Philosophical Perspectives
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity
A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
A
bstract: It is a fact that, the movement of democratization in the continent of
Africa, which began in 1990, has not created any significant impact on the process of
transformation. Mostly, this is because of a difficult convergence of interest between
cultural identities as well as the persistence of several ethnic conflicts. This reflection aims at
promoting an inclusive democracy against anything that corrupts the collective consciousness,
such as cultural solipsism, tribalism, regionalism and ethnocentrism. After giving a general
understanding of what is democracy as well as the necessary link between the concept of
democracy and cultural identity, this reflection will culminate in a positive ethnic identity
whose vision is to give a chance for participation and opportunity to each group in the process
of decision-making. Such a vision presupposes that democracy in it-self is understood as a
political system based upon the principle of collectivity and representative groups. These three
concepts, in relation to cultural identity, will help a nation to bring together the diversity of
cultural identity and the cultural traditions in order to create a space of dialogue, mutual
understanding and agreement which avoids discrimination, cultural imperialism and
ethnocentrism by strengthening the sense of common citizenship and nationhood in a sort of
unity in diversity as intended by God throughout the salvific history.
I
ntroduction: It is a fact that democracy remains a relevant process that upholds
the devolution of power and popular participation founded upon the principles of
consensus and inclusion. However, this process of democratization cannot be realized
outside a necessary dialogue between cultural identity, cultural traditions and value
systems.The aim of democratization is to challenge cultural identity especially when it
takes the form of negative ethnicity in order to promote the principle of inclusion such
as the cultural diversities for the sake of a common understanding and common good.
It targets an agreement through an open and un-coerced discussion of the issue at stake
with the aim of arriving at an agreed judgment1 against any form of totalitarism or
1
David Miller, Deliberative Democracy and Social Choice, 183. (An interesting comparison has been
proposed by David Miller, who shows how the deliberative ideal fulfills the promises of liberal-democratic
institutions because, while it starts from the “premise that political preferences will conflict” and that the
democratic institutions must resolve them. Informal processes of discussion make procedural and institutional
factors less central).
• Dieudonné Mbiribindi is a Jesuit from the Democratic Republic of Congo, belonging to the Central African
Province. He is in his final year of theology at Hekima University College.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
89
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
republicanism2.
This paper intends to give a general understanding of the necessary link between the
concept of democracy and cultural identity. Such links are necessary for Africa since we
know that the movement of democratization in the continent of Africa, which began
in the 1990s, has not created any significant impact on the process of transformation.”3
Mainly, this is because of a difficult convergence of interests between cultural identities
as well as several conflicts for leadership positions created by the syndrome of “president-for-life”. This is the real challenge that this paper raises. To overcome this subject,
we need primo, to clarify the concept of democracy. Secundo, we shall define the concept
of cultural identities. Tertio, we shall explain how democracy and cultural identities are
related to the process of democratization in order to avoid conflicts, marginalization of
minorities and construct the common good. The preamble will be a personal effort to
demonstrate that democratization has its historical evolution in philosophy4, beginning
with ancient Greece and culminating with post-modern liberalism similar to the concept
developed by John Rawls in Political Liberalism5, in a pluralistic society. The target is to
present a pluralistic democracy as a way forward to face the existential tension among
ethnic groups and ideologies in conflict.6 It is founded upon the ethic of discussion-Karl
Otto Appel7 without the economy of the principle of justice as equity.8 Such ethic creates
the space for a social forum-following Habermas in Right and democracy9 so that participation can be a means for a collective decision-making without exclusivity and beyond
the dictatorship of any culture and ethnic group.
What can we do? Are we going to defend the fact that ethnic identities are dangerous
for the democratization process? Or, are we going to defend the fact that ethnic identity
can be used to construct a social and contextual democracy? Simply put, how can we
build a democratic culture founded upon recognition of cultural diversities and identities
in conflict, while calling for consensus and agreement?
2
Philippe Pettit, Republicanism, A theory of liberty and government, (Paris, Gallimard 2004), 182. ( He adds
an important caveat to his criticism: the enemy of liberty as nondomination and republican good government
was born in the nineteenth century, with the theory of national sovereignty and the centrality of public opinion
and parliamentary democracy).
3
Aquiline Tarimo and Paulin Manwelo, African Peacemaking and governance, (Action publishers,
Nairobi, Kenya, 2007), 113.
4
Here, I will use some insights of some philosophers without explicitly quoting them, simply because
books are not available. So, what I will give is just a sort of reminiscence, in sense of general ideas I keep through
the reading of these philosophers, few year ago, most of them in French language.
5
John Rawls, Political Liberalism. The John Dewey Essays in Philosophy, ( New York: Columbia
University Press, 1993)
6
Idem, 195.
