We the people shall in due course perfect our electoral democracy: Lessons from North America
By Professor Munyonzwe Hamalengwa
IN MATTERS of democracy, there should be no dancing around. We must be marching towards a more perfect democracy. Democracy is a chaotic canvass but we must be marching ever so vigilantly towards the ideal, which we know very well.
Can we teach North America some aspects of democracy? Yes we can. Can North America teach us any lessons in democracy? Yes it can.
The column today is about lessons. North America can teach Zambia and Africa about democracy. Borrowing the best international practices and transplanting them into our midst is the engine of growth in everything.
My vintage point of writing this article is because of my experience in North America of several decades. I arrived in North America during the presidency of Jimmy Carter in the USA and Pierre Elliot Trudeau in Canada. That was in the 1970s.
In between there were many Presidents in the US and many Prime Ministers in Canada between the time I arrived and then left North America. I lived in both countries during certain periods. I lived in Washington DC during the Ronald Reagan presidency.
After Reagan, there was George Bush Senior, then Bill Clinton, then George Bush Jr, then Barrack Obama. In Canada during my time there were Prime Ministers Trudeau, Joe Clark, again Trudeau, then Brian Mulroney, then John Turner, Harper, John Chretien, and others including the last one Justin Trudeau.
North American countries, WE and Canada are both Federal States with State Governors (US) and Provincial Premiers (Canada) meaning I observed both Federal and State/ provincial governance during my several decades stay there.
I also studied subjects in both countries that lent one more attentive to political activities and practices even before the explosion of internet where information is now easily available. I studied political science, international relations and law.
During my several decades in North America, there were many federal and state/Provincial elections in both countries. Thus, I was at the front seat of absorbing real lessons in real time there. And I could compare with what was happening back home in Zambia and Africa in general.
Zambia and Africa when I left were mired in one-party state dictatorships, military coups, family political dynasties, unlimited corruption, chaotic governance and liberation movements against the remaining vestiges of colonialism and apartheid.
North America presented a zone of peaceful transition in regime change every four years. This does not mean that there were no problems. There were plenty including racial and gender discrimination and there were movements on the ground fighting to level the playing field.
But the thrust of the article today is on elections and transitions to power in North America as compared to Zambia and Africa and the lessons Zambia in particular can learn from North America.
The enduring lessons I learnt that can help Zambia are the following.
- There is no way a person who has lost in the primaries in North America can be imposed over those who won at the primaries, no matter what role or post that person had played or was before the primaries.
At the primaries, ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ have spoken and that speaking is irreversible. If you intend on imposing a person, the negotiations start before the primaries to persuade popular candidates to suspend their participation until the next election cycle. But once the primaries deliver the results, the winner has to be given the nod irreversibly to confront the opposing party.
At the beginning of the primaries involving Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton, many people believed Clinton would scoop the primaries. When she lost, that was the end. She couldn’t be imposed on the people over Obama. She was promised crucial positions in the government and also was promised the party support in the next cycle. She agreed.
Joe Biden who should have followed Barrack Obama was asked to suspend his ambitions until Hillary Clinton had run her race. That is democratic maturity. In the background of all this, Bernie Sanders, a popular candidate was negotiated with to stand down and not confront the establishment  over being overlooked.
He was told he could not win because of his socialist views. Sanders didn’t rebel. Negotiations must take place before the events but after the results of the primaries ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ must govern.
One party state dictatorships were premised on the basis that the first generation leaders fought for democracy and were therefore entitled to rule forever. That is not democracy. Robert Mugabe used to claim that Zimbabwe belonged to him and him alone, just because he led the liberation war.
But look at George Washington in the US and Nelson Mandela in South Africa. Just one term each despite their role in the liberation of their countries. There should be no ownership in politics. There should be no Yoweri Musevenis and Paul Kagames. Politics is not a private company where the owner can cling on to power and rightly so because it is their company. Political parties are not private companies. They are created as public transferable democratic entities.
What happened to Hillary when she lost the primary to Obama at the presidential level, happens at all levels in North America, Federal and State, Members of Congress or Members of Parliament, governor level or premier level, Mayor level, down the ladder to councillor in Canada and the US. You lose the primary, you don’t get imposed. This is a major democratic deficit in Zambia and Africa. You cannot call a country fully democratic which imposes eliminations of winners of primaries. We must learn from North America on this.
- A person who has genuinely lost at the primary and then decides to run as an independent has little regard for ‘WE THE PEOPLE’. Mark my word of ‘genuinely’. This is a qualifier. A person who was unfairly elbowed out could run as an independent to uphold the tenets of democracy. It goes without saying that a person who wins the primaries but is elbowed out has a genuine cause to run as an independent.
But as I said before, if this person was seen as a threat before, negotiations should have been done before the primaries to ensure he is made comfortable not standing. This is hard politics. It is done in North America and most democratic countries. And promises made to these people must be kept. In all constituencies, most old guard who are likely to lose the primaries, are known. It is no secret so negotiations could have been done before the outcomes
In North America, when Hillary lost, she didn’t run as an independent. Joe Biden didn’t run as an independent. Ross Perot ran as an independent in 1991, which split the George Bush Sir vote enabling Bill Clinton to win. Perot ran because he thought George Bush, the favored Republican candidate was incompetent and that he Perot should represent the conservative movement. This was an outlier in American politics.
Independents do not split from major political parties in North America. And this reality goes down the ladder to lower rungs of party politics.
In Zambia, what is the state of independent politicians splitting from their parties because they were not chosen as party leaders or representatives of constituencies? They form their own political parties or run as independents. I have given examples of when it is justified to run as an independent.
- Youths are promised a lot in modern politics. But if youths are elbowed out even when they win the primaries, when will their time come since the elders claim entitlement to continued presence? This is a major deficit which ‘WE THE PEOPLE’ must address and confront in the quest for a more perfect democracy. These same Youth when their turn comes, will feel in turn entitled to rule until death. We cannot allow that.
Prof Munyonzwe Hamalengwa is the Dean of the School of Law at Zambian Open University in Lusaka.Â
