Democracy flourishes only when people are informed

Democracy flourishes only when people are informed

By Dr Alex Magaisa

IN THE burgeoning field of corporate governance one of the key features in vogue is the principle of disclosure.

The principle of disclosure is regarded as paramount because it enables stakeholders to receive and act on full and accurate information from the corporate board.

It enables shareholders and other interested groups to have a clear understanding of the company’s affairs and the issues at stake. It gives them an opportunity to critique the claims of the board and therefore helps to hold the directors to account.

More significantly, full disclosure enables shareholders to make informed decisions in relation to the governance and future of the company.

So vital is the rule of disclosure that it is found not only in primary laws but also in key international accounting and auditing rules and is enforced strongly by relevant authorities in most markets. It is the cornerstone of transparency and accountability in corporate organisations.

This article makes reference to this concept of information disclosure in order to illustrate the importance of information in decision-making processes. A person who is entitled to make a decision can only do so meaningfully and effectively if he has access to the information that is relevant for the decision-making. Without accurate information the decision-making process is handicapped and it is not surprising that the results in the long run can often be disappointing. It is because decision-makers learn after they have made decisions in the absence of necessary information. In this context, the lack of an information culture is one of the weakest links in Zimbabwe’s quest for democracy. This has to be nurtured carefully with full participation of the citizens. The obligation to engender the information culture lies at the doors of both the government and the opposition forces.

An election represents the generally accepted decision-making process in any democracy. It is through an election that the citizens choose the political leadership. If the analogy with the corporation above holds true, it makes sense that for an electorate to make informed decisions it must be accorded access to key information by the politicians. Politicians must carry the duty to make full and frank disclosure and be held accountable for the information they disseminate. It could be one of the ways of ensuring that politicians do not manipulate the people by making false promises at election time. Citizens must have an opportunity to contest and critique these claims. It seems that some people cannot appreciate that questioning claims of aspiring leaders is not necessarily a bad thing. It is every citizen’s right to challenge claims made by those who wish to lead. Doing so not only enables citizens to participate fully in the decision-making process but also helps them to keep politicians on their toes.

Much has already been written before about restricted space in the Zimbabwean media-scape. The media often presents the main avenues for communication between politicians and the citizens. The media represents many voices depending on the political persuasion of the owner of a specific media house. The more the media houses there are the better for diversity of information which in turn informs the citizens about the different political choices. Where there is greater choice citizens can pick from the available papers, radio and television channels. The quality of information also tends to improve where media houses are in competition. Politicians also have more choice in respect of avenues to present their views and policies. All this helps the citizens – raising awareness.

In Zimbabwe the government media has traditionally represented the voice of the ruling party. The banning of The Daily News and other newspapers, which often gave space to alternative voices has left the field severely restricted. Save for the weekly private papers and media operating in cyberspace citizens have been restricted to the government-oriented media. Even if people do not like the available media, they end up following it anyway because of the shortage of alternatives and sometimes they even end up believing information which under normal circumstances they would treat with scepticism. With limited avenues for information dissemination it is easy to manipulate what is disclosed to the citizens. Even to the most sceptical citizen, too much of the same eventually becomes normal. Ultimately, judgement of issues and decision-making is based on the basis of limited and manipulated data.

In an environment where traditional avenues for information dissemination are limited, the biggest failing of opposition forces has been the inability to innovate and find alternative means of informing the citizens. Invariably, they have resorted to the medium of the rally – which by and large is one-way traffic, with the politicians talking to the people and the people simply listening and responding to slogans. Rallies have no room for interrogation of ideas presented by the politicians. Rallies have no room for debate or dissenting voices. By their very nature rallies permit only the politicians to make promises to the citizens without giving a chance to the citizens to question those claims. In resorting to the traditional rally without more the opposition is simply replicating the tactics of the ruling party.

Cyberspace has provided alternative avenues for information dissemination. Internet publications and internet-based radio stations have played a part in nurturing discourse. Internet chat-rooms demonstrate vibrant debate though quality could improve beyond name-calling and exchange of obscenities. It is a fairly good beginning. Time must come when citizens can freely air their views without seeking the cover of anonymous tags. Unfortunately the avenues in cyberspace are limited to only those with access to the internet of which the bulk of the voting population in Zimbabwe does not even have access to electricity, let alone a computer. In an event most of those that the opposition targets through the internet are the converted. The newspapers have slightly better reach but the high costs have further restricted the market for information.

A consequence of the tradition of monopolistic control of information by one source has also bred a general attitude of intolerance to divergent views. For so long citizens have known one broadcaster, and a largely dominant state-controlled print media. For so long citizens have been used to listening to only one voice. And that single source has largely opposed diversity. It seems this has bred a mentality even in the opposition that there can only be one voice – the voice of support for political leadership. The idea of any voices that challenge the dominant position is still alien to some people. The idea of robust debate, of interrogating the claims of the popular leadership, of challenging the accepted norms is yet to be accepted by some people. But without the critical debate how do we hold politicians to account? Without challenging the claims of politicians how do we know that they are not repeating the same errors of the past? Indeed how ca we make informed decisions without getting information that we demand not necessarily what they want to tell us?

Perhaps it is important to remind ourselves that the fall of ZANU PF is not of itself a guarantee of the advent of democracy. Whatever party comes after ZANU PF (if it happens at all) will need to be held accountable. There will still be a need for strong opposition because one thing is for sure: the tribe of politicians requires vigilance and scrutiny. However they appear one can only laud and trust them at their own risk. Those who today sing praises of the opposition may well find themselves on the other side – disappointed and seeking new change and they will need space for that. It is that space that citizens must safeguard regardless of their political allegiances.

Democracy flourishes and is sustainable only when people make informed decisions. Information raises awareness and enables citizens’ active participation in the democratic process. But an information culture depends on whether citizens are prepared to remove the shackles of the past and face to the reality that there is never a single answer; that there is not a single correct voice; that debate enriches the process and enable them to make informed choices. Otherwise Zimbabweans will continue to participate in the election process in the way prescribed by the late VP Muzenda – Coaxing voters to vote for a ZANU PF candidate, it has been said that he called on people to vote for whomsoever represented the party, even if the party nominated a baboon as the candidate.

Finally, as I stated at the beginning, market rules the world over are being tightened to make those that run companies more accountable to the stakeholders. It makes shareholders, employees, and the community in which the companies operate more able to hold the directors and management more accountable. It assists shareholders to make more informed choices about the directors they elect to the board. In the same way, for democracy to work more effectively, the electorate needs information on the key issues at stake and the policies that aspiring leaders intend to implement. In a nutshell, more and diverse information enables citizens to participate more fully and effectively in the democratic process. At present, this is the weakest link in Zimbabwe’s quest for a new democratic dispensation. Citizens must be given more information in order to make informed decisions and build a sustainable democracy.

Dr Magaisa is a lawyer and can be contacted at wamagaisa@yahoo.co.uk
JOIN THE DEBATE ON THIS ARTICLE ON THE NEWZIMBABWE.COM FORUMS
debate@newzimbabwe.com