to start in order to begin to eradicate it. If corruption has a hold at the top, then it is even harder. The need for honest leadership is fundamental. Systems of checks and balances, transparent structures and procedures, may go some way to addressing this problem. This is, however, a matter of cultural, as well as structural change, requiring the linking of honesty to honour.

The role of civil society
One of the ways in which political leaders and governments can be held accountable is through the activities of groups outside the official political structures, a vocal and organised populace or 'civil society'. To be active in this way can take a great deal of courage in societies where violence has been widespread. It is amazing and heartening that in the most difficult and dangerous of circumstances there are 'ordinary people' who are willing to take the risks of political and social activism. They seem to provide a continuous thread of decency in the worst of circumstances, advocating and protecting human rights, providing a voice, and services, for disempowered groups, providing education and training for political involvement and conflict management and pursuing particular goals through public pressure and the political system. The development of such organisations and activities promotes a culture of social and political involvement, as well as having the power to influence public opinion.

Political cynicism
In countries where past and current experience of political systems and politicians is very negative, those who are engaged in the activities of 'civil society' are often understandably cynical about engagement in party politics. This cynicism is a serious obstacle to the establishment of an honest and responsible political culture and system, leaving Politics, by and large, to a less desirable set of people, motivated more by personal ambition than commitment to the public good. The moral rehabilitation of direct political involvement (capital 'P' politics) is vital to democracy, but very hard to achieve.

Media role
The public media have a potentially constructive and powerful role to play in setting the tonal context for politics, providing a forum for measured and serious debate and holding politicians to account. In the West we tend to talk a great deal about the importance of 'free media'. Free of what? In Britain, for instance, the privately controlled media are largely free of government interference, but subject to the control of owners who have their own views, interests and values to promote. This gives, arguably, undue power to capital; but the media have a perfectly honourable role to play in communicating particular viewpoints, interpreting events for particular constituencies and promoting values and political agendas. What does, however, seem possible and important is that different voices should be allowed to be heard, that someone should speak for the voiceless, and that the media should not be used as a vehicle for deliberate lies and distortions or to foment hatred and violence. That raises the question of control and the possibility of 'benevolent' censorship and brings us back to the question of balancing individual freedoms with the public good. I suspect that there is no society which does not practise any degree of censorship in any sphere.

Values and ideals
Not only is it impossible for ideal political structures, processes and attitudes to be established over night; I cannot believe they have ever existed. Given Berlin's idea (1998) that every value that is cherished has to be held in tension with another (peace and justice, freedom and security), and given that societies are not static in their constitution, aspirations or needs; given also the fallibility of even the best motivated human beings, perfect democracy will never exist. What is possible and necessary for the maintenance of relatively peaceful and just relationships is the aspiration towards a participatory, fair society and inclusive, accountable and transparent processes. And in spite of the cultural debate surrounding the concept of human rights, I would affirm the importance of that concept and of its use as a reference point in society; not as a means for undermining the common good or the need for delegated authority, but as a contribution to the creation of communities which are communities, rather than tyrannies.

Security
For any measure of genuine political freedom and participation to be possible, relative physical security needs to be in place. Murders and intimidation may be braved by some, but make participation too dangerous for most. They also make it hard to distinguish what would otherwise be acceptable political campaigning from threat and coercion. (This became clear to me recently when political parties in Kosovo/a were discussing the idea of door to door campaigning!) So, once again, the chicken presupposes the egg, and vice versa. Provision for inclusive political participation is a precondition for the 'civilising' of conflict; but the minimising of violence is needed for political processes to be possible.

External support
'Culturally sensitive' support and recognition at the international level will, as noted by Miall et al (1999, 203), aid in the establishment of a new government and political arrangements. This will, in due course, mean 'integration into co-operative and equitable regional and global structures'. (Do these exist?) There is a place for international NGOs in supporting local efforts to (re)establish political structures and practices and to encourage the flourishing of 'civil society', but our support is no doubt based on our own values and judgements, which need to be made explicit and not imposed.

Questions:
Could there be some bottom line, moral and/or practical, for workable and/or acceptable political relationships? Who should set it and on what basis? How can such a bottom line be (re)established after violent upheaval? What principles, if any, should guide the support we give, decisions about where to give it and the manner in which we do it?

next  |  seminar report

newsletter  |  ccts