There can be a democracy based on consensus, and not competition. It may not be necessary to change leaders every three years, writes Andrew Wutawunashe in his book Dear Africa – The Call of the African Dream that The Patriot is serialising.

A BRIEF look at history will illustrate that Western democracy evolved or was crafted literally through centuries in which its momentum did not only take into account the vote, but also the economic and social welfare and rights of people in nations which had to overcome such systems as the semi-slavery of feudalism and serfdom.
Former institutions such as the monarchy for example were negotiated into forms that would suit the culture and the people. Freedoms and rights in the context of the people’s needs were progressively agreed upon.
When the society had dealt with fundamental issues of access to bread and butter it then in modern times continued its debate to such controversial ‘delicacies’ as legislating the rights of men to marry men and carry government paper to that effect, though they might find it difficult to legislate male pregnancies.
My intention here is not to enter the sexual rights debate, on which I have clear views, but rather to ask, should African nations which have not yet found answers to issues of giving their people rights to be free from poverty and to leave squatter settlements be imitating developed nations who can feed every unemployed person, in spending millions on legislation that men should marry men, just in order to gain the approval of the West?
I read somewhere that the city of Constantinople was overrun by enemies while ecclesiastical elders who were in charge of the city’s defences were locked in debate on the subject “if a fly falls into holy water, what happens: does the fly become holy or the water contaminated”?
Seriously, if other nations panel-beat their own democracies to become relevant to the ethos of their people, so should Africans.
Black political leaders need to sit down and craft a democracy and system of governance that takes into account such critically relevant issues as poverty, tribal and other diversity issues, the culture and way of life of their people, and so on. The British, for example, accommodated their tribal problem by creating tribal parliaments with agreed powers—Welsh, Scottish, Irish even.
An African man wants to raise his head in the council and see his tribe fairly represented, not just a house filled with the cleverest people in the country.
One of the solutions to senseless and bloody political competitions based on dog-eat-dog is to recognise that the deepest theme of African culture is consensus. There can be a democracy based on consensus, and not competition. It may not be necessary to change leaders every three years.
We may need a council made up of delegates from various tribes — and so on.
The issues that cause violence, retribution and refusals to give up power are often based on systems that are in discord with national needs.
I trust we have all noticed how the Chinese are overtaking everyone economically.
A major key to their success is that their kind of democracy brings them all to the place where everyone pursues the same objective.
They do not have a discordant society. They analysed the psyche of their people and based their system on this kind of consensus.
No one clapped for them in approval, but they had the courage to adopt a system born out of themselves and attuned to the character of their people.
Now nations who criticised them are borrowing money from them, and, significantly, are mealy-mouthed when it comes to political commentary on the Chinese.
I put the case that in its present economic state, Africa needs to craft a democratic system based on a consensus which will help them to focus energy on building their economies rather than on burning energy every few years on electoral tribal wars.
An African democracy must be heavily weighted towards securing economic and welfare rights for its people. It must also be focussed on raising the ideological, political, educational and social awareness of its people so that they can genuinely participate in the nation’s affairs.
Having freedom to vote in a nation where you have no idea what is going on is not democracy, no matter how long voting queues are, or what big nation approves of it. One of Africa’s heart-warming stories is the story of the nation of Botswana.
Its wise old Lion King Seretse Khama avoided colonisation by negotiating a protectorate from which emerged a peaceful and free democratic nation in which governments have smoothly changed through the vote.
The current President of Botswana is a remarkable and relatively young descendant of the old Lion King, and answers to a name heavily weighted with African royal legacy — President Lieutenant — General Seretse Khama Ian Khama. Visiting this beautiful nation, I have often seen Ian Khama, often with cabinet ministers in tow, sitting at large village fireside gatherings of his people, listening to their concerns, answering their questions and explaining to them in terms they can understand the resources which the nation and government can make available to them.
I believe this African Prince is demonstrating an essential ingredient which must be added to African democracy to make it meaningful—bringing the issues down to the level where the common people can understand them and thus act as informed judges when they vote. There are approved ‘democracies’ on the continent where the truth is that people are voting blindfolded — with literally not a clue about what they are voting for or about.