The debate on the role and importance of the doctrine of inner-party democracy in the consolidation of unity within the leadership and rank-and-file of any party has reared its head in Namibian politics as a result of spontaneous or calculated events in the country.
The debate, though not at the degree and scale it ought to be, is receiving some recognition and attention. This debate is necessary and should be encouraged and strengthened for the simple reason that inner party democracy is the glue that holds together any party and oils its cohesion. The major prescriptions of inner-party democracy include transparency, accountability, the inclusion of divergent views and opinions and strengthening collective decision-making.
We are privileged to have witnessed countries rising and others falling as a result of the successes and/or failure of their inner-party democratic processes. The political process of making and running a government can be democratic only when the parties that govern are sufficiently democratic internally.
The history of some countries provide us with evidence that some parties and leaders attained political power through democratic systems, but exercised that power in an authoritarian and totalitarian manner, that adversely affected the development of democracy. This happens when there is a lack of commitment to the fundamental democratic principles, especially within their own parties. Such a situation creates a political culture of authoritarianism.
Democracy is not just about periodically electing a party of government leaders. It is a set of social norms that govern the conduct and behaviour of the party leadership and its rank-and-file. Its fundamental principles, methods and ideals must be practiced, without exception, in all aspects of social and public life. This will contribute to the democratisation of society, state and public institutions.
In a democracy, political parties are the chief agents and practitioners of such principles and methods. Training and socialisation in democratic political culture for party members is therefore essential.
Political parties are the primary structure and forum for fostering political will among citizens and for mobilisation of their political actions. The process of the formation of political will and carrying out of political action in a democracy must be sufficiently democratic. It is also true that democracy does not function automatically, nor do the principles and ideals enshrined in the constitutions and documents of political parties come into action spontaneously. Democracy and constitutions only offer us the frameworks; everything else depends on overall competence of citizens and political parties and their commitment to the set rules.
Inner-party democracy is essentially the lifeblood of any political party, as opposed to democratic centralism. The development of inner-party democracy is important in not squelching different opinions within a party. As long as members are not opposed to the fundamental line of the party, do not engage in plots of splitting the party or factionalism, then different opinions may add value to the agreed principles, programmes and actions of the party.
The ideology and policy of the party must be formed through the informed and qualitative participation of the majority of its members rather than by a clique. They should be formulated by direct participation of all members in a transparent manner. Decisions on policies must be taken through the process of wider discussion among members.
The doctrine of collective responsibility provides that every member who participates (or is supposed to participate) in a decision-making group is equally responsible for the consequences of the decisions taken; should fully support and abide by the group’s decisions – whether or not he/she participated in the decision-making process or opposed the decision at the time; or otherwise should resign from the group.
If a member of the group, who initially opposed the collective decision does not resign, but instead challenges that decision in public, then the group may dismiss such a member from its group. An example of this took place in 1993 when Anton von Wietershein resigned (or was fired as is popularly believed) from his cabinet position for publicly disagreeing with a collective cabinet decision.
Collective responsibility is a cornerstone of any institution’s cohesion. It rests on three main pillars: unanimity, confidentiality, and the confidence of the institution (central committee of the party). Party central committees are intensely collective forums, where members discuss policy, consider options and jointly take responsibility for the decisions they make.
Conventionally, once a decision is made at this level, all members must support and defend that decision in public, whether or not the members were present or not. These discussions are essentially confidential, as the convention of confidentiality enables members to engage in frank and robust policy debates without being constrained – until a decision is reached and agreed.
Collectivity is fundamental to the existence of any political party. Not only is disunity unpopular with the public, it visibly and publicly depicts a politically vulnerable institution. The party stands or falls by whether or not it holds the confidence of its members.
* Dr Charles Mubita holds a PhD in International Relations from the University of Southern California.