Two fundamental principles of democracy president Kiir and co need to conceptualise: majority rules and electoral mandate

Since the beginning of the ongoing crisis in the RSS, on the 15 Dec 2013, electoral mandate and legitimacy as implied by the principle of majority rules has been used, not only to condemn the so called coup that was alleged to have taken place on the15 of December in Juba (and I agree with this condemnation if coup had indeed taken place, the problem is the government of the RSS couldn’t proof coup), but also to advance bad policies and misdirect the public about what really constitute democracy.

I’m making evaluation of the principle of majority rules and legitimacy of the government based on electoral mandate based on the following arguments:

“This is a legitimate government whose president was democratically elected by 98% by the country’s population,” Dr.Marial Benjamin Bil

“In the meeting of National Liberation Council (NLC), those ones of Dr.Riek want the voting by secret ballots, we want the show of hands so the matter was put to voting and Dr.Riek and his group were defeated democratically; the majority supported the show of hand,” Telar Ring Deng

Yes, there is nothing wrong with these arguments when you consider them in the simplistic mechanic of acquisition of power and its exercise, but if you consider the purpose and the spirit in which these so called “legitimate powers and process” are being exercised; if you conceptualized the overall mechanic and purpose of democratic power the flaws in the argument above become clear.

The simplistic interpretation comes from the definition of majority rules, which is that………a principle by which a numerical majority of an organized group holds the power binding on the rest; there are other definitions including that a greater number should exercise greater power.

This definition can be understood to imply legitimacy to govern, but if one considers the purpose and objective of democratic power it become clear that electoral mandate obtained through a majority votes doesn’t in itself grant legitimacy; legitimacy encompasses something more than this. It encompasses conceptualising the honest use of power for the greater good of all; the legitimacy of a democratic government comes from the fact that it’s a power that is designed to revolve around the governed, and so to be legitimate those in power need to conceptualize the democratic vision of “people’s power”.

Legitimacy of an elected government comes from it continuous commitment to the principle of good governance, and the honest spirit of public services for the greater good of the society/communities; government should just make good of it fundamental existent by protecting it citizens, providing basic social services and economic opportunities; electoral mandate implied by a majority of votes isn’t enough. Actually, the mandate to government is based on the people’s expectations for their government to perform its basic duties, and any government that doesn’t achieve this will have lost it legitimacy.

Electoral mandate as granted by a majority of votes shouldn’t be used to validate legitimacy of incumbent power to govern recklessly, and use power given to him by those he governs abusively: there is nothing legitimate about giving amnesty to 75 thieves, is it? The suggested mandate is meant to govern in the interest of all by advancing particular issues based on merits. The recent attempt by the government of the RSS requiring foreign companies to priorities employment for South Sudanese citizen is such example of merits, but sadly I can’t find any further accolades in favour of Kiir’s government.

Electoral mandate shouldn’t undermine societal moral consciousness, and the moral consciousness is you don’t use democratically obtained power abusively; you can’t use democratic process to validate a non-democratic agenda. For example, voting might have been used as a democratic process to defeat Dr.Riek and his group, but the agenda was to remove a threat of political competition and to give president Kiir unfair advantage over his rivals.

Numbers might have been obtained, for example, to support the idea of voting using the show of hand, but was this process fair? Was the motive sound and proper? Was it fair to identify, openly how people will have voted by the show of hand? What do you think was the objective of allotting the president, to personally handpick, 5% of people who will participate in the election of the chairperson, in which he was one the runners, of the SPLM?…………Give my Arsene Wenger the right to pick the referee to officiate when Gunners are playing their harsh rival, ManUted, and you will see how much noise will be out there, not to say the least, that if you give them 2 goals advantage, (event in their horrible current form) the game will be done and dusted.

If the democratic process detracts from the very goal of democracy, then something is indeed illegitimate about it; good governance is the primary objective of democratic governance, and the principle of majority in itself is not legitimate if it doesn’t facilitate this. When you use power of numbers, in the principle of majority rules, to inappropriately advance bad and oppressive policies then you are, in essence, illegitimate.

