Home | Feature | EXTREMISM IN A MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY A BETTER OPTION

EXTREMISM IN A MULTIPARTY DEMOCRACY A BETTER OPTION

Font size: Decrease font Enlarge font

IN recent times any hint of robust debate, indeed divergent views, in the Parliament of this Kingdom of eSwatini has easily been shot down and likened to the chaotic and less than civil behaviour of lawmakers from the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) in neighbouring South Africa’s Parliament.

As can be expected from pockets of a long captured and politically anaesthetized Swazi nation, the conduct and unconventional behaviour of EFF Members of Parliament have given them ammunition to shoot down multiparty democracy as chaotic, destructive, divisive and unmanageable. In turn, they would rather live with the obtaining Tinkhundla political dispensation with all its concomitant socio-economic and political garbage and all the inherent destructive sub-cultures feeding on these.


In the midst of it all, while reflecting on these matters, I could not help but pose this question to myself; Is it better for one to die in their sleep or while awake? On the surface, this very innocent question is easy to answer yet, upon deep reflection, it is not necessarily so.
The initial but impulsive answer to this question is, of course, that embracing death while one is in slumber land is a far better option. The rationale being that it is far more peaceful than if death comes while one is awake and in all their senses. This line of reasoning might lead us to another question and another and another but the base one being how conclusive anyone can attest that dying in one’s sleep is peaceful.


The point is the end is still the same whether death, the finality of it all, comes in one’s sleep or while awake. While that may well be, the circumstances and causal factors may vary. Far from the popular belief that dying in one’s sleep is more peaceful, it seems to me that this is the cruellest way to depart earth. Depending on a number of factors, there may be fewer or no interventions that can be mounted if and when life-threatening situations come while one is sleeping. Conversely, similar life-threatening situations can be wadded off with interventions, including resuscitations, coma-inducing drugs and other medications, life-support machines, etc, should they occur while one is awake.


As I see it, if the two scenarios illustrated above were to be transposed to the political realm, death coming in one’s sleep would represent a political system that is far from being democratic and, therefore, a hopeless situation since political power invariably does not reside with the people in an undemocratic environment. Consequently, death coming while one is awake would represent a democratic dispensation with checks and balances as well as strong institutions not to speak of a discerning and vigilant citizenry and, by progression, represents hope. 


So, if you ask me what is better between extremism in an open democracy, such as that represented by multiparty democracy, and in a dictatorship, I would readily vote for the former. Thus if the EFF’s conduct in Parliament represents and is the face of democratic extremism, it is by far a better option than a well-behaved and quietly conformist Legislature starved of debate and ideas in a dictatorship whose extremism often includes absence of the rule of law, arbitrary persecutions of dissenters, mismanagement and looting of the fiscus, institutional corruption, nepotism, cronyism, moral decay, the list is infinite.  


As I see it, to contextualize the behaviour and conduct of the EFF lawmakers we need to juxtapose this to the conduct of President Jacob Zuma other than rubbishing multiparty democracy. Coincidentally, Zuma can be credited for the rise of the EFF after he fell out with its commander-in-chief Julius Malema who had earlier championed the former’s ascendancy to the presidency of the governing African National Congress (ANC) and, by extension, the country. In fact was it not for strong democratic institutions created by a democratic constitution and vigilance from a discerning public, Zuma, like a majority of post-colonial leaders before him, would not have been brought to account for his abuse of office.


Yes, post-colonial African leaders collapsed their national economies by stealing from their treasuries what they believed was their entitlements in the misguided and vain belief that their publics owed them for liberating their nations. Calling on leaders to account for their abuses of office should not and does not necessarily equate to disrespecting them. As I see it, extremism in a multiparty democracy is by far more productive in instilling transparency and accountability than the ruinous extremism of dictatorships, which is responsible for reducing Africa into a basket case, notwithstanding the fact that the continent is home to the world’s natural resources wealth.

Comments (0 posted):

Post your comment comment

Please enter the code you see in the image: