The Dominant-Party System: Challenges for South Sudan's Democracy By: Lok Franco Kok, South Sudan
MAY 15/2011, SSN; The implications of a dominant party system for the successful consolidation of democracy, has long been an issue of interest amongst political activists in democracies the world over. In a context in which one party dominates the political landscape and faces little prospect of electoral defeat, then concerns arise surrounding the possibility of declining government response to public opinion. The breadth of the SPLM comes from the party’s long history and evolution as a liberation movement-cum-political party. Having moved in its inception from the middle-class National politics of an educated elite, to the politics of mass protest and urban uprising, the party extended both its ideological influence and moral authority, while its longstanding policy of non-racialism broadened its influence amongst some races during the struggle against apartheid. As a result, its extensive influence, “strong organizational structures, and centralized leadership, have enabled the party to contain the varying viewpoints and policy stances within it in order to retain the cohesion and authority of the party. Democracy that has been regarded, as an ideal form of government for a long time, seemed ignored by South Sudan's ruling party the Sudan people's liberation movement (SPLM). In contrast, we instantly experienced the consequences of unchecked, one-party dominance. Democracy has been defined as a government of the people, by the people, for the people. The greatest good of the greatest number is the fundamental principle of democracy. In a democracy, people have the privilege of being ruled by a government of their own choice. People choose their representatives through elections which are the normal features of democracies all over the world. In 2010 national election, all Sudanese political parties ran the election, thinking that it might be the start of democracy in the region that may change the dictatorship that had withered the Country's history for years. "Winning big in South was thus central to the SPLM's hopes of capturing enough votes in South Sudan to ensure its continued national dominance. Looking into the fact this is a country that had not had a multi-party election for generations... to say it was free and fair, to the best of my knowledge could have no reason to think the contrary. Every contested Political Party always promises to build bridges where there is no river at all, to caught the people's attention as we experienced in last year's election. They always argue that development is imminent as soon as win, and see other developmental projects in the region, the theory went, and get a taste in New Sudan -- where repressive laws would have revoked and human rights could bght were respected, as report of rape, torture and killing of civilians e respected. A national election held halfway through the period would reinforce changes, and southerners have nearly a year between the election and the referendum to experience life under democratic rule. Unfortunately, not even a single human were always viewed in media and no action taken by the government. It, therefore, implies that there should be more than one party in a democratic country. The Sudan people's liberation party (SPLM) that commands the confidence of the majority in the elected legislature of the country should have called upon the opposition parties to form the broad-base national government, where equality in parliamentary seats could prevail. There is no doubt that the ruling SPLM has commanded a legitimate electoral victory. However, surveys of public opinion and voter intentions have suggested that this is not matched by unquestionable voter satisfaction and contentment with the current government, that even opposition parties make little if any dent on the political hegemony of a dominant ruling party. The existence of this scenario is clearly a cause for concern if we concur with the negative view that the dominant party system is inimical to democracy. Much of the debate surrounding the incompatibility of the dominant party system and democracy are centered round the theory that the alternation of power is crucial for democracy. Existence of political opposition within a competitive party system presents alternatives to the governing party and, therefore, stimulates debate within society over ideas and policies; and allows society to question the actions and choices of government. The ongoing debate surrounding South Sudan’s dominant party system has gained increased significance over the nation’s one democratic election. To enable a more informed examination of the South Sudanese context, it briefly cover the results of the 2010 national election. Realistically, the results of the 2010 election were preordained and there was no other probable outcome than that the SPLM won a majority in that election. South Sudan political attitudes given that the 2010 election had been an emotionally charged ‘liberation election, not free and fair democratic election as many believes. Absence of opposition parties virtually means one-party rule or the dictatorship of one party. Democracy, thus, presupposes the existence of opposition parties, weak or strong. The opposition makes the functioning of government truly democratic, since it checks the/ growth of corruption and misuse of power by the party in power. A vigilant opposition party is a sound guarantee against the authoritarian tendencies in the ruling party. Now that the necessity of the opposition for a democratic set up has been proved, we may consider the role of the opposition in a democratic parliament. The opposition functions as a watch-dog of the rights of the people, may therefore defend the right of people and could not exhaust in a way that the ruling party could get a chance to practice whatever they think best. The opposition parties suppose to make a national debate possible on important issues facing the country, rather than concentrating on personal interests. In a democracy the opposition has a certain valuable and constructive role to play which the ruling party should respect. It is now obvious that opposition leaders are the victims of security & military brutality, denying their freedom of political performances. In South Sudan, the opposition parties are considered weak politically and hardly relevant, as they don't freely organize their political activities. We consider that a party in government that does not listen, that does not move and that does not immediately initiate a process of meaningful change in these circumstances is susceptible. However, if all political parties remain determined to cooperate with the ruling party in South Sudan, striving to achieve an open, democratic, inclusive and secular state, the country could be politically stable. The tribal politics that people keep initiating could not bring any change, but much more destruction which I believe will continue for years. In light of the political violence and killings, controversies over the tabulation process, and the overall deterioration of the current political environment, the government gave no response but keep on threatening more violent to oppositions. Unfortunately, political tensions continued to increase, and some members of the opposition are stay seated in the Parliament, even though their right and contribution in nation affairs are not respected. The “rotten apple” theory that some leaders propose as the cause of their demise has usually been nothing more than a self-serving, superficial façade, intended to draw attention away from their own failures. There is only one correct way for leaders to start addressing accountability, determine what obvious ethical problems they have been ignoring, openly acknowledge the problems and begin to resolve them. Without this initial step, the “brass” become hypocrites and the typical society uses those obvious ethical problems, like unfair positional discrimination, to justify continued cynicism or dishonesty. Thus, if we want to prosper or even merely survive as a leaders we are forced to abide by the unwritten rules of internal politics. The frustration of being treated with such disrespect and hypocrisy causes activists to privately discredit the leaders in front of the people. What began as indifference has now grown into a cancer, destroying morale, productivity and dedication. Truly great leaders do much more than merely supervise or administer. They have a reputation and are remembered for their courage to stand steadfast, sometimes at their own demise, for doing what is right and just. They are individuals who have always remained uncompromising with regard to integrity. The beauty of democratic system is that it is self-correcting. The problem is that the corrections meted out by an understandably outraged electorate often push the pendulum too far in the opposite direction. Political favoritism and interference has always been a detriment to law enforcement in South Sudan. Unchecked power pushes parties to excess regardless of which party is in power. It is an inherent part of both human nature and the nature of government. The danger for our country is that with complete one-party dominance, much damage will be done before the next electoral self-correction. The author reside in South Sudan,and reachable through:[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.
