Do you get tired of all the political bickering? Do you wish people, in Rodney King’s words, could “just all get along”?
Kwasi Wiredu, African political philosopher, argues that consensual democracy would be a better form of government than majoritarian democracy. In counter arguments, Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, disagrees. Wiredu’s position is that western democracy is predisposed to “gridlock,” as evidenced by the politics of the United States, and he also believes 1) Kenneth Kaunda’s statement that “original” African societies operated by consensus, with members of communities meeting in “solemn conclave” until they agreed on an issue and 2) Guy Clutton-Brock’s statement that “elders would sit under the big trees, and talk until they” agreed. Wiredu would argue that the political system of the United States is a “pre-established disharmony,” and, as Ani summarizes, is an example of how majoritarian democracy is “the quintessence of uncooperativeness” and, for Africa, is an “epiphenomenon of colonialism” that is antithetical to “the spirit of communalism.” *
That the United States system of checks and balances can become unchecked imbalances has always been evident. The two-party system has an inherent vying for power that leads to the gridlock of Wiredu’s argument. But consensus? Elders? What would that look like in any large society? What would it look like in any tribal society? What would it look like in your workplace or family?
The setting: A large tree in the courtyard of an assisted living home.
The Elders: Mr. Humbug, a disgruntled displaced elder whose family appears to have abandoned him because, well, he’s just plain irascible
Mrs. Quilt, an affable matron whose grandchildren visit often and bring multicolored patches of rags their mothers were using to dust and new spools of thread
Mr. Spring, still participating in marathons
Miss Tight, a retired librarian
Rev. Upright, a retired evangelical minister
The Conversation:
Mr. Humbug: I can’t chew this stuff. The meat is always overdone and the vegetables are underdone. Get rid of the cook. I could do better in the kitchen if my macular degeneration didn’t prevent me from seeing.
Mrs. Quilt: Oh! did you meet the cook’s grandchildren? They were here today. Lovely. One of them gave me some old dish towels for my new quilt.
Mr. Spring: Humbug, you should go for a walk every day. It would do you good.
Miss Tight: (No comment)
Rev. Upright: Now, Mr. Humbug, not everyone can turn loaves of bread and a few fish into a sumptuous meal. Why, I think it’s a miracle if the cook can come up with a menu that pleases everyone. You know what Leviticus says…
Mr. Humbug: You can quote the Bible all you want, Upright, but that don’t get me chewable food. My dentures are always comin’ loose on that stuff, ‘cept the mashed potatoes—and they’re always dry. I say get rid of the cook.
Miss Tight: (No comment)
Mrs. Quilt: When I was at home, I used to make big meals for everyone.
Mr. Spring: I’m goin’ for a run.
Mr. Humbug: Nurse. Wheel me back inside. Too much wind and too many bugs under this tree.
CONSENSUS: The cook keeps his job by default.
Is Wiredu correct? Can large African populations operate by consensus because they supposedly operated thus in tribal villages of the past? Could any large population truly operate by consensus? Is there a limiting number of people for which consensus can be the methodology of efficiency? Is it a family of four?
But in a family of four, consensus would mean giving children with their limited experience and knowledge the same voice as the parents. Children might also see short-term, whereas parents, because of their greater experience, might see long-term.
And then there’s the matter of rationality, a component essential to consensus. Wiredu assumes that the “elders” discussed matters rationally. But how far did that rationality extend. One of the reasons that African DNA is more diverse in that continent than it is outside Africa, is that tribal rivalries kept the African versions of the Montagus and Capulets separate. Racism reigned for centuries and still reigns today. Consensus, if it worked at all, worked in the smallest of groups. Today’s national aggregations force various analogs of Hutus and Tutsis to live together. And throughout the continent one can find similar “divisions” among religions like Islam’s Shia and Sunni, Christianity’s sundry Protestants and Catholics, and numerous tribal religions, all having influence over their adherents and all, at times, taking precedence over rational discussion under some village tree.
