Quite often mankind hurries to find fault with almost anything. Seldom do we
endeavor to provide constructive, viable and meaningful suggestions to turn
those faults into good values. The world is simply full of problems,
problems that range from personal to collective. What it is devoid of is the
abundance of our creative potentials to finding solutions to its myriad
problems. At times, and at worst, we will ignore them as if they do not
exist. When we don't, we will stop at by mentioning them or merely condemn
those who ignorantly or innocently fall in our classification of doing
wrong.
This piece is a humble and limited break with such a culture. Taking one
specific problem: How the led/ruled can relate with the
leader/ruler?,towards the mutual benefit of both, I attempt to construct an
ideal political society in which everyone is protected by everyone and most
importantly, where all unselfishly contribute towards the development of all
- the commonweal. The article works towards an alternative political
configuration and a wider political responsibility. This is as a result of
the unsuitability of the present systems of political arrangement in most
societies, predominantly Africa, based on polarization on so-called party
lines, which I am convince of.
A significant dose of history will help set the pace of analysis. At a macro
level or on the international stage, politics over the centuries have been
through three basic forms. First, a WORLD IMPERIAL SYSTEM, where one
government is dominant over most of the world with which it has contact
with. Second, a FEUDAL SYSTEM, in which an individual had obligations to a
local Lord and/or might even owe duties to some distant Noble. Third, is an
ANARCHIC SYSTEM OF STATES, the most recent one, which composed of states
that are relatively cohesive but with no higher government above them.
Comparing this to the micro level or to what seem to have happened on the
domestic stage, politics has at least gone through the first and second
stages of political interaction, as had on the international stage. No
domestic society has had sustained an anarchic system for long as yet with
no higher government, although, as a result of civil wars in certain
societies, total or pertial break down of institutions of government had
occurred. What evidently had occurred in almost all societies at one time or
the other, is that, a collection of people had complete dominance over other
people brough about by various means. The other reality has been loyality of
some people to other people or institutions. It is this latter relationship
that is of significance to the modern society. It is about the relationship
between the people and the state. About how responsible should the state be
to the people, vice versa. About what duties should the state have to the
people and what rights should the people have in dealing with the state,
vice versa. Sanctioning the degree and the level at which each of these
responsibilities and obligations can be administered is debatable. What is
of relevance however for the nonce is scrutiny of how public instruments can
be enforced. Public instruments could only be counter-productive if they are
issued to enforce a certain way of behavior, unless supplemented by
benefit-sharing principles. For example, why should I be obliged to observe
others' rights if mine are not observed by them? Why should one care for
others viewpoint, if one's own is ignored? This is about reciprocity and is
indeed a formidable dilemma.
In essence however, how can everyone be a meaningful and active player
towards shooting up a society to higher heights of advancement? In my ideal
society, I provide the answer by showing how the state, categorized as the
ruling government, in relation with the people, as the opposition, can
function mutually beneficially. Simlistically, a ruling government, amongst
other things, is seen to be responsible for the general welfare of the
people, and the opposition, apart from serving as an alternative government,
functions as a check on the ruling government to keep on track of its
responsibilities. My ideal society certainly incorprates all these salient
features. What may distinguish it from other societies is the emphasis on
how the opposition should function, as an added responsibility. The
opposition in my ideal society therefore will not merely be a tool as an
alternative government or a watchdog, but also for the following:
1) Be seen to be involved in investing and running schools
2) Be seen to be involved in investing and managing hospitals - general
health services
3) Be seen in owning business enterprises that can generate employment
opportunities
It will be about a shift in prioritization and this ideal society, as it may
be true of many other societies, finds itself young, inexperience and
unsophisticated to entertain unstructured and frequent changes of order or
government. What it would desire is to keep one, until such a time
otherwise, with improvisation whilst all people work towards its
development. That is about a long-term plan. Can such an arrangement work
for the Gambia or any other society? Certainly yes. Assuming that the
opposition keeps its traditional role and goes further, of course with the
help those who bankroll it, to provide services such as owning companies,
running hospitals and running schools, then it would have put to reality its
good wishes for the people for which it wants to put itself in government in
the first place. Imagine, if the energy, resources and the potentials
invested in campaigning in preparation for a single day event, is redirected
towards providing for what the people basically need, then in 10-20 years,
we would have had produced many educated people, healthy and strong people,
and self-sustaining people, enough to catapult every member of society to
high social status. That situation where the government's role will be
minimized to providing security mostly. Every one becomes independent. The
simple fact … that mankind must first of all eat, drink, and have shelter
and clothing, before it can pursue politics, science, arts, etc.; that
therefore the production of the immediate material means of subsistence and
consequently the degree of economic development attained by a given people
or during a given epoch form the foundation upon which the state
institutions, the legal conceptions, art, etc., of the people have been
evolved…. (Katz, 1989). Can the opposition focus on such issues? Sure they
can. Can they do it? Why no. The modalities is left to speculation.
So, what happens when people in a society each owns himself/herself and
refuses to be a tool of manipulation? Could such a situation generate a
version of an anarchic system at the international stage on the domestic
scene? Far from it. Would it creat a state within a state? No. It could only
help to garner peoples' energies and talents towards their ultimate
development. A period when we shall not worry why and how the few elites in
our midst manipulate our sentiments for their own ends, as every one would
have been an elite. This is good for stability, peace and security and for
politics in general, thus the term "Political Populism" (my own coinage).
Think about it.
Blessings
Alieu
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe/subscribe or view archives of postings, go to the Gambia-L
Web interface at: http://maelstrom.stjohns.edu/archives/gambia-l.html
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
|