For example, does100% voting for the current national security legislation change it oppressive nature, and the spirit in which it’s designed: to target political dissidents? Can you tell me what is legitimate about this legislation????

Hell! I don’t think so.

The whole exercise and process of voting in NLC was just designed to grantee outcome for president Kiir! No secret about this.

The irony here is the principle implied in the idea of majority rules is fairness; that the fairest way to make collective decision in a society is by a simple majority.It’s up to you to reach your own conclusion as to whether the National Liberation Council (NLC) had conducted and constituted its internal affairs, which we know precipitated into the current violence, fairly and justly.

For me, I don’t think so.

There is nothing fairer about deliberately designing electoral process to systematically exclude certain group or faction or to make them less competitive: if this group is ambitious enough, and they knew that they had the opportunity to win through a fair and free election then deliberately stifling this fair process is just a recipe for violence.

This point should not be difficult to understand because the main reason democratic societies are less violence is people are given fair opportunity to voice their concern without repercussions or retribution, whatsoever; civic participations and the opportunity to express oneself give hope that one will use the power of argument to change things one day, remove this and the only viable opportunity to change things become violence, therefore it’s not surprising that dictatorial societies are the one characterized by violence because people have got no opportunity to change things by other peaceful mean except violence.

In effect, what constitute a legitimate government is summarized in the famous quote of an American president, Abraham Lincon, about democratic government, that it’s government of the people, by the people and for the people. The elements in Lincoh’s definition can be understood and broken down as follows:

· Of the people-that the government is constituted by them, by choosing their representatives in election, people then determine how they should be governed; they authorized those who govern to make decision on their behave;

· By the people-mean that those who are authorised to govern will do good by those whom they govern;

· And for the people-mean that those who have been authorized to govern should serve the interest of those whom they governed, and are accountable to them.

The important of this definition is that, while electoral mandate is the initial source of legitimacy to government because of the principles of majority rules,continuously serving the interest of electorates and doing good by them constitute the fundamental sources of legitimacy to govern.

To ensure that those who are elected govern in the interest of their electorate, and do good by them, it is necessary they are held accountable.

It’s important to understand that electoral mandate by majority of votes doesn’t, in itself, grantee that those who govern through that mandate will do good by those whom they govern; it’s unfortunate that majority of us think this is the case.

Mandating president Kiir with 98% of our votes doesn’t mean that he will do good by us,and serve our interest.

History has significant records of instances in which the ballot actually facilitated the rise of dictators, and horribly oppressive leaders: Hitler’s party, initially, rose to power through the vote, not by bullet. The rise of dictators and oppressive leaders through the ballot box is particularly true and easy in sentimentally heterogeneous societies, for example it’s pretty easy for a bad leader (dictator) to meet the criteria of majority rules by appealing to larger tribes in a sentimentally charged and divided society.

To illustrate this point, Slobodan Milosevic rises to power in the former Yugoslavia is such example of extremists using ethnic mobilization to achieve majority rules in order to advance sinisterly damaging political objectives which affect the society at large.

Can you now see why commanding the majority of votes isn’t the best way to determine the so-called legitimate government?

Dictatorship can be legitimized through ballot box; therefore it is necessary to have a politically open and competitive space to provide strong basis for rigorous accountability required to prevent a legitimately elected government from becoming a dictator.

It’s important to appreciate that the punitively damaging effects and oppressive nature of a dictatorship remain fundamentally painful and destructive to the society regardless of whether a dictatorship seize power by ballot or bullet.

In a nutshell, while the principle of majority rules is a source of initial legitimacy of authority to govern, it’s a mere criteria to fairly decide how seats are won and translated into capacity to govern, however, legitimacy is a continuous ability to government with trust from the governed. When those who govern abuse this trust, they lost the fundamental source of legitimacy to govern.

While people election of their representative is a fundamental democratic process of people deciding who should lead them, we should be vigilant that this very important democratic process has, historically, facilitated the rise of dictators, and extremists; political competition should be promoted to prevent the rise of such extremists with absolute power in their disposal which they might use to destroy the society.