7
Karl Otto Apel, In Understanding and Explanation: A Transcendental-Pragmatic Perspective (Cambridge,
Mass: MIT Press, 1984). He reformulated the difference between understanding (Verstehen) and explanation
(Erklärung), which is the key of the ethic of discussion.
8
John. Rawls, Justice and Democry, « The theolory of Justice as equity: a political theory and not a
métaphysic, Trad. C. Audard, p.223, n.19
9
In Right and democracy, Habermas’ description of his theory as involving the primacy of popular
sovereignty fails to capture its actual structure. Democratic self-rule, at least as Habermas understands it,
depends on an unacknowledged premise, a premise expressing an antecedent moral commitment and affirming
the existence of a fundamental individual right. But Habermas’ conception is so constituted as to imply that
political principles ought to be rationally acceptable to all those whom they are to bind,
90
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
1.
The Process of Democratization: Conceptual Elucidation
Using the statement of Joshua Cohen10 and inspired by Abraham Lincoln’s definition,
we might present democracy as a political system that promotes popular participation so
that people or the collectivity have the power to take decisions which concern the common good of the society. From its common understanding, we know that democracy has
its origin in ancient Greece and was considered as the power of the people (demos-people
and cratos-power). That was a requirement for the Greeks in order to avoid dictatorship
and tyranny during times when most of the population was not interested in the process
of decision-making in a public space-Agora. Therefore, the concept of democracy was
founded upon the necessity to include the minority in the construction of the common
good, more specifically in the Res-Pubica (common thing) without falling into the temptation of becoming the dictatorship of the majority. Let us see how this idea was developed
throughout the history of political philosophy.
I.1. Democracy: The History of a Concept
Many philosophers and thinkers in ancient Greece like Aristotle11 developed an architecture of political and ethical life for the good governance of the Polis (city). For Aristotle, the high level of civic virtue, such as justice, can be attained when a person is able to
participate and collaborate in the political life for the good of koinonia (community). A
person was considered a man of virtue only when he was able to accomplish this public
virtue and that was the concern of everybody.
However, note that this intuition of Aristotle was against the dictatorship of the “King
philosopher”, a theory established by Plato in his book, The Republic.12 Plato’s theory defended the fact that governance is not a matter of everyone. It belongs to a group of persons
who are able to contemplate the Good, Beauty and Truth through a dialectic process of
abstraction. For Plato the philosopher was the only person who was supposed to conduct
the affairs of the city on behalf of the two other groups of the society-soldiers and artisans.
The virtue of governance proceeded from the contemplation of ideas. In the modern age,
the ideal of Plato will be re-thought by another promoter of the monarchic system. In Italy,
during the 16th century, Nicolas Machiavelli-The Prince13 gave to the Prince the power to use
good or bad means in order to conquer or conserve his power without considering the will
of the people. In the same sense, Thomas Hobbes14, with the idea of Leviathan, developed a
theory of positive dictatorship which concentrates power in the hands of a person chosen
by the people and who is responsible for all individual freedoms.
10 Joshua Cohen, « Procedure and substance in Deliberative Democracy, »in seyla Banhabib, ed.,
Democracy and difference: contesting the Boundaries of the Political (New Jersey : Princeton University Press;
1996), 9-119, 95.
11 Aristole in The politic, conceived of politics as being like an organism rather than like a machine, and as
a collection of parts none of which can exist without the others. That explains the idea of participation.
12 “Until philosophers rule as kings or those who are now called kings and leading men genuinely and
adequately philosophize, that is, until political power and philosophy entirely coincide, while the many natures
who at present pursue either one exclusively are forcibly prevented from doing so, cities will have no rest from
evils,... nor, I think, will the human race.” (Republic 473c-d). Plato describes these “philosopher kings” as
“those who love the sight of truth” (Republic 475c).
13 Machiavelli, Niccolò, The Prince, Translated by Harvey Mansfield, University of Chicago Press (1985).
14 Thomas Hobbes, In Leviathan, following Rousseau, set out his doctrine of the foundation of states and
legitimate governments – originating social contract theory.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
91
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
We can now understand why Aristotle decided to elaborate new principles of governance trying to extend the concept of the “philosopher-King” and to raise it to a level
of civic virtue as a requirement for each person who belongs to the city. After Aristotle,
many other thinkers in Greece as well as in other countries developed theories of governance which gave more power to people in the process of decision-making. Among the
most important figures, we can emphasize five principal names: Jean-Jacques Rousseau15,
Hannah Arendt16, Jurgen Habermas17, Philippe Petit18, and John Rawls.19 In brief, we will
attempt to show how these thinkers contributed to the contemporary understanding of
the process of democratization.
