Consensus is very important to ensuring that democracy can function in diverse societies. Good governance requires that all major social and political actors are able to communicate, cooperate and reach understanding. This involves respecting different perspectives and identities and respect for their civil and political rights. Groups should try to reach consensus on what is in the best interest of the entire country (the “common good”).
Majority rule and elections themselves can cause conflicts. Many conflicts have been generated by fears and uncertainties surrounding elections. The electoral system reflects and affects the balance between majoritarian and consensus based politics in a country. This in turn affects the types of political parties that develop, and thus their ability to cut across lines of conflict, and the chances of elections generating stable and inclusive governing coalitions.
Political parties play a key role in building consensus because they are able to peacefully represent different political interests and views in their policies and decisions in government. Political party dialogue often provides an essential path to achieve consensus on critical development and democracy issues.
For example, in the aftermath of Kenya’s 2007–08 election-related violence, political parties lead the national dialogue that resulted in a new constitution and the transformation of key institutions such as the Electoral Commission. After the 2013 elections, sustaining this political party dialogue was crucial to ensure that the causes of political and social conflict were discussed openly and addressed adequately.
When parties engage in constructive dialogue this allows them to reconcile the diverse positions of their supports in order to achieve a common ground in government. On the other hand, inter-party dialogue inside and outside of parliaments can deal with disagreements in organized and regular ways, so that the interests of those that are not in power can still be considered and represented in government.
Some examples of specific measures that political parties can advocate for to promote consensus-oriented governance include:
• Strengthen institutions that facilitate dialogue between social and political groups.
For example, institutional dialogue such as national conferences have been used in parts of Africa. These were convened by the political authorities in Benin, Ghana, Kenya and Mali as devices to bring on board additional representatives of groups to join the ruling party in deliberations on constitutional change towards democracy.
• Consider power-sharing arrangements in political institutions.
For example, in Mauritius, the main party in the coalition will receive the post of prime minister and the leader of the second-largest party will be entitled to the post of deputy prime minister. Partners are accommodated in order to avoid their withdrawal from government and a subsequent vote of no-confidence, which might lead to the collapse of the coalition government and the formation of a new one or the calling of an early election.
Examples of Consensus-oriented Governance as an Aspect of Good Governance
In Malaysia, the country’s majoritarian electoral system regularly produced a legislative majority for the ethnically based United Malays National Organization (UMNO). However, to built consensus in government, UMNO did not govern alone. Instead, it entered into a tri-party alliance with parties representing Malaysia’s two other largest ethnic groups, the Malayan Chinese Association (MCA) and the Malayan Indian Congress (MIC). The three members of the ‘‘Alliance’’ ran coordinated campaigns during elections and each took a share of cabinet seats in between elections.
|
Case Study: Nepal’s Constituent Assembly From the start, the constitution-building process was designed to be inclusive. The electoral system for the CA led to significantly increased inclusivity, with 197 women members elected out of a total of 601, and the inclusion of indigenous members, young people and excluded minority groups (e.g. Dalits, or ‘untouchables’, increased their presence from zero to 48). In addition to the formal debates in the CA, many informal political party dialogues took place, some set up by political parties themselves (most notably a tripartite high-level party forum), others facilitated by international actors. International IDEA contributed by convening and supporting an Inter-Party Dialogue Group, which consisted of between ten and 12 party central leaders and influential CA members representing major political parties, including the regional parties based in the Terai region of Nepal. In a ‘behind the scenes’ context, the group members sought to understand and explore each other’s positions and ideas, expand their knowledge and range of options by drawing upon expert briefings, and thus reach positions and sometimes compromises that would be acceptable to all parties and their leaders. The dialogues started in May 2009 and proceeded to identify issues on which the political parties had a common position, issues on which they held different positions, and possible common ground. The outcomes of the dialogues were related to the knowledge, skills and political will of Nepali political parties in clarifying their own party positions and seeking accommodation of each other’s views. Complications arising from decision making outside the Constituent Assembly However, final decision making on important constitutional issues was retained by senior party leaders and often took place outside the formal CA processes. The decision-making role assigned to the CA was circumvented. As a result, the CA debates and decision making on most critical issues were aborted and the promised public consultations on the first draft never occurred. This left many CA members and the public frustrated and disappointed in their political leaders. On 27 May 2012 (the final deadline for the CA to reach agreement on the constitution, which had already been extended four times), the political leaders appeared to have found a compromise formula on the contentious issue of federalism and the draft constitution was prepared for printing. However, the party leaders ultimately failed to reach a final agreement. Deep-rooted mistrust between personalities contributed to this failure, as did disagreements between different groups as to whether and how states in a new federal system should be formed, especially with regard to the numerical strength of certain identity groups. The CA therefore dissolved, leaving the constitution unfinished. (In 2015, Nepal finally adopted the new constitution) Source: Political Party Dialogue: A Facilitator’s Guide |