Principles of Engagement for a Successful Alliance Formation: An academic opinion
Greenwell
Matchaya, PhD
Firstly, this article is not
meant to discourage or encourage any political party anywhere to go into, or
withdraw from any political formation, alliance, party or grouping, rather, it
seeks to contribute to the thought process on political formations in general.
The article is academic in nature, and some of the principles are vicarious
knowledge from fields of economics and law. Secondly, the author does not claim that this
is the only way of thinking on this issue, but rather considers this as a
possible point of debate.
Having dealt with the context,
it is worth noting that while there are some advances in areas of civil
liberties, it is common cause that Malawi continues to grapple with untold
poverty characterized by many a person unable to fend for himself, widespread
starvation, malnourishment, economic stagnation, depressive interest rates, and
lamentable low incomes per person, among others. Of course there are efforts to
resolve these issues by a multiplicity of stakeholders (government, political
parties, civil society, private sector and development partners), but a win is
not in sight yet. At the heart of this untold socio-economic misfortune are a
series of factors that may not be thoroughly dealt with in a single article,
but these can be grouped largely into policy factors, political and
implementation factors. A country with a splendid collection of policies is
unlikely to superbly push back the frontiers of poverty if the political
environment is disruptive or unsupportive nor would success chance in the midst
of vociferous constraints in respect of implementation capacities.
Thus, it is trite to reconcile
to the fact that politics and the manner in which it is organized, the systems
of organization across the three branches of government, inter alia are all determinantal to both the short run and
long-term socio-economic development of a nation. Those who hold the view that
socio-economic development is perpendicular to political organization and
governance omit an important element and are likely to prescribe the wrong
solutions out of the economic misery in which we are.
This article does not seek to
attribute any of the misery Malawi is in to any one person or political
institution, but to highlight some elements that may be useful for deciding on
political alliance formation. The goal is thus not to benefit any one side
(ruling party or opposition parties), but to provide a public opinion that may
be used by anyone at will in their drive to forge successful partnerships of a
political nature. A discussion on the other factors of economic growth, for
example, implementation capacity challenges, and policies, will be tackled in
future issues.
In a contentious political
environment in which we are, it is still possible for any one of the parties to
win alone (if there is no rigging by any other party), by getting a simple
highest percentage of the votes than any of the other parties. For example, the
DPP and the UDF have been winning without alliances since 1994. The implication
is that the winning percentages have mostly been less than 40% with the exception
of 2009, which also means we have always been ruled by minority governments
since 1994! This is an obiter, albeit a necessary one.
For success, alliance negotiations
should be in good faith, they should
be driven by morality and should be fact based, and while wishes egos are
likely to influence parts of such negotiations, egos must, overall, be
irrelevant. Discussions in this pursuit should strive for genuine consensus, and principles of lawfulness cannot be dispensed
with.
Genuine consensus
For a genuine consensus to be
achieved, it is important that the goals of the alliance be elaborated in clear
terms. The role of every party to the negotiations both now and in the future
government need to be clarified as part of the negotiations, while mechanisms
for monitoring adherence to the agreed terms as well as sanctions for
non-cooperation need to be worked out participatively. In the event of
multi-party negotiations, it should be acceptable for any party to enter
reservations on any of the clauses that are not material for the alliance, in
order to ensure coherence of the alliance. The tenor of these discussions
should be such that they are open among partners.
Alliance talks that do not
disclose material aspects of what will constitute the future government (power
sharing), or talks that gloss over responsibilities in the run-up to the
elections are likely to lead to shaky alliances that may fail to achieve the
intended goals.
Good faith
Alliance talks should be based
on good faith, to the extent that there is not too much that the law can do to
regulate them. For instance if any party (ruling or opposition) seeks an
alliance with any of the other parties in order for it to be sure of an easy
win, its discussions with partners must be in good faith. There is no good
faith if one party for example engages in a discussion simply to delay the other
rather than to seek a genuine partnership. Equally, there is no good faith
where blackmail characterises the talks. If elements of bad faith are detected,
it is unlikely a strong alliance would emerge.