On the one hand, Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s concept of social contract invites people to
go beyond their individual interests and to enter into the process of socialization through
the contract which is like an alliance or covenant between people belonging to the same
country. Therefore, the principle of contract gives equality and equal freedom to each
person. This becomes the foundation of democracy in the modern sense and it even reduces political conflict.20 Both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison agreed that
lawmaking is a work that consists in finding minimum common denominator among
partial views or interests to dilute the extremes, rather than erasing or ignoring them.21
On the other hand, a thinker like Hannah Arendt who is a contemporary, disciple and
friend of Emmanuel Levinas and Heidegger, developed the principle of plurality. This
principle claims that politics is not a matter of the“I”, but rather a matter of the“We”. In
the process of making decisions, each particularity must be taken into account through
the principle of inclusivity. There is no place for despotism, tyranny or a dictatorship of
the majority. Public opinion however, needs to be trained and informed in order to acquire basic skills in matters of a political motto. It is in this line that Habermas, a disciple
of Kant, in continuity with Arendt will develop the theory of discussion in matters of taking decisions regarding public issues. His point of departure is that each human being is
presupposed to be a man of rationality. Hence, each human being can participate in rational dialogue. However, this presupposition should be completed by some practical points
or guidelines to avoid conflicts and misunderstanding. Those principles are a standard of
rational discussion, deliberation and consensus. The aim is to give strong arguments and
to justify them with reason. The principle of consensus is dependent not on the majority
but on agreement. Reasonability understood in this sense attempts to put together differ15 Jean Jacques Rousseau, Le Contrat social (Perhaps Rousseau’s most important work is The Social
Contract, which outlines the basis for a legitimate political order within a framework of classical republicanism).
16 Hannah Arendt, the Human Condition, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958).
17 Habermas Jürgen, in The Theory of communicative action, develops the concept and theory of
communicative reason or communicative rationality, which distinguishes itself from the rationalist tradition,
by locating rationality in structures of interpersonal linguistic communication rather than in the structure of
the cosmos. This social theory advances the goals of human emancipation, while maintaining an inclusive
universalist moral framework,
18 Philippe Petit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1997).
Philippe Petit is well known for defending a version of republicanism in political philosophy (also, Oxford
University Press, 2007)
19 J. Rawls, A Theory of Justice (Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1971).
Rawls’s first work, published in 1971, aimed to resolve in a principled manner the seemingly competing claims
of freedom and equality.
20 J. Habermas et John Rawls, Debate on political justice, (CERF, Paris, 2011), p.9
21 Jacques Rousseau, On The Social Contract, 155-56; “Federalist 10,” in James Madison, Alexander
Hamilton, and John Jay, The Federalist Papers , ed. Isaac Kramnick ( Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1987 ), 57
92
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
ent opinions, to reconcile them and to create a common understanding.
On another picture, Philip Petit and Richard Bellamy,22 both contemporary thinkers,
criticize the principle of representative parties or election as presented by Arendt and
other modern thinkers. Focused on the political system in France, Philip Petit condemns
the danger of representative politics in the sense that political parties and parliamentarians are most of the time motivated by their own interests and ideas instead of defending
the common good, which is the aim of democracy in a contemporary sense. The fact that
monarchism can return in the form of the majority in a parliamentarian system, or even
become a type of dictatorship of the majority, is without doubt the reason why Philippe
Petit condemned the imperialism of the republican system, especially when some groups
are spectators while others are fully actors in the political arena.23 However, Pettit’s critique of republicanism is not very far from Hobbes’ formalism. Indeed, although according to Hobbes the scope of what the law “required” is under the control of the sovereign
and dominion24 which at the same time contradicts the theory of freedom as non-dominion25 creating oppression and interference of the powerful.
Finally, John Rawls brought a relevant contribution in the evolution in the perspective
of pluralistic systems integrating diversities and political ideologies for the sake of the
common good. In A Theory of Justice, he explains the reason why without a principle of
justice, based on the idea of equality and freedom, we cannot speak about democracy.
Rawls in Liberalism Politics, tried to explain how to establish a democratic society. According to him, the point of departure might be the necessity of just institutions; that
means, institutions which are able to promote the principle of justice according to the
equity taking into account the minority and even suggesting a positive discrimination
on behalf of the minority. He called this a Principle of difference.26 Indeed, this short panorama helped us to understand how the concept of democratization remains a work of a
collectivity in the process of decision-making, without discrimination or exclusivity. The
main contribution of John Rawls is in fact his conception of what consensus really is and
how its integration can contribute to solve conflicts and divisions among groups with
different ideologies and interests. It is important to explain how this concept of consensus
emerges as a solution against ethnicity and exclusivity.
22 ‘A system of “one person, one vote” provides citizens with roughly equal political resources; deciding
by majority rule treats their views fairly and impartially; and party competition in elections and parliament
institutionalizes a balance of power that encourages the various sides to hear and harken to each other, promoting
mutual recognition through the construction of compromises. According to this political conception, the
democratic process is the constitution. It is both constitutional, offering a due process, and constitutive, able
to reform itself (Richard Bellamy, Political Constitutionalism; A Republican Defence of the Constitutionality of
Democracy, (Cambridge University Press, 2007), 5.