Maybe pre-established disharmony is the human way. Western civilization’s inheritance of Greek philosophy and democracy based on reason has rarely led to consensus simply because humans are programmed to argue from that which is irrational: Feelings, moods, different interests from altruistic to narcissistic, varied experiences, hasty conclusions and non sequiturs based on incomplete knowledge and manipulated facts, and hormonal drives. Is it difficult to guess why all governments—from those of large tribes to those of large nations—find themselves embroiled in uncooperativeness?**
Sometimes events drive temporary cooperation and consensus, but even potential pandemics caused by diseases like Polio and Ebola have not been met with universal and rational cooperation. Thus, health workers have come under attack in places as separated from one another as Pakistan and Equatorial Africa.*** Irrationality is universal. Consensus is rare.
Wiredu’s argument against western-style democracy is no more valid than his argument for African-style consensus. The latter probably never truly existed in the “idealized” version that Wiredu, Clutton-Brock, and Kaunda present as evidence. Sitting under that tree with the elders, those three political philosophers might find themselves getting a bit perturbed. But if they need some evidence that the elders don’t have the deliberative powers they imagine, I invite them to sit beneath the courtyard tree of the nearest assisted-living community to reach a consensus among the gathered elders.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and novelist William Golding ascribe a fundamental evil or savagery to human nature. I wouldn’t agree. True, evil and savagery are part of human history and current and future potential, but with regard to humans governing themselves, I would ascribe not savagery, but a fundamental irrationality to our nature. And that irrationality, regardless of the setting—under trees or in parliaments—manifests itself in “deliberations.”
*Two documents: Ani, Emmanuel Ifeanyi, “On Traditional African Consensual Rationality,” 17 May 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12013 and Ani, (2019) “The question of social conformity in Wiredu’s consensual democracy,” African Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00020184.2019.1609763.
**In the late twenty-teens, numerous countries find themselves incapable of consensus. Examples abound: Brexit, international treaties, impeachment of the US President, the role of government in the lives of individuals, war. Reason (and substantiated fact) rarely plays a role in the deliberations, and when it does, it is dismissed because of emotional attachments by parties and special interest groups with particular agendas, with all confrontations now exacerbated by agenda-driven widespread media.
***https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-workers-battle-trust-issues-attacks-in-ebola-outbreak/
and https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/health/polio-worker-deaths-pakistan-intl/index.html
Kwasi Wiredu, African political philosopher, argues that consensual democracy would be a better form of government than majoritarian democracy. In counter arguments, Emmanuel Ifeanyi Ani, disagrees. Wiredu’s position is that western democracy is predisposed to “gridlock,” as evidenced by the politics of the United States, and he also believes 1) Kenneth Kaunda’s statement that “original” African societies operated by consensus, with members of communities meeting in “solemn conclave” until they agreed on an issue and 2) Guy Clutton-Brock’s statement that “elders would sit under the big trees, and talk until they” agreed. Wiredu would argue that the political system of the United States is a “pre-established disharmony,” and, as Ani summarizes, is an example of how majoritarian democracy is “the quintessence of uncooperativeness” and, for Africa, is an “epiphenomenon of colonialism” that is antithetical to “the spirit of communalism.” *
That the United States system of checks and balances can become unchecked imbalances has always been evident. The two-party system has an inherent vying for power that leads to the gridlock of Wiredu’s argument. But consensus? Elders? What would that look like in any large society? What would it look like in any tribal society? What would it look like in your workplace or family?
The setting: A large tree in the courtyard of an assisted living home.
The Elders: Mr. Humbug, a disgruntled displaced elder whose family appears to have abandoned him because, well, he’s just plain irascible
Mrs. Quilt, an affable matron whose grandchildren visit often and bring multicolored patches of rags their mothers were using to dust and new spools of thread
Mr. Spring, still participating in marathons
Miss Tight, a retired librarian
Rev. Upright, a retired evangelical minister
The Conversation:
Mr. Humbug: I can’t chew this stuff. The meat is always overdone and the vegetables are underdone. Get rid of the cook. I could do better in the kitchen if my macular degeneration didn’t prevent me from seeing.
Mrs. Quilt: Oh! did you meet the cook’s grandchildren? They were here today. Lovely. One of them gave me some old dish towels for my new quilt.
Mr. Spring: Humbug, you should go for a walk every day. It would do you good.
