ZERO PARTY REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY

By

Saidu Sulaiman

Published in 2012

One of the pitfalls of participatory democracy is that the majority has the power to decide what is right or wrong for a society, even if the decision is not based on facts and realities. And whatever they have decided to be done or to be jettisoned is binding on the minority. Thus a democracy based on mass participation with every Tom, Dick and Harry deciding on sensitive issues requiring knowledge, wisdom and experience, could lead to the rule of ignorance and inaptness. A representative democracy where few but knowledgeable, experienced and honest people are made to represent their people in decision making and in the election of leaders and appointment of people into key positions, is certainly better. Nations that suffer from political unrests, inter and intra party squabbles, high cost of conducting elections that still lead to the emergence of corrupt and incapable leaders need to consider the adoption of a zero party system. Under this system, interest groups (religious bodies, women organizations, councils of traditional rulers, etc,) as well as professional bodies such as those of farmers, traders, teachers, manufacturers, lawyers, doctors, engineers, etc, can serve as plat forms under which people can be elected as members of the state assemblies (MSAs) and members of the national assembly (MNAs) . The MSAs will then elect a governor and his deputy from themselves. The functions of the MSAs can include, among others, law making and appointment of commissioners, local government chairmen and supervisory councilors. At the national level, the MNAs are to elect the president and the vice president from themselves.

The functions of the MSAs can include, among others, law making and appointment of ministers and chief judges. The advantages of this system include the eliminations of problems associated with political parties, a drastic reduction in costs of conducting elections, and above all, involvement of capable hands in decision making on behalf of ordinary and nave citizens in running the affairs of government. The disadvantage is mainly in terms of limiting the number of people that directly participate in elections, but mass participation which does not lead to good governance is worthless because democracy is not an end in itself. The end is good governance, human development, tranquility, etc. Democracy in its different forms is just one of the several means of ensuring these. Moreover, it suffices to point out that democracy is not akin to the antimalaria drug that can cure all people once taken; instead, it needs to be fashioned out to suit differences in culture, orientation and value system just as the food people take and the clothes they wear customarily, go along with their culture, orientation and value system, and perform the same function of nourishing and clothing them.