23 Hannah Arendt, Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, ed. with an interpretative essay by Ronald
Beiner (Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press, 1992), 5. By this distinction Arendt captured
the political implications deriving from being a spectator and being an actor: the former entails impartial
judgment, but the later is unavoidably partial; “only the spectator occupies a position that enables him to see
the whole; the actor, because he is part of the play, must enact his part-he is partial by definition
24 Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991), chap. 21.
25 Urbinati, Nadia. Competing for liberty: The republican critique of democracy (Political Theory, v. 106,
n. 3, 2012), 607.
26 In Rawls’ view, “Difference Principle”: Social and economic inequalities should be arranged so that they
are both (a) to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged persons, and (b) attached to offices and positions open
to all under conditions of equality of opportunity.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
93
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
I.2.Democracy through Consensus: Against Exclusivity
In the light of the political thought of Reinhold Neiburh and John Countney,27 we
might defend the fact that if we can admit that human nature has an ontological inclination to injustice, so democracy is a medicine for this human sickness. We might ask
how this can be possible. It is because democracy is a value which promotes justice for
every human being in order to maintain a peaceful agreement, despite particularities. In
fact, “the tension between individual and community”28 cannot be resolved outside the
principle of democracy says Eric Weil, in Political philosophy.29 This principle according
to him is founded on discussion, conditions of consciousness and intelligence, wisdom
and action/violence. He demonstrated that human reason is in continual tension and
violence with other principles which try to ignore his particularity and not taking into
account his originality. There is, therefore, a dialectical relation between the individual
and the community which is to be recognized and integrated into the process of democratization. This tension is inevitable; misunderstanding will always remain because it is a
part of human society.
The only solution is to understand the necessity of accommodation and harmony
among diversities, which is indeed the advantage of a democratic system. This presupposes the recognition of the existence of a plurality of experiences within a society, a
plurality of traditions, a plurality of cultures and a plurality of ethnic groups. The democratic system calls the individual to build harmony; it establishes priorities for consensus.
Consensus is a key word not only because it creates a common understanding but it is
also a pathway for the recognition of differences between different groups with regard
the meaning of good life30 for all or at least for the majority. Consensus has as its aim and
purpose, “the convergence of interests”, that comes from a public debate and intelligible
discussion. It is through this process that democracy, considered as a political consensus,
can furnish a common and universal discourse able to reconcile diversities in matters of
public issues.31 Consequently, public decisions are justified as a construction of the whole
community, including the principle of procedural decision-making as developed by Jürgen Habermas. For him, democracy should always be comprehended as a procedural
process of making decision.32
The interaction between private and public is at the core of democratization process.
Interaction needs constructive discussion, constructive dialogue and debate. Without it,
it will remain difficult to unify diversities and to reach a communion of mind, which is
27 Tarimo uses here, Neibuhr and Murray who are the most known theologians who worked considerably
public theology in the twentieth century”.
28 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », See, the 13thannual, Hekima symposium, Kenya
Nairobi, February 2013.
29 Eric Weil, Political philosophy, 1990.
30 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 2.
31 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 5.
32 Samuel Freeman , Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment ,” Philosophy and Public Affairs
29, no. 4 (2000): 375. Freeman argues, convincingly, that the contrast between aggregative or interest-based
voting and deliberative judgment is wrongly posed because, as Rousseau and Rawls have convincingly shown,
assessing one’s interests is not necessarily opposite to making judgments in the general interest, pp. 376-77).
For a version of deliberation less unfavorable to party advocacy, see Amy Gutmann and Dennis F Thompson,
Democracy and Disagreement: Why Moral Conflict Cannot Be Avoided in Politics and What Should Be Done
About It (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996), 135.
94
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
the end of consensus. In addition, consensus is sustained by another principle, the principle of deliberation. Deliberation presupposes an institution able to deliberate, to vote and
to choose the ideal that can bring together diversities. We might emphasize that even this
deliberation does not mean ignorance of pluralism because if we want to make a decision
which is really democratic, we should not forget that the condition of pluralism is central.
“There is a need to develop the spirit of respecting pluralism and the common good in order
to establish cohesive social organization.”33 Therefore, beyond the principles of deliberation, there is a need of pluralist decision that fosters cohesion and tolerance which makes
possible the promotion of the Good for all as well as a decision for the general interest.34
Looking at the implantation of democracy in Africa, we can now try to evaluate this process
and identify possible obstacles to the emergence of democracy in Africa. Can we really say that
multiparty elections as well as institution forms of governance are effective in our modern African societies? If not, what are some of the major obstacles to this emergence? There is one thing
which cannot be denied: most African societies remain hostile to the idea of alternate principle.
There are “pro-democratic” movement, ethnic conflicts and several rebellions. Everyone wants
to rule, political parties as well as civil parties (most of them composed by people from the
same ethnic group, language, region or tribe). In this particular context “to establish democracy
through consensus is a painful work, and requires, the reform of institutions, establishing effective
alternatives and structure social relations”35.
However, change is not possible if political parties remain a sort of ethnic group preoccupied only with the need of private interest. In several cases leaders can create tensions among several ethnic groups belonging to the country. Politicians are clever by trying to use ethnic identity to promote ethnic politics for the interest of a particular ethnic
group. That is the reason why the dream of building democratic institutions, a platform
that should transcend ethnic completion, remains important. There is a challenge and
it needs to be overcome. It would be a mistake, however, to think that political parties
can guaranty agreement, unless they are not considered like political groups, able to use
cultural identity for political position and “constantly fighting for power and money.”36 It
is exactly such situation which can lead us to rethink the link between culture and democracy.Having said that, let us now address the conflict between a democracy through
consensus and the real problem of cultural identity and ethnicity.
III.
Culture and Democracy
The question of culture is to be understood in a large sense, that is, in relationship to
identity. Culture entails a diverse, rich and complex heritage, supernatural, cosmological
belief, religious systems, the individual social groupings, morality, the health systems,
political systems, as well as the economic system. Culture shapes the identity of a nation.
However, can this identity also be an obstacle or an aid in the building of democracy?
What is the implication of cultural identity in understanding democracy in the African
context? First, we must ask the definition or elements of “culture.”
33 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 3.
34 John Rawls, Justice and democracy. “On liberty and its priorities”, (Paris. Ed du Seuil, 1993,). 172.
35 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 4.
36 Here Tarimo explains that political disorder could be eliminate on condition that we can remove financial
incentives from political sphere, because many people are fighting for positions of leadership because of the
huge amounts of money given to politicians without toil.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
95
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
III.1. Quid of the Cultural37 Identity38: Overview
By culture we mean, all that a person needs to know and live in order to be considered as a member of a particular group (in the historical, political, artistic, geographic,
manners and customs religion, etc.). At this point, we must try to distinguish the African
cultural tradition, from the ancestral tradition in order to avoid confusion at the level of
conceptual use. Principally, tradition is often identified with the sum of practices inherited from our ancestors. This approach of tradition must be surpassed, because it is not
so much a return to old conceptions of the world, life and manner, since we all know that
tradition is essentially dynamic. This is why our understanding of what culture intends
to represent will be in the dynamic of reinvention of tradition; that is to say, reinvent new
forms that extend the past of a people by registering in contemporary world. That is why
our conception of culture as well as tradition, will be essentially in sense of dynamics
cultural adjustment, according to the requirements of modernity. We will explain how
such an adjustment can be conceptualized in relationship to democracy. In fact cultural
adjustment passes through a sort of cultural process composed by three key states in occurrence, inculturation, culture-shock and acculturation39.
Considering that cultural process is a fact which cannot be denied as one can now
understand that culture is always understood as a dynamic process where change or continuity occurs. There is immigration, which permits cultures to interact over a long period of time. In so doing the result of this interaction can produce three principal effects.
While some new elements are introduced into the original culture, others are modified to
suit the changed milieu. Still, some original beliefs and practices are discarded altogether.
That is the result of a cross-cultural communication which is an attempt to cross, break,
bridge cultural, geographical, technological, generational barriers to enhance greater human interaction, networking, relationships and understanding. To sum up, the notion of
culture constitutes a thought system/pattern; set of norms and beliefs, language which
forms the basis overview, reflected through people’s belief systems, customs and shapes
their social identity as well as collective consciousness. This general view shows us how
culture is a complex notion and at the same time calls us to integrate the notion of culture
in our understanding of democracy.
37 Can we now attempt a general definition of culture it-self beyond the result of a cross-culture? There are
so many definitions of culture, just looking at the Longman Dictionary of Contemporary English. In effect,
The Longman Dictionary of Contemporary defines it as, customs, beliefs, art, music, and all other products of
human thought made by a particular group of people at a particular time. This simple definition suggests some
important considerations on culture, especially that culture is human. This is because it distinguishes human
beings from other beings, expresses the uniqueness and creativity of human beings, it is essentially in the mind
but it is usually given human expression and at last
38 Identity can be described as the entirety of how we as individuals view or perceive ourselves as unique
from others
39 By inculturation we mean- and that is in a religious perspective- the presentation of the Gospel message
and/or some aspects of culture (e.g. development, education, healing etc.) to people of a different cultural
context in ways and means that is appropriate and relevant to them i.e. being sensitive to their cultural milieu.
