Competence and the quality of our democracy

“ISN’T it odd”, a friend asked recently, “that of all the jobs in the world, the ones that are the most contentious and perhaps the most influential in society are not subject to the same rigorous selection process that all of us go through to get our ordinary jobs. I mean,” he paused, gesturing vigorously in a show of exasperation, before continuing, “anyone can wake up on a good day and decide to stand for an election. And if he belongs to the ‘right’ party he will be an MP the very next day. He might never say a single word during his time in Parliament but he will be the first in the queue to demand his imported 4 x 4 vehicle!”

 

Chris, my friend, was referring to political positions – for example, becoming a Member of Parliament, a government minister, a governor, etc.

 

“But surely, there is no more rigorous selection process than an election, is there?” That was another friend, Sam’s response. In his view, the election procedure is the most effective way to select political leaders.

 

He said in some cases, such as in our own country, getting one of those positions can be a matter of life and death. Naturally, a heated debate ensued.

 

Some were adamant that like all jobs, these positions must have clear criteria and competence levels to facilitate the selection of competent candidates. They thought the quality of democracy inevitably suffers due to the abundance of mediocre decision-makers.

 

The counter-argument was that it is futile to talk of competent representatives if those charged with the selection process lack the competence levels. It depends on whether the voters have the competence to decide on the issues that they are asked to determine. Inevitably, the discussion centred on the current constitution-making process in Zimbabwe.

 

Chris, ever the doubting Thomas, wasn’t quite sure that all Zimbabweans eligible to vote in the proposed constitutional referendum really understand and appreciate what they should be voting on. In other words, he doubts whether the voters, as the decision-makers, have the necessary competence levels to make decisions on the various issues, some of which, in his view are technical and complex.

 

“I did not vote against the constitution,” he said in reference to his ‘No’ vote at the 2000 Constitutional Referendum. “I did not even read it,” he confessed, “What was the problem with it?” he posed the question to no one in particular before bursting into hysterical laughter. “I was just told that it was a bad document but honestly I don’t know! What I do know is that I voted against Zanu PF!” he asserted, emphasising the last bit as if to underline his total displeasure.

 

Others dismissed Chris as being elitist. But most were united on the question as to whether or not we might have been better placed if the majority had adopted that constitution in 2000. Others mumbled that like Chris, they had not actually found time or energy to read the document but had relied on other people’s word.

 

They were not sure if they had the ability to read the complex legal language that “you lawyers use” they said, pointing an accusatory finger at me. Having learned from day one that my breed could never escape the end of all the jokes and jibes, I let it pass.  

 

However, listening to this discussion, I observed that there was great concern over the issue of competence or more precisely, the relationship between democracy and competence. To what extent does competence matter in democratic politics? Do voters have to be competent to make certain decisions and if so, what is this competence and how is it measured?

 

Even if there were some agreement on the meaning of competence, to what extent does the election, a key institution of democracy, enable people to choose competent leaders? Clearly, there are no guarantees. So there are two issues: first the competence of the voters and second, the competence of the chosen representatives.

 

My colleagues were worried about their competence as voters and simultaneously, the competence of those who get elected to properly deal with the issues they face in their jobs. I think this is an old problem, one that has been recognised from the early days. That is why there is a distinction that is drawn sometimes between direct and indirect democracy. This means that some issues can only be decided by the citizens (direct democracy) whereas other issues are delegated to the people’s representatives (indirect).

 

The view is that there are some issues that require greater political knowledge and skill and perhaps more urgency so that they are delegated to elected representatives. The assumption here is that the elected representatives would have the necessary competence to deal with those delegated issues.  But of course, as our discussion showed, this is not always the case. The elected representatives may in fact be no better than the citizens who would have voted for them.

 

The other assumption is that the voters would have the necessary competence to enable them to choose competent representatives. Again, this is not always the case because conditions do not provide sufficient information and knowledge to enable them to have this competence. Not surprisingly, mediocrity reigns supreme and the citizens are disappointed and in worse cases, disillusioned. In this case, democracy becomes a danger to itself.

 

To my mind, the trouble here is with the conditions in which the choices have to be made. I have long been concerned about the conditions that enable a democracy not only to flourish but also to be effective in positively changing the lives of citizens. But I also think that democracy would be severely weakened and its momentum would be diminished if it produced leaders who are not fit for purpose.

 

But of course, I realise that this is dangerous ground. As Chris found out in the discussion, there is always the charge of elitism whenever one talks of competence. I must hasten to add that competence does not necessarily refer to educational ability or qualifications. One may never have stepped into a classroom but would still be a very competent MP whereas one could have a plethora of high-sounding degrees but would be severely limited in terms of the competence levels required of an MP. Education is not the issue.

 

What is an issue is whether our system provides the facility to determine the competence levels of political aspirants. The main and perhaps, only concern is popularity – which is probably why our leaders only tell us what they think we want to hear. They rarely face difficult questions from the citizens. That is why across all parties the favoured medium of interaction is the political rally. There has not been any attempt to introduce a kind of politics.

 

Even the new parties have been built around the same mould of the ruling Zanu PF party. They may be different parties but slowly, citizens begin to observe that they belong to the same species. We have not built-in the mechanisms to test the competence of the potential leaders.

 

There are, however, some good signs which should be encouraged. It is important to improve voter competence through civic education. This I believe is what some civic organisations such as Zimbabwe Election Support Network (ZESN) have been trying to do for years. It’s a pity that the government has not always been receptive, seeing these efforts as partisan in favour of the opposition.

 

Another way is to improve freedom and diversity in the media. The more information there is, the more the citizens have the knowledge and ultimately the competence to make informed decisions. Also, citizens must be able to critically engage with their potential representatives beyond the forum of the popular rally which more often than not is about politicians talking to the people and not people talking to their politicians.

 

The same applies to the current constitution-making process. It is necessary that voters who will be called upon to decide on the final constitution have the knowledge to make an informed decision; that this is not merely about party politics but about creating the supreme and hopefully enduring law of the land.

 

Chris eventually accepted that the right to vote is a universal one regardless of however you judge competence. But he was insistent on the point that more needs to be done to ensure a system that is qualitatively better than we have seen to date.

 

In the end, there seems to have been a general consensus that unless the competence levels – of voters and representatives – are improved, the quality of our democracy will remain weak and disappointing.

 

Alex Magaisa is based at the University of Kent Law School and can be contacted on e-mail: wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk