Last Wednesday, University of the West Indies at St Augustine
launched the Year of Sir Arthur Lewis as the second instalment
in its three-year celebration of three Nobel Laureates from
the English-speaking Caribbean.
Having celebrated the work of VS Naipaul last year (Naipaul
won the Nobel Prize for Literature in 2001), this year the
UWI is celebrating the life and work of Sir Arthur Lewis,
who won the Nobel Prize for Economics in 1979.
The celebrations started with two events last Wednesday, namely
the Sir Arthur Lewis Symposium and the First Lecture in the
Year of Sir Arthur Lewis Distinguished Lecture Series, by
Prof Norman Girvan.
In my contribution to the symposium, I highlighted the work
of Lewis in the field of politics, by focusing on excerpts
from his book, “Politics in West Africa” (George
Allen and Unwin, London, 1965).
Two Sundays ago, I examined parts of this text in seeking
to highlight the impending Lewis celebrations. Today, I delve
a little further into his views on politics in the book itself.
Lewis was moved by what he saw in a newly-emerging Africa
in the immediate post-colonial stage. He expressed two core
values about democracy in the book that capture his thinking
succinctly, namely that:
“…all who are affected by a decision should have
the chance to participate in making that decision, either
directly or through chosen representatives.” (PP64-65),
and secondly that:
“…to exclude losing groups from participation in
decision-making clearly violates the primary meaning of democracy.”
(PP64-65).
Lewis was expressing the view that he preferred a more consensual
approach to democracy, as opposed to the concept of the winner
takes all.
To this end, he challenged the notion of Westminster-style
democracy with its majoritarian philosophy, which is supported
by the expectation of the rotation of power between governing
and opposing parties.
Plural societies
This, he felt, was not appropriate for plural societies, and
he had this to say:
“Plurality is the principal political problem of most
of the new states created in the 20th century. Most of them
include people who differ from each other in language or tribe,
or religion or race; some of these groups live side by side
in a long tradition of mutual hostility, restrained in the
past by a neutral imperial power.” (P66)
Indeed, he felt so strongly about this, he rejected the winner-take-all
philosophy for plural societies in the following way:
“In a plural society, the approach to politics as a zero
sum game is immoral and impracticable.” (P66)
In coming to this conclusion, Lewis was moved by what he saw
emerging in West Africa right after independence, and he was
concerned about its future political stability.
According to him:
“Nevertheless, in one country after another, the party
which held power on independence chafed at the presence of
an opposition party, and decided to get rid of it.
“Steps were taken either to absorb the opposition, or
to suppress it, thus instituting single-party government,
except in Nigeria and Sierra Leone.” (P29)
He went further to observe that the desire to eliminate opposition
parties seemed to extend to the wider issue of the suppression
of independent criticism of the government in these societies:
“Of equal importance with the suppression of political
parties has been the suppression of independent criticism
by individuals or other groups outside the parties, including
control of the Press, trade unions and farmer organisations,
abolition of civil liberties, and curtailment of the rule
of law.” (P29)
It was this particular fear of suppression of opposition views
that Lewis felt was a threat to democracy in West Africa.
When combined with his own concern that the winner-take-all
system of government was founded on a philosophy of rotation
between governing and opposing parties, he formed the view
that some minority groups in society may be consigned to permanent
opposition, because of their inability to capture a majority
through whatever political vehicle with which they may be
associated.
Modern democracy
It was this issue of the suppression and intolerance of opposition
parties that he investigated, and he concluded that the personality
of leaders had a lot to do with it. According to him:
“Personality still explains a good deal in politics.
Why this urge to eliminate opposition parties, if not by agreement,
then even by prison and exile?
“Different politicians had different motives.” (P30)
He grouped these motives into four categories:
n Love of power and its material rewards.
n Conviction that opposition policies are dangerous, and unwillingness
to risk the possibility that they may be adopted.
n Conviction that opposition tactics weaken the efficiency
of the State, whatever the policies may be.
n Ideological conviction that an elite political party is
the supreme instrument of society. (P 30)
This outlook placed the desire for single-party dominance
in the hands of political leaders who were not interested
in the philosophy of rotation, and that they were concerned
about suppressing their opponents, as well as any form of
independent criticism in their societies.
The deeper question to be asked is whether the political culture
of these societies was alien to the Westminster philosophy
of winner-take-all on a rotational basis.
The answer is yes. According to him:
“Modern democracy, with mass parties tolerating each
other’s opposition, is a very recent phenomenon in the
world’s history, so recent that it would, perhaps, be
more surprising if West African politicians had decided to
work this system than that they should have decided against
it.” (P30)
Lewis’ preferences for power-sharing Cabinets and federalism
were consistent with his rejection of the Westminster model
as a suitable form of government for West African countries,
which were largely plural.
By 1965, the number of “new” states was still relatively
small.
