SPLM should know by now the high and real danger of having a one-party system
By Lokonyen Aldo, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. APR. 01/2011, SSN; As the people of South Sudan impatiently await the declaration of their newest independent and sovereign state in Africa, rumours are already filling the air that the ruling party, Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), is already working on a bill that will make other Southern political parties impossible to register. The move, it appears, is to limit or to have one party system (SPLM) in the soon-to-be Republic of South Sudan come the 9th of July, 2011. Inspired by the said rumours, the writer has taken a liberty and decided to write this article, illuminating more light on the effectiveness of parliament in a single party system in order for intended readers (South Sudanese) to be informed and probably judge by themselves whether the SPLM’s proposed bill, which aims at deregistering other South Sudan Political Parties, is good or bad for the nascent country, the Republic of South Sudan. PARLIAMENT IN ONE-PARTY SYSTEM Because of the size and complexity of our contemporary societies, however, direct democracy in which every individual citizen participates in major decision-making is no longer easily practicable. What becomes more relevant and applicable is the introduction of what political scientists called representative democracy- whereby the people elect their representatives to a national parliament. In this form of democracy, elected representatives are the ones who make decision on behalf of the electorate. These representatives, therefore, become the ultimate authority from which national, political and other important decisions derive their legitimacy since democratic governments derive their power and authority from the people. Elections and parliament consisting of the people’s representatives is therefore very vital instruments and institutions for democratic politics in our present-day diverse, complex societies. In order for representative democracy to work effectively, it is imperative and important that the representatives of the people be free to debate and make decisions about policy and to legislate all issues brought before them without a feeling of insecurity and fear of interference from other institutions in society. Their decisions must be respected as they represent the views of the people from whom governmental authority is derived. In other words, representative or parliamentary democracy will only function effectively in a situation in which the concept and practices of parliamentary supremacy are upheld and strictly adhered to. In most countries with a single party system, however, parliamentary supremacy is no longer upheld and especially in the conduct of debates and implementation of parliamentary decisions. In a country such as Sudan, especially the government of Southern Sudan, it is very clear that the concept of supremacy of the people’s representatives has been replaced by party supremacy. For instance, as far as the government of Southern Sudan or GOSS is concerned, the ruling party (SPLM) and not parliament is supreme. In other cases this may not be so clearly or explicitly stated but from practice alone, it is clear that it is either the party or the executive arm of the government as represented by the presidency that is supreme or more authoritative than parliament. In this case, the presidency is more often than not behaved as if parliament and other government institutions derived their authority and legitimacy from it rather than the other way round. In addition, the powerful position of the presidency in one-party states and, in some cases, the party, in relation to other government institutions and, especially, parliament, has resulted in parliament becoming less effective and almost irrelevant as a source of authority and legitimacy. As a result, many members of parliament develop apathy and show very little in parliamentary debates as is evidenced by the lifeless and sometimes superficial debates, or the chronic lack of quorum. More so, and in some cases very important national issues that have direct effect upon the life of the nation is not debated by the people’s representatives. In other cases, national parliaments have simply been called upon to rectify decisions or legalize already cooked government’s policies. In some extreme cases, it is no longer permissible for each Member of Parliament to express his/her own personal opinion freely. There is a party line to be followed which is the line often approved by the party’s leaders i.e. the government. This practice raises the important question of how responsible, if at all, these regimes are to the wishes of the people whose interest they claim to base their decisions on. It has been observed that in cases where debate is allowed and encouraged, it is often so channelled as to render it inconsequential in terms of the material aspects of a policy. Thus, it is evident that national assemblies, in countries with one-party system, are no longer effective institutions through which the representatives of the people can freely and popular wishes and demands of the people. This restriction off the freedom of parliament also renders the institution ineffective as an instrument through which possible excess of the executive, the judiciary and other institutions of state can be checked. The division and sharing of power so central to democratic politics is thus rendered meaningless in one-party system mainly by the limitations of parliament powers and privileges. More importantly, parliamentary supremacy and the institution’s role as a source of legitimacy for governmental decisions cannot be restricted or transferred to another organ of society as has been done in many African one-party states, without detracting from the democratic nature of the system. Under such circumstances, however, the people’s right and power to control and limit governmental power and authority are weakened, thus negating the democratic idea of government by popular consent. It is of course true that not all public, group or individual opinions and demands are ignored completely in all single-party system of governance. This would be certainly not be possible given the nature and dynamic of our contemporary societies. The important question, however, is the freedom with which these groups or individual demands and opinions are articulated and the manner in which democratic institutions, where they exist, have been used. Generally, these institutions have been used in Africa by those in power not for ensuring popular participation and mediating between governmental authority and the individual, but more as instruments of control and suppression especially of opinion that contradict government policy. Most people have consequently tended to shy away from using these institutions to express their political opinions and belief and from participating in their own governance. Conclusion Despite the many reasons advanced by proponent of one-party systems of government, experience derived from the manner in which these states have conducted politics, tend to show that issues of democracy were not necessarily what these statesmen were interested in confronting. Rather, they were looking for suitable political institutions and arrangements that would ensure that their control of state power was not threatened by those competing to take over this control. Very few of these leaders have given up power even when it became clear that they had lost their legitimacy and public support (the case of Gadhafi as we speak). Many have been removed by force or died in office. Former Egyptian and Tunisia presidents are the recent best example to cite in this case. Partly as a result of their failure to meet the popular and legitimate demands of the people, the single-party states have not only become insensitive and insecure, but also very oppressive and unresponsive to the demands of the mass of the people whom they claim to rule. They often have tendency to control and limit the rights and freedoms of the people who would want to voluntarily participate in the political life of the nation. For instance, in the last year April election, many members of other Southern Political Parties, including individual candidates were openly denied from campaigning freely; some were brutally harassed, tortured, or killed by the ruling party (SPLM) security agents. In one-party system state, like South Sudan at the moment, institutions is such as parliament are rendered largely ineffective as a source of legitimacy for government decisions. The people, therefore, no longer control and limit governmental authority in one-party system of government in most part of the world, especially African and the Middle Eastern countries. The ongoing political Tsunami seen in Middle East and part of North Africa is enough reason for South Sudanese to discourage introduction of one-party system of governance in the would be the Republic of South Sudan. Contact: [email protected] COMMENTS, PLEASE CLICK HERE Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author(s) and do not represent those of the website. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "JFD info" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/jfdinfo?hl=en.
