Some thoughts about the Malawi congress party's four cornerstones
A debate on organizational cornerstones: A case of MCP's 4 cornerstones
Guest writer
***Disclaimer: The views are those of the author as an expert in
International Development and do not represent any views of any party or
establishment.
Introduction
There is a tendency to misdiagnose problems when disagreements
appear to chance in an establishment and this misdiagnosis becomes the very
factor that perpetuates the disagreements.
The Malawi Congress Party (MCP) Constitution implies at Article 2 that the organization’s
vision is to realize a successful Malawi based on non-racialism, equality,
human dignity, and freedom, inclusively and has identified other guiding values
(identified as cornerstones) namely, Unity
Loyalty, Obedience and Discipline,
that are necessary for the vision to be achieved.
In the wake of these isolated incidents of disagreements in
respect of the running of the party, few commentators are debating whether it
may be the fundamentals on which the party is built that are generating some of
the problems. This submission provides
arguments to the contrary and goes further to elaborate how those with interest
should consider interpreting those cornerstones to avoid confusion.
Every institution is expressly or implicitly founded on
certain principles, values and fundamentals that in turn determine its future growth trajectory and a realization of
its broader vision. Although none of the
other parties including the DPP and UDF appear to have a publicly available
party constitution, one would opine that if they possess some, they ought to be
based on certain core values identified at foundation or later. A non –partisan view of the MCP cornerstones
should come to the conclusion that the latter are just fine as follows:
Unity:
The MCP identifies Unity as an important cornerstone in order
for it to achieve its broader vision. Unity entails that at all times the
leadership, all the hierarchies of the party, and members, should strive to
have a united purpose and push in the same direction. One would opine that this
is an important value even now in the era of democracy when politics has become
more contentious and many other disruptive external and internal factors are
often at play. An establishment that does not unite towards one purpose cannot
convincingly push towards its long-term vision. A house that is significantly
divided is less stronger than one which is intact. I hence do not see any
reason to believe that striving for unity is the reason for the disagreements.
Of course it should be said that in the course of striving for unity, those who
resist unity and feel that they lose out within the process of reaching a
consensus, may see a genuine effort towards unity as less palatable. Suffice to
say, none of the bigger parties we know of within Europe and Asia or even in
Africa have developed amidst significant disunity.
Loyalty
Loyalty is a broad term with a great deal of positive
elements and it would be incorrect for any person to simply look at its
potentially negative element, which stands as an exception to the general rule and
conclude that loyalty is not supposed to be a core value. Loyalty is about being true to the values of
the party, its structures and overall purpose. As applied within the context of
the MCP it would appear that the word loyalty does not imply an attempt to squeeze
out underserved respect from supporters to leaders. It does not imply that that
a loyal person is the one who will for example be telling the leadership what
the latter wants to hear! If this were the case the MCP would have fallen
already. Being loyal does not imply that members should misinform leadership
and neither does it empower leadership to demand only good counsel from its
members. Being loyal is to act in furtherance of the goals of the institution
without compromising its other aspirations in terms of both the procedure and
the substantive elements of the actions taken.
The argument that some
of the disagreements between party leaders are as a result of this cornerstone
does not appear to have grounding both in theory and practice. An establishment
that is not loyal to its values of human dignity, inclusivity, non-racialism,
and freedom cannot survive long and so, an emphasis on this cornerstone is
important. A request for Loyalty should not be confused with a demand for puppets.
Obedience
The cornerstones are overlapping such that in some ways it’s
impossible to violate one while leaving the other intact. Obedience comes from
obey and its synonyms include abide by, respect, observe, uphold etc. This
cornerstone is obviously needed today even much more than ever before if an
institution is to survive. This does not imply that as a member of the party
one should obey without question, any principle or rule that is provided to
bring into effect any of the core values the party seeks to achieve, rather it
implies the need to be in keeping with principles of legality. Simply put,
members as well as leaders should strive to use party structures, institutions
and policies to contribute to the party’s growth. An institution, conduct or omission that is
inconsistent with the purport, objects and spirit of the party can be
challenged, disciplined etc by the party structures to ensure the party does
not veer away from its long term goals. Obedience is pertinent or else the
institution could be in a state of flux and chaos.
Discipline
Discipline as well as loyalty and obedience overlap in other
areas and I think it is trite to note that discipline is key for the success of
any organization. Discipline speaks of order, systems, procedures, institutions,
remedies, etc that should govern the conduct of a member as well as leaders of
the party. An organization that does not
have guidelines on how to prevent, detect or resolve disputes cannot easily
achieve its goals of growth, efficiency, inter alia. Thus, it would appear that
the emphasis on discipline by the MCP in Article 2 is understandable for it is
not wrong for an institution to emphasize on the need for members and leaders
to behave in a comradely and legally sound manner, just as it is also ok for an
institution to have procedures for ensuring internal discipline.
I should end by stating that none of the great firms, parties
and organizations we know of existed (or
exist) longer without elaborate systems to ensure discipline, unity of purpose,
procedure for obeying laws and being true to values. Thus, perhaps the MCP is ahead of times in
this regard and this may as well explain why it has managed to survive outside
government for well over 23 years.
edited by Greenwell Matchaya
Comments
Post a Comment