We need to take the democratic process seriously

THE ancient agora which leads to Athens’ most towering landmark, the Acropolis and the Parthenon, was at the heart of ancient Athens, the focus of political, commercial, administrative and cultural life.

Today it lies in ruins. Yet it is rich in history with no less than five major invasions and a worldwide impact that far belies its current ruins. There is a profound preliminary question we need to ask about these ancient agoras, which marked classical Greek civilisation: where would we be without the ancient Greek agora? Possibly lacking the concept of democracy (Aristotle, Plato and Socrates) or the formula for the length of the sides of a triangle (Pythagoras). Modern doctors might not even have anything to utter as an oath (Hippocrates). The point I seek to emphasize here is that the concept of democracy was born and perfected within the confines of the Athenian agora. It was a place of socialisation – where politics were discussed and ideas where passed among great minds like Aristotle, Socrates and Plato. Pushing the frontiers of democracy in ancient agora of Athens was not without flaws and one can only imagine the difficulty these philosophers had convincing rulers that the best possible form of social and political organisation of the cité would be when human beings are free and equal – discuss and share ideas without fear of persecution. In fact, the cardinal political lesson from the Athenian ancient agora is that authoritarian regimes don’t allow their citizens and societies to flourish. When thinking is constrained – cultural, artistic expression and the creativity of the individual tout court becomes a casualty. Ultimately it is society that suffers in the long term. This lesson is equally relevant for our country whose political leadership is still struggling to internalise the democratic process as the best possible means of organising a modern society. Admittedly, there is a democratic form of government in Namibia. Athenian democrats would possibly see us as a democracy from a vertical point of view. However, there is no meaningful democratic discussion and contestation. What I wish to emphasise here is that while we may want to claim and aspire to be a democracy, we still instinctively act in ways that are authoritarian. The relationship that some within the hegemonic political formation Swapo wish to create between the citizen and the state (or party) is one of the dominating and the dominated. Such a relationship finds lucid expression in the manner in which the Party seeks control ownership of information and minds. It also seeks to allocate the resources or access to those resources in a manner that consolidates the view that you are ‘either with us or against us’. The consequence of such thinking is a political culture that embeds penalties for contradictory views. Even those within the party who go against the political factions that are on the up are not spared of such penalties. A case in point with regard to penalties manifest itself in the advertising ban that government imposed on this paper. Second, the acquiescence and indifference of the top leadership when it comes to constraining political activities of opposition parties is not the stuff of which democratic societies are made of. If we took the democratic discussion seriously in a manner the Athenians in the ancient agora did, we would note that such callous actions undermine the democratic process that we seek to consolidate. The challenge facing us today is not whether we are a democracy or not, but it is one of pushing the frontiers of our democracy. It is the challenge of making the transition from a limping democracy to a substantive democracy. Such a shift demands that we take the democratic discussion and process seriously. I don’t think we are. We are occasional and sporadic democrats. Alfredo Tjiurimo Hengari is a PhD fellow in political science at the University of Paris- Panthéon Sorbonne, France.