Participatory democracy is a vital mechanism for controlling elites. This argument is premised on the believe that in a democracy all should govern, in the sense that all should be involved in law making, in deciding on public policy, in applying laws and in governmental administration. All should be personally involved in vital decision making, that is to say, in deciding laws and matters of public policy.
This participation will ensure that rulers act in the interest of the ruled and are accountable to the ruled or at least to the representatives of the ruled. A direct opposite of participatory democracy is elitism. Classical and contemporary elite theorists propagated the view that real democracy, where the people govern, is always and everywhere impossible and that the people could never rule.
These scholars, including Plato, Robert Michels, Vilfredo Pareto, Max Weber, Gaetano Mosca and Joseph Alois Schumpeter among others, argue, albeit in different ways, that government ought in principle, always and everywhere, to be controlled by elites of education, wealth and social status. Some of them argue that elites dominate because the masses lack education, resources, are lethargic, passive, unsystematic and unimportant. Elitists believe that government is in practice confined to elites.
Liberal democracy is the predominant form of government preferred in the twenty-first century and it is largely characterized by elitism in most countries. These elites have become celebrities and the people spectators in the political theater. There is no meaningful participation of the masses in public policy or key decisions.
Universal adult suffrage, albeit with limitations, is the only way in which people participate meaningfully in the political process in most liberal polities. The limitation of common suffrage as practiced in Botswana is worrying; the president is not popularly elected and this denies the people the right confer legitimacy or otherwise on the president. The sitting president somewhat determines who succeeds him.
The constitution of Botswana vest executive powers on the president and empowers him/her to decide alone, consequently authorizing dictatorship. In Botswana, after elections, the masses are reduced to spectators as all decisions are made for them.
Parliament, which is supposed to be a barometer of public opinion, has been reduced to a rubber stamp of executive decision and those of the ruling party. Botswana parliament doesn’t have real powers to adequately exercise its oversight function. This is due to strict party discipline and binding ruling party caucus and numerically weak opposition in parliament. Laws are made by the executive and passed through parliament and not passed by parliament. The government only informs, as opposed to consulting, the people on key decisions. The kgotla system is not suitable forum for consultation. Participation can be achieved through civil society and active media. Civil society in Botswana is weak in that most NGOs are government sponsored and those who are not lack resources and skilled personnel and are struggling.
There is no center for civil society the University of Botswana or other universities to provide guidance mobilize resources and add intellectual value to civic activities. It is contended that the Athenian democracy, the Levelers, United Democratic Front (UDF) in apartheid South Africa and contemporary participatory democracy in Switzerland prove that elites can be controlled to ensure ethical governance, accountability and justice. Elites of education and wealth, including Plato who detested democracy, lived in Athens but were controlled as the society was governed on the principle of wisdom of the majority.
It was the people who legislated, formulated public policy and adjudicated. The Levellers, who were members of a mid 17th century English political movement, who came to prominence during the English Civil Wars, are remembered for their beliefs in popular sovereignty, an extended franchise, equality before the law, and religious toleration, and the abolition of arbitrary rule whether located in the King, the Lords or House of Commons. They were also pioneers in the use of petitions and pamphleteering to political ends.
The UDF in apartheid South Africa under the leadership of among others Allan Boesak, Terror Lekota and Murphy Morobe proved that intra-party democracy and peoples’ participation was an effective way to control elites in political movements. Power was vested in the people and not in leaders. The basic principles of this participatory and/or internal party democracy were: elected leadership, periodically reelected and recallable, collective leadership, mandates and accountability, reporting and reporting back and criticism and self criticism.
These principles are valuable for controlling elites and to guard against arbitrary rule but are becoming increasingly rare in the ruling party of Botswana and some opposition political parties. The ruling party split in 2010 was blamed on lack of intra-party democracy and so were the recent defections of parliamentarians and councilor(s) from the BNF. Contemporary Swiss democracy is a substantive negation of elitism as argued by the elite school and practiced by many in liberal democracies.
There is hardly any other country in which the people have such far-reaching rights of co-determination as in Switzerland. Citizens may seek a decision on an amendment they want to make to the Constitution. For such an initiative to be organized, the signatures of 100,000 voters must be collected within 18 months.
Popular initiatives do not originate from the parliament or government but from the citizens themselves. They are therefore regarded as the driving force behind direct democracy. The people are entitled to pronounce on Parliamentary decisions after the event through a plebiscite.
A referendum is compulsory on all amendments to the Constitution and on membership to some international organizations.
This is worth emulating. There is a need for a participatory democracy in Botswana whose political leadership in ethical, not corrupt, transparent, accountable and responsive.
* Dithapelo Keorapetse is Vice President of BCP Youth League.