Miss Tight: (No comment)
Rev. Upright: Now, Mr. Humbug, not everyone can turn loaves of bread and a few fish into a sumptuous meal. Why, I think it’s a miracle if the cook can come up with a menu that pleases everyone. You know what Leviticus says…
Mr. Humbug: You can quote the Bible all you want, Upright, but that don’t get me chewable food. My dentures are always comin’ loose on that stuff, ‘cept the mashed potatoes—and they’re always dry. I say get rid of the cook.
Miss Tight: (No comment)
Mrs. Quilt: When I was at home, I used to make big meals for everyone.
Mr. Spring: I’m goin’ for a run.
Mr. Humbug: Nurse. Wheel me back inside. Too much wind and too many bugs under this tree.
CONSENSUS: The cook keeps his job by default.
Is Wiredu correct? Can large African populations operate by consensus because they supposedly operated thus in tribal villages of the past? Could any large population truly operate by consensus? Is there a limiting number of people for which consensus can be the methodology of efficiency? Is it a family of four?
But in a family of four, consensus would mean giving children with their limited experience and knowledge the same voice as the parents. Children might also see short-term, whereas parents, because of their greater experience, might see long-term.
And then there’s the matter of rationality, a component essential to consensus. Wiredu assumes that the “elders” discussed matters rationally. But how far did that rationality extend. One of the reasons that African DNA is more diverse in that continent than it is outside Africa, is that tribal rivalries kept the African versions of the Montagus and Capulets separate. Racism reigned for centuries and still reigns today. Consensus, if it worked at all, worked in the smallest of groups. Today’s national aggregations force various analogs of Hutus and Tutsis to live together. And throughout the continent one can find similar “divisions” among religions like Islam’s Shia and Sunni, Christianity’s sundry Protestants and Catholics, and numerous tribal religions, all having influence over their adherents and all, at times, taking precedence over rational discussion under some village tree.
Maybe pre-established disharmony is the human way. Western civilization’s inheritance of Greek philosophy and democracy based on reason has rarely led to consensus simply because humans are programmed to argue from that which is irrational: Feelings, moods, different interests from altruistic to narcissistic, varied experiences, hasty conclusions and non sequiturs based on incomplete knowledge and manipulated facts, and hormonal drives. Is it difficult to guess why all governments—from those of large tribes to those of large nations—find themselves embroiled in uncooperativeness?**
Sometimes events drive temporary cooperation and consensus, but even potential pandemics caused by diseases like Polio and Ebola have not been met with universal and rational cooperation. Thus, health workers have come under attack in places as separated from one another as Pakistan and Equatorial Africa.*** Irrationality is universal. Consensus is rare.
Wiredu’s argument against western-style democracy is no more valid than his argument for African-style consensus. The latter probably never truly existed in the “idealized” version that Wiredu, Clutton-Brock, and Kaunda present as evidence. Sitting under that tree with the elders, those three political philosophers might find themselves getting a bit perturbed. But if they need some evidence that the elders don’t have the deliberative powers they imagine, I invite them to sit beneath the courtyard tree of the nearest assisted-living community to reach a consensus among the gathered elders.
Philosopher Thomas Hobbes and novelist William Golding ascribe a fundamental evil or savagery to human nature. I wouldn’t agree. True, evil and savagery are part of human history and current and future potential, but with regard to humans governing themselves, I would ascribe not savagery, but a fundamental irrationality to our nature. And that irrationality, regardless of the setting—under trees or in parliaments—manifests itself in “deliberations.”
*Two documents: Ani, Emmanuel Ifeanyi, “On Traditional African Consensual Rationality,” 17 May 2013 https://doi.org/10.1111/jopp.12013 and Ani, (2019) “The question of social conformity in Wiredu’s consensual democracy,” African Studies, DOI: 10.1080/00020184.2019.1609763.
**In the late twenty-teens, numerous countries find themselves incapable of consensus. Examples abound: Brexit, international treaties, impeachment of the US President, the role of government in the lives of individuals, war. Reason (and substantiated fact) rarely plays a role in the deliberations, and when it does, it is dismissed because of emotional attachments by parties and special interest groups with particular agendas, with all confrontations now exacerbated by agenda-driven widespread media.
***https://www.cbsnews.com/news/health-workers-battle-trust-issues-attacks-in-ebola-outbreak/
and https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/health/polio-worker-deaths-pakistan-intl/index.html
RSS Feed