Augustine Ruzindana
3 July 2009
column
In Honduras, a country of about 8 million people in the long isthmus that connects North and South America, President Manuel Zelaya attempted to amend the constitution by means of a referendum in order to extend his term of office. Many in his party and government did not agree with him and so did the armed forces whose commander was thereby dismissed by the President.
So a day before the referendum was held, the armed forces bundled him out of power and sent him to exile. The speaker of parliament, who is from his party, has been sworn in as an interim president until elections are duly held in November. Mr Zelaya has since learnt his lesson and withdrawn his desire for an extended term and is threatening to go back and reclaim his office.
In the Niger Republic, a similar game is being played by President Mamadou Tandja whose second and last term of office was due to end later this year. However, early this year he started preparations for a referendum to be held in August on whether he should be able to lead the country for three more years. This put him at loggerheads with the constitutional court which has declared his intentions unconstitutional, thus prompting him to dissolve the court. Unlike Honduras, the armed forces in Niger have remained neutral and so the president will have his way. In many countries of Africa, this reversal of the democratisation process is becoming a common phenomenon. In some countries it has succeeded and in others, like Malawi, Zambia and Nigeria it has failed. In Namibia, it succeeded for an extension of one term only and in Uganda term limits were removed completely, thus giving the incumbent an opportunity to become the second Ugandan president to aspire for a life presidency.
Why are "direct democracy", referenda, direct primaries and non-partisan elections so popular with leaders who desire extensions beyond their constitutional terms? There is a fallacy that referenda express the will of the people but this is not true as the proportion of the people who actually vote are never the majority. Referenda are in fact usually an instrument of minority rule and usually the rule of a very small minority. A.V.Dicey had the following to say about the French plebiscite (referendum) in the 19th century: "Frenchmen are asked .... In the words most convenient to the statesmen or conspirators who rule Paris to say "Aye" or "No" whether they will not accept a given Constitution as a given policy .... The form and the nature of the question to be submitted to the nation is chosen and settled by the men in power. Rarely indeed, when a plebiscite has been taken, has the voting been free and fair. The plebiscite itself still remains without value, for at the moment the nation was asked to express the national will, France was placed in such a position that it would have been scarcely possible for any sane man to form any wish than to assent to the government's proposals...".
Referenda weaken political parties, thus preparing for populist rule. The Nazi dictatorship had markedly populist features in its constant invocation of the will of the people as its justification and in the "direct" relationship of the people and their leader unmediated by institutions. Daily we see this type of hostility to politics, political parties and representative democracy, replaced by personal rule and direct relationship with the people through such means as hand outs of brown envelopes.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2009 The Monitor. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
That is the same principle that governs the British parliamentary system – a referendum allows the ruling party to get the public’s approval by calling elections periodically to let the people decide whether the current administration’s policy and governance is in tandem with the electorates’ wishes. It keeps the rulers on their toes and fakers out, while maintaining stability if the incumbent is a good one – why change, for change sake. This approach has helped Uganda’s economic growth, tremendously. Unlike Presidential system, which is very rigid - until the 4-year term is wasted, the electorate cannot change a very bad regime like the one Nigeria has today – the hapless Nigerian public is the loser as a result. If the public thinks Tandja is doing such a wonderful job, then they have the right to keep him - it is the public's prerogative, why should the West suppress such mandate That would be Western dictatorship - pretty soon, they will be telling us how to think, what to eat, when to sleep, who our friends should be, etc. Get a grip.