Democracy is a word familiar to most, but it is a concept that is still misunderstood and misused in a time when totalitarian regimes and military dictatorships have attempted to claim popular support by pinning democratic labels upon themselves.
Democracy in Zambia has hardly ever existed from the time the incumbent president took over power in the elections that saw a lot of people vote a change to “democracy”.
Did, or do, the people of Zambia understand the democracy they fought for in 1991? In the dictionary democracy is defined as a “government by the people in that the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral process.”
Democracy in Zambia is represented by way of the citizens electing officials to make political decisions, formulate laws and administer programmes for the public good. These elected officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of the people and are to remain accountable to the electorate for their actions.
All democracies are systems in which citizens are able to freely make political decisions by majority rule. It is important to understand that rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. It would not be a democracy for the majority 51 per cent to oppress the minority 49 per cent. Though this would be a majority rule in order for it to be democratically legit the minority also needs to have an equal say in the process. In a democracy the rights of the minorities are protected because the democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
Unfortunately, in Zambia the “majority” rule undermines the rights of the minority. The Non-Governmental Organizations, for example, are somehow controlled by the government and are accountable to it for actions that seem to be favouring the opposition. Powers of the government are, by law, clearly defined and limited. Private organizations must be free of governmental control. Private organizations are free of government control: on the contrary, many of them lobby the government and seek to hold it accountable for its actions.
Governments are created to protect those freedoms that every individual possesses by virtue of his existence. These include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and conscience, freedom of assembly and the right to equal protection before the law. Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, to which Zambia is a signatory, says that ‘Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.’
People who hold opinions or expressions are labeled anti-government and are in many instances victimized, especially those from the opposition. Freedom of speech and expression is the lifeblood of any democracy. To debate and to vote, to assemble and protest, to ensure justice for all- these all rely upon the unrestricted flow of speech and information. Citizens of a democratic society know that through the unrestricted exchange of ideas and information, truth will win over falsehood, areas of compromise will be clearly defined and the road to progress opened.
Democracy depends upon a literate knowledgeable citizenry whose access to the broadest possible range of information enables them to participate as fully as possible in the public life of their society. Ignorance, as witnessed in the last voters’ registration exercise, breeds nothing but apathy. The lingering danger of voter apathy is not that public offices will go unfilled, but that officeholders will be elected by smaller and smaller percentages of eligible voters.
Should the government remain silent when the news media or other organizations abuse freedom of speech with information that, in the opinion of the majority, is false, repugnant, and irresponsible or simply in bad taste? The answer, by large, is NOTHING. It is not a government’s business to judge such matters. Actually the cure for free speech is more free speech. It may sound like a paradox but in the name of free speech a democracy must sometimes defend the rights of individuals and groups who themselves advocate such non-democratic policies as repressing free speech.
Without the freedom of speech the right to gather and be heard would be devalued. Democratic governments can legitimately regulate the time and place of political rallies and marches to maintain peace, but they cannot use that authority to suppress protest or to prevent dissident groups from making their voices heard.
In Zambia the opposition political parties are mostly denied the right to assemble during rallies or marches. When they assemble, the police are there with a watchful eye. When violence erupts the police are very quick to beat, throw and tear gas cans and sometimes shoot, with live ammunition, at the people in the gathering. It seems that the so-called police service is taught more of violence than the respect for the rule of law and human rights. To suppress peaceful protest in the name of order is to invite repressions; to promote uncontrolled violent protest is to invite anarchy.
The police in many instances act contrary to Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states in part that “All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection before the law…”
Democracies rest upon the principle that government exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the government. In other words, the people are citizens of the democratic state not its subjects. Citizens must be loyal to the government and the government must protect the rights of the citizens. In an authoritarian state, the government demands the people’s loyalty without obligation to serve consent for their actions.
As a principle, the protection of human rights is accepted widely: it is embodied in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of United Nations.
John P. Frank, American constitution law expert, points out that those who administer the criminal justice system hold power with the potential for abuse and tyranny. In the name of the state individuals have been imprisoned, had their property seized, and been detained and tortured, exiled and executed without legal justification—and often without any formal charges ever being brought. No democratic government can tolerate such abuses. The rules and procedures by which the state enforces its laws must be public and explicit, not secret, arbitrary or subject to political manipulation by the state.
None of these restrictions means that the state lacks the necessary power to enforce the law and punish offenders. On the contrary, the criminal justice system in a democratic society will be effective to the degree that its administration is judged by the population to be fair and protective of individual rights, as well as of the public interest.
The rock upon which any democratic government rests is its constitution—the formal statement of its fundamental obligations, limitations, procedures and institutions. The constitution of the country is the supreme law, and all citizens, ministers and peasants alike, are subject to its provisions. At a minimum, the constitution, which is usually codified in a single written document, establishes the authority of the national government provides guarantees for fundamental human rights and sets forth the government’s basic operating procedures. Despite their enduring, monumental qualities, constitutions must be capable of change and adaptation if they are to be more than admirable fossils.
Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. This is because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The consent in a government authority entails the holding of genuine, free and fair elections. Democratic elections are periodic, as the electorate does not vote for presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people and they must return to them at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. Officials in a democracy must accept the risk to be voted out of office. In democratic elections, it is often not to determine which candidate commands the greatest public support, but who can most effectively motivate his or her supporters to convert their opinions into votes.
When elections are over, the losers accept the results as the true judgment of the voters. Opposition parties continue to participate in the public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival, but a competition to serve.
To govern is to communicate. For communication to be effective there must be a free flow of information. The electorate depends upon the newspapers, radios and televisions for information on the candidates. The news media should not be biased in its coverage of political parties. During election campaigns, the media can also take an active role in the public debate. They can campaign for specific policy reforms in editorials or investigative reporting. They can also serve as a forum for private individuals or organizations to express their divergent opinions through letters to the editor.
When the above-mentioned things are clearly defined, then we can happily say that we are on the road to democracy without which we are as bad as an authoritarian state.
(With excerpts from what is democracy? U.S. Department of State)
« return.