All democracies are approximations of the ideal

Gibson Nyikadzino
Correspondent
The end of the Cold War in 1991 presented the world with liberal democracy as a universally accepted measure that could be employed to govern societies basing on three components; the state, rule of law and accountability.

Advocates of liberal democracy in the developing world, in most cases, have however, failed to understand that the model they choose as the antidote to Africa’s problems is a charade.

It is not cheap to sustain a democracy and let alone a liberal democracy, where it originates, money is the basis of getting elected and get a seat at the table.

While it is impossible to conceive of democracy without elections, it is equally impractical to imagine elections without financial resources.

Money is the sine-qua-non of politics. There is no politics without money. Reflectively, money does not always guarantee victory, it does however, guarantee a seat at the table.

Money is a necessary component of any democracy. It facilitates and enables political participation, campaigning and representation.

Having money and wanting to contest elections money enables the expression of political support and competition in elections. Finance is a necessary component of the democratic processes.

You get what you pay for

In March this year, Cabinet approved a legal framework that will allow Government to introduce minimum qualifications for councillors in local authorities as a way to improve competence in service delivery.

The is a major crisis that has been nurtured for many years in the national political body where the law has not been amended to reflect the importance of incorporating qualifications for one to be elected a councillor, for instance.

It has been reported and presented as fact that most councillors fail to appreciate their mandate and authority because of low literacy levels. Furthermore, the quality of councillors in analysing legislation and the budget is extremely poor.

Former Harare Mayor Mr Muchadeyi Masunda during his tenure had a problem with his councillors whom he said did not understand basic councillor’s etiquette and even table manners.

These same people cannot unpack the relevant pieces of legislation, that is, the Urban Councils Act Chapter 29:15, the Regional, Town and Country Planning Act Chapter 29:12 and the Rural District Council Act Chapter 29:13. Additionally, there is a deplorable understanding of policy formulation and budget analysis skills and competencies in the local authorities.

The announcement of an increase in election nomination fees by the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission (ZEC) has received mixed feelings from across the political divide. That is so much expected!

According to Statutory Instrument 144/2022 gazetted on Friday, Presidential candidates have to pay US$20 000, from US$1 000 paid in 2018, to qualify to stand in 2023 while those seeking to contest for parliamentary seats will be expected to pay US$1 000, up from US$50 paid before.

For those aspiring to be in the senate and council, they will pay US$100.

While there are issues that have been raised by other stakeholders, like the cost being too high, there is something that the electorate does not realise.

The office of a Councillor, Parliamentarian or President are ones that are of integrity.

Opening the race to becoming a councillor and parliamentary representative only because one is a registered voter, above 18 years and be a Zimbabwean national is democratically awkward.

Political scientists often say “power is to us what money is to the economist; the medium via which transactions are observed and measured.” Money is always a transactional medium in either politics or economics.

Those who aspire to attain political power should not expect it to be so cheap because “democracy allows so.” It is also democratic to come up with laws that demand qualifications and sensible competition for available offices.

The absence of essential election pre-requisite for all offices are contributory reasons to some of the problems that we have witnessed so far, where politicians are elected based on popularity but absent in intellectual organisation. Money and basic intellectual organisation is an experiment that can bring a degree of normalcy and order in the political landscape.

Can the opposition converge?

National Constitutional Assembly (NCA) president and POLAD member Prof Lovemore Madhuku was among the first political leaders to respond to contents of SI 144/2022.

“Excessive, undemocratic and unconstitutional. ZEC fails to appreciate that a “free and fair” election starts from that being a candidate must not be unaffordable to an ordinary politician. The amounts MUST be substantially reduced. US$500K for a party to field ALL candidates?” Prof Madhuku.

Prof Madhuku is not thinking beyond what he sees as an “obstacle”. He is not looking for a solution.

Democracy is itself a work in progress and has its perfect imperfections, some might say.

The obsession of the opposition in Zimbabwe to dislodge Zanu-PF from power is always high. But here is an opportunity for the opposition to converge.

To the NCA and other opposition parties, this could be an opportune time to come up with a “grand coalition” to face up with the mighty ruling governing party.

In opposition politics, coalitions are done with a view to create a credible alternative to government, and during elections, to consolidate electoral support and maximise results.

If the NCA, MDC-T and CCC see themselves as alternatives, here is an opportunity for them to maximise their support base.

The question is: Does Prof Madhuku as a fervent constitutionalist ready to back, endorse and vote for Nelson Chamisa, a man who does not believe in ideas, structures and has no desire for a democratic party? Is it also possible to see Douglas Mwonzora, Dr Thokozani Khupe and Chamisa kiss and make-up, given their violent and treacherous history at each other in the MDC-T? Can Chamisa express readiness to endorse Prof Madhuku or Mwonzora as a presidential candidate? Supposedly, will the coalition ever have a convergence of ideas?

Meritocracy better than democracy

The relationship between money and politics has come to be one of the great problems of democracies around the world, but also, the relationship has been one that improves internal democratic processes in political parties. Money has a powerful “selection effect” on who stands for election.

But, the operating costs in a democracy remain a white elephant for many countries for some of its requirements are a “luxury” some people and politicians cannot afford.

Frequent elections, salaries and allowances of ministers, elected officials and other such political offices consume the major portion of the annual budget to which the people are the victims.

There is no “true” democracy in this world. All democracies are approximations of the ideal.

But meritocracy is better than democracy because it is the only system that will work in the long term.

The Chinese have already figured this out, a practice that has also existed for almost 800 years in China.

Today, it is evident that meritocracy among the Chinese is a fantastic success. The sooner that we all figure it out, the better.

We could stand to learn a few things from meritocracy than the biased perspective of Western history books we read and foisted on us too.

Democracy is an expensive initiative. It is a project that has some operating costs.