It underlines the need to dialogue between the interacting cultures. By culture-shock we describe the situation
or feeling of overwhelming or of inability to effectively function that one finds himself/herself in encountering
a new/different culture. However acculturation in a cultural process arrives when groups of people/individuals
of different cultures come into continuous first-hand contact with subsequent change in the original cultural
patterns of either or both groups
96
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
III.2. Cultural and Democracy
If democracy is to be thought in relationship to culture it is fundamentally because,
without culture, democracy cannot flourish in a cultural society. On the other hand, if
culture is to be understood as the way of life, that form which shapes the worldview of
people, it should have a significance influence on political life and become at the same
time “a medium of knowledge and identity”40 which shapes the dynamic of moral and
political values. There is, on one hand, cultural identity and on the other hand democracy. Nevertheless, claims of mutual influence between the two are more a result of history,
memory and tradition.
History is a dynamic through which human beings construct identity using tradition,
heritage and legacy transmitted through the past. Each political system has its history
and each identity is both a historical narrative according to Okolo Okombe in his book,
Hegel and Africa.41 In the dynamics of culture, as the history is moving, some elements are
integrated and incorporated. There is a typical appropriation.
Considering the process of democratization, the same operation of appropriation is
present. There is an appropriation of certain cultural values and ethical values in a political context. The virtue of solidarity, for instance, can shape and give form to the virtue
of responsibility and sociability. There is also a sort of selection which justifies why some
cultural traditions are not used in public life simply because they are not relevant. That is
the case with some prohibitions which are simply irrelevant with regard to political life.
The rite of initiation is a matter of cultural identity, but it cannot be imposed to all people
in the country, just because it is more cultural than political. Innovation is also a key word
in the process of cultural transmission and justifies the reason why we talked about the
dynamic nature of culture. Heritage and legacy change. Throughout generations, they are
reinterpreted and redefined.
Returning to the question of the relation between cultural identity and democracy, we
might observe that from the perspective of multiculturalism, no one culture can claim to
be the best culture in the world. As soon as we recognize the cultural diversity, we avoid the
danger of “cultural imperialism”.42 There are many cultures which are very different regarding values, systems and ways of creating meaning and responding to the new challenges
of life. Therefore, if the effort to promote a certain type of democracy founded on cultural
identity without the claim of universal culture and imperialism culture is to be thought in
sense of a continual transformation and appropriation of cultural values, then, cultures are
called to get in dialogue in order to have an appropriate methodology that can provide a
common platform for the construction of the common good and common value.
This means, in very simple words, that the existence of several and different cultures
as a source of enrichment can be used in the process of democratization. However, this
requires a level of dialogue between culture that is able to go beyond particularities and to
embrace universality. This attempt makes a nation to be able to overcome an imperialism
of cultural identify and be focused on the ethics of co-responsibility. Such an ethos, is a
process that creates awareness about promotion of civic virtues, a prerequisite for politi40 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 5.
41 Okolo Okombe, Hegel and Africa (book published recently but not yet accessible, demonstrates that
identity is not only historical, it is also narrative engaging the subject who is the one to construct his identity.
It is not given for ever; it is to be understood in the process of becoming).
42 AquilineTarimo and Paulin Manwelo, African Peacemaking and governance, 46.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
97
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
cal transformation.”43 Some anti-values like racism, tribalism, ethnocentrism and apartheid are to be criticized as obstacle for democratization, especially when they become
means of frustration and exclusion of the different part.
By considering ethnocentricity, as a form of ethnic discrimination, one cannot deny
that this idea promotes discrimination, marginalization and exclusion. Those are negatives and political ideologies. They must be discouraged. In certain circumstances, it may
be appropriate as a last resort to go beyond persuasion and to impose some form of sanctions. If, however, we want to build a democratic society founded upon the principle of
mutual recognition between cultures, we should promote a pluralist identity. We should
also build upon the principle of plurality, the principle of inclusivity, a very high level in
the process of democratization.
III. 3. Pluralism44 and Inclusive Democracy versus Ethnicity
The principle of pluralism with regard the process of democratization promotes openness to diversities. Democracies are by definition pluralist as they allow freedom of association.45 However, pluralism may exist without democracy.46 It considers the fact that
identities are not to be removed, but recognized in their particularities and originalities
especially if they are not against the fundamental good47 and common good that the society would like to preserve. We should therefore reject all principles of ethnocentrism
or marginalization of minorities. Identities are to be integrated in a process of inclusion
in order to create pluralism and to fight against exclusivism. This does not mean that differences will no longer exist. There will be differences with regard values, languages and
priorities. But the idea is to:
build a platform upon which all citizens can feel concluded in order to
strengthen the sense of common citizenship and nationhood, to construct a
collective identity, with the possibility of providing space for each social group,
to exercise the right of self-determination, and construct institution founded
upon principles of diversity, inclusion and the common good.48
In short, this means, the principle of pluralism can create a platform for mutual understanding, mutual cohabitation and even become a pathway for a collective identity. It
is through this platform that democracy as a pluralistic institution can be really a multiculturalist democracy that can challenge ethnicity as well as cultural imperialism. This
kind of democracy requires a new discourse about culture, a new way of conceiving cultures, since cultures are called to accommodate, to be recognize their limits and weaknesses, to enter into mutual dialogue and to build together the common good. It is only
through this condition that democracy can be really an inclusive process in such a way
43 Idem.
44 Pluralist democracy describes a political system where there is more than one center of power (“Theory
of Pluralistic Democracy”. TheFree Dictionary. 3rd Edition: The Great Soviet Encyclopedia. (1970-1979).