Fact Based/objectivity
Alliances seek to win
elections (I hope) and must hence use facts to organize. There is no point in
organizing an alliance that faces too high (close to 1) a probability of a loss.
For example, an alliance that, by all measure will account for 10% of the total
vote is likely futile even in a first past-the-post system as we have in
Malawi. Such an alliance should only be cobbled if the goal is not a
presidential win per se.
On this point, a discussion
lacks a factual basis and is driven by empty ego if a party known to
historically hold a small share of votes than another, and has not done
anything to change the status quo, insists on leading the future alliance over
a member who is comparatively larger. Historical and contemporaneous facts must
be availed to support any party’s claims in those discussion rooms.
Based on boni-mores of society and lawfulness
A partnership discussion is
immoral if it hinges on blackmail and manufactured figures. It is also illegal
if it seeks to employ unlawful means to achieve its goals. Unlawfulness does
not include a case where parties agree that they will reorganize government
upon a win, in such a way that new layers of government will be introduced. For
instance, it is not wrong for parties to negotiations to explore possibilities
of changing a constitution to allow for a Prime Minister post in order to
benefit their alliance. What we need is a stable government and if one party
can end up having a President and Vice President, and the other party ends up
controlling prime minister post etc as the agreement may dictate, it would not
be illegal, so long such future changes are procedural.
Performance possibility and certainty
In alliance negotiations it is
important to ensure parties do not set up each other for failure. If the
assumption for allowing in a party in an alliance is that it would play some
role which in practice is impossible, the alliance is dynamically shaky.
Similarly, alliance talks that don’t pin down the procedural and substantive
elements of the alliance formation, are shaky and can betray the formation of a
workable alliance as suspicion may creep in.
Prescribed formalities
Although this may look
trivial, if alliance partners have prescribed the manner/formalities for
accepting membership (eg signatures, ratification, accession etc) and these are
not properly followed by some members, other members may view that as a sign
that the future alliance will be problematic. It is thus useful if applicable,
to follow prescribed formalities.
Two
Warnings:
1. It is also this time of
potential alliances formations when too much propaganda from within party fault
lines, outside parties etc emerges to help shape alliances in favour of interest
groups. Resilient leaders will not lose good judgement, objectivity and
integrity in this pursuit but will remain true to purpose and will pursue
excellence as a virtue with honour and triumph. Do not succumb to blackmail,
fake populism, and hearsay. Make decisions based on factual information, not
emotions, nor duress, seduction, fraud, or blackmail.
2. It is often the case that
when an election nears those around and far from leaders start jostling significantly
for positions in anticipation of the future win. Inevitably gate-keeping flourishes. Gate keeping
if done by those with bon fide intention and have the necessary intellectual
rigour to drive an agenda may be useful, but where gate keepers are limited in
intellect, it can be fatal to triumph. Successful alliances can fail to form
and unsuccessful one may emerge leading to perpetual failure. Thus, success in
these gate-keeping cases will ensue if the leaders are able to emerge above the
traps created by those who surround them and think with a multiplicity of
perspectives.
Finally I must say that regardless
of which formation will triumph (whether ruling party and opposition party or
opposition parties together or whether no alliances will form), it is important
that we have peaceful elections. There is potential strength in alliances both
for the ruling party and the opposition parties, as much as it is also possible
to win without an alliance. Wishing all of the parties the best of luck, as we
get closer to that time when parties present nomination papers to the Malawi
Electoral Commission.
Disclaimer:
The views herein are those of the author
and have nothing to do with any other person, or third party with whom the author
may have contacts with in one way or another. The intended purpose is to feed
the public with intellectual thought indiscriminately.
Leave
any feedback here or send to: greenwellmatchaya@yahoo.com
Comments
Post a Comment