Retrieved 4 June 2001)
45 Claude J. Burtenshaw, “The Political Theory of Pluralist Democracy”, (The Western Political Quarterly,
Vol. 21, No. 4, Dec., 1968), pp. 577-587, University of Utah.
46 The Blackwell Dictionary of Political Science by F Bealey, 1999
47 H.L .A Hart, « Rawls on liberty and its priority », (New York, Basis Book, 1975), 230
48 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 4
98
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
that it facilitates more conciliation between ideologies than division.49
This form of democracy brings together different cultural experiences which are considered as values that enhance mutuality and promotes multiculturalism. To include each
culture can open the door to the possibility of collaboration in the sense of listening to
the need of each culture. We must discover cultural values and transcend every form
of hegemony, ethnocentrism and superiority complexes. In this regard, ethnicity, whose
definition remains difficult to circumscribe, can be overcome and even to a certain degree
can be used not to create an ethnic ideology which is exclusive or isolating, but a positive
ethnicity which in a contrario can be a means of demanding collective rights, with an interest for group filiation50 where opinions can converge for the sake of the common good.
Nonetheless, ethnicity can also generate conflicts when it is exclusive and used as
a tool for challenging inequality.51 Beyond positive and negative ethnicity, our claim is
that in the process of inclusive democratization, we should avoid whatever ideology that
can limit the principle of full participation, full pluralism and full inclusivity. However,
this inclusive democracy remains an ongoing process, subject to continual revision and
changes as conditions of life change. In concrete forms, how can we make inclusive democracy possible in contemporary Africa?
III. 4. Recommendation Event of an Inclusive Democracy in Africa
Being pragmatic, we need a strategic plan to protect this inclusive democracy from
the menace of tribalism, ethnocentrism and apartheid. That strategic plan can focus on
four levels: Primo, on the political level, the vision is to fight against anything that corrupts the collective consciousness, including cultural solipsism, tribalism, regionalism,
and ethnocentrism. Nations of Africa should encourage national and global citizenship.
There is also a need for the establishment of effective democratic systems based on the
principles of freedom, creation of public spaces for discussion, debates in the process of
decision-making on key issues. This cannot be achieved unless nations promote a sort of
respect for fundamental rights, as well as performance of each person’sduty as acitizen.
All this presupposes establishment of just institutions, which promote rational and reasonable dialogue between particular parties, religious, social, ethnic and social groups.
Secundo, on the intellectual level, acquisition of African resources, its history, wealth,
possibilities, without forgetting to include literacy, education of culture is to be encouraged. Each person is called to know his culture in its strengths and weaknesses. Tertio,
on the social level, nations in Africa have to strive for excellence in improving social
commitment, collaboration of competence, positive interdependence and creation of
networks which are not based on political, ethnic, cultural or racial ideology. Concretely, governments should encourage the creation of social groups which can fight against
ideologies and social divisions, discrimination and ethnicity. Finally at the international
level, there is a need to promote cooperation between African states among themselves
and other continents in order to gradually stimulate a global and modern citizenship, a
universal cultural that respects the recent Universal Declaration on Cultural Diversity
49 J. Rawls, Justice and Democracy, « le constructivisme kantien dans la théorie morale », 73-152.
50 Daniel Bell, “Ethnicity and Social Change”, in John Hutchinson and Antony D. Smith, eds., Ethnicity
(Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1996), 138-146, at 144.
51 Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », 10.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
99
Dieudonné Mbiribindi Bahati, SJ
(UDCD) by UNESCO, against any form of discrimination and exclusion”52 based on prejudices and stereotypes. This was the will of God throughout the history of salvation: that
they might be one: Unity in diversity which reflects God’s glory.
Conclusion: The will of God-Unity in diversity
B
ased on biblical interpretation, we can open this discussion to a theological
reflection. As we know, from salvation history, there is evidence that nations, people,
languages, tribes and kingdoms are presented in the Bible in conflict as they search
for God’s salvation53. From this perspective people and nations, tribes and clans where
most of the time fighting although they belonged to the same origin54, Adam.55. On one
hand, if we just interpret the meaning of The “Tower of Babel” (Gen. 11:4), we can realize
that although people and nations belong to the same origin; God intended them to be
different. God is thus sovereign over ethnic and linguistic differentiation; he intended for
humankind to spread over the face of the earth, and to cultivate different cultures. On
the other hand, the final words of God’s call to Abram promised that ‘all peoples on earth
will be blessed through him” (Gen. 12.2) is a call for unity and sharing of the same hope
and promise. The Old Testament idea of the people of Israel-representing all nations,
in the light of the New Testament is perceived as the New people of God, creating the
new assembly gathered in Jesus’s Christ whose death and resurrection reconciled people
among themselves and reconciled people with God. In Jesus-Christ, God does not show
favouritism, but accepts men from every nation who love him and live according to his
commandments (Acts 10:34).
The government that God uses is therefore an inclusive democracy since being in
Him should dissolve division and discord by encouraging nations to live like children
of one father, to build a kingdom which brings belonging, membership, communion,
equality, common purpose and familial bonds : one body (Eph. 2:11–22). It is through
Adam that sin came into the world, but it through Jesus that salvation is given to all the
nations and people without discrimination, according to the soteriology of Saint Paul
(Rom. 5:17–19). This was a politically radical message calling to integrate diversity in a
sort of an inclusive democracy.
From this biblical foundation and inspired by political philosophy as well as our understanding of what inclusive democracy is as a challenge to negative ethnicity, we may
conclude that an inclusive democracy is one which recognizes sub-nationalities, ethnic
groups and communities as part of democratization. Its aim is to give a chance for participation and opportunity to each group in the process of decision-making. This presupposes that democracy in it-self is understood as a political system based upon the principle of
collectivity and representative groups. These three concepts in relation to cultural identity
will help a nation to bring together the diversity of cultural identity as well as the diversity
of cultural traditions in order to create a space of dialogue, mutual understanding and
agreement which avoids discrimination, cultural imperialism and ethnocentrism. This
52 J. RWALS, Justice and Democracy, « the Kantian constructivism in moral theory», p.73-152.
53 J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A biblical theology of race, Inter-Varsity Press, 2003
54 Common origins: The Genesis creation story describes Adam and Eve as the originators of the whole of
humanity. Adam and Eve are distinguished from the rest of the created realm and placed in authority over it.
55 The Scripture foresaw that God would justify the Gentiles by faith, and announced the gospel in advance to
Abraham. The Old Testament covenant always pointed to how the New Testament gospel would be open to all.
100
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
Inclusive Democracy against Negative Ethnicity A Pathway for Peace-building in Africa
is possible when the process of democratization tries, on the one hand, to use cultural
values, and on the other hand, avoid being identified with one cultural identity while
rejecting other cultures. However, this presumes that people in a particular nation can
develop an ethic of responsibility and respect of the values of other cultures. A change
in attitude will guaranty transformation of social relationships and political consciences.
The formation of conscience through value systems appears as the most important means
which can give a fundamental guarantee to this process of inclusive democracy. But that
remains an ongoing process, especially in Africa where this process continues to face
many challenges.
Bibliography
Aquiline Tarimo and Paulin Manwelo, African Peacemaking and governance, Action Publishers,
Nairobi, Kenya, 2007.
Aquiline Tarimo, « Culture, ethnicity and democracy », See, the 13thannual, Hekima symposium,
Kenya Nairobi, February 2013.
Hannah Arendt Lectures on Kant’s Political Philosophy, The University of Chicago Press, 1992.
---------------------, The Human Condition, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1958.
Claude J. Burtenshaw, The Political Theory of Pluralist Democracy, The Western Political Quarterly
1968.
Daniel Bell, Ethnicity and Social Change”, Oxford: Oxford university Press, 1996.
John Rawls, Justice and democracy. “On liberty and its priorities”, Paris. Ed du Seuil, 1993.
------------------, Political Liberalism, New York: Columbia University Press, 1993.
Joshua Cohen, « Procedure and substance in Deliberative Democracy, » in Seyla Banhabib, ed.,
Democracy and difference: contesting the Boundaries of the Political, New Jersey: Princeton University Press,1996.
J. Daniel Hays, From Every People and Nation: A biblical theology of race, Inter-Varsity Press, 2003
--------------- A Theory of Justice, Cambridge, Mass: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,
1971.
J-Jacques Rousseau, On the Social Contract, Harmondsworth, UK: Penguin, 1987.
J. Habermas and John Rawls, Debate on political justice, CERF, Paris, 2011.
Philippe Petit, Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government, Oxford: Clarendon Press,
1997.
Samuel Freeman, Deliberative Democracy: A Sympathetic Comment, Philosophy and Public Affairs,
2000.
Thomas Hobbes, The Leviathan, Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1991.
Urbinati, Nadia. Competing for liberty: the Republican Critique of Democracy, Political Theory, 2012.
Hekima Review, no. 52 May 2015
101