Platonic justice and Zimbabwe’s eight
dark years of political polarization: Is
merit-based democracy tenable?
Fainos
Mangena
F
an n
Centre for Leadership Ethics in Africa, University of Fort Hare
Abstract
The purpose of this article is to show that the Platonic principles
of justice could be used to promote ‘merit-based democracy’ in
Zimbabwe if the inclusive government can prioritize on
education for the masses. Through the use of in-depth interviews
and the lances of logical analysis, the article concluded that the
political violence that gripped Zimbabwe’s countryside in the last
eight years was a result of political polarization, meddling and
the state’s deliberate neglect of education as an institution that
has the power to create a just and democratic society. The article
begins by delineating Plato’s theory of justice and his criticism of
democracy in Athens. Building on these Platonic principles of
justice, the article calls for a ‘merit-based’ democratic society
that combines the efforts of both democracy and meritocracy. In
the final analysis, the article emphasizes the importance of merit
as a function of education and its immense benefits to informed
democracy.
Introduction
In 1980, after gaining independence from the British, Zimbabwe became an
emerging ‘informed democracy’ in Africa. The new prime minister then,
Robert Mugabe announced that it was time to reconstruct the country and
that there was need to embrace the philosophy of reconciliation. As part of
this reconstruction project, the government of ZANU PF embarked on a
massive education campaign to educate those who were going to be future
leaders or guardians of this country. In those early years, it was
government’s policy that every child gets free primary education. Colleges
and universities were built to cater for those who wanted to further their
education and to date the country boasts of about 8 state universities
compared to just one before independence.
There are several technical and teachers colleges today and the
government of ZANU PF must be commended for that. But while it is
Phronimon, Vol 10 (1) 2009 ________________________________________________ 71
important to applaud the government of ZANU PF for its efforts to educate
the nation, it is also important to see whether the kind of education the
government adopted was to be maintained for generations and generations
to come. Though Mugabe’s government briefly adopted socialism as an
ideology, parallels can still be drawn between the Platonic social
stratification and classes that emerged in new Zimbabwe then and how
education helped to shape these classes. For instance, the intellectually
gifted were allowed to go to universities and those who could not proceed to
universities but had done moderately well at elementary level were to join
the civil service, others were to join the informal sector as skilled artisans
and the soldier class was to emerge from those who were not intellectually
gifted. The education system was typically Platonic in outlook.
But in the last eight years, Zimbabwe has witnessed a death of those
democratic ideals that the government of ZANU PF so cherished when it
seized power from Britain. The collapse of the education system has not
helped matters and justice as the ‘oil’ that lubricates state functionaries is no
longer being upheld as a principle. Why? Precisely because some, if not
most, of those who have been mandated to govern have no clue as for what
justice is and why we need it in a democratic society.
As part of the process of coming up with a new ‘merit-based’
democratic constitution, the inclusive government should lobby for support
from the masses to enact a law that makes it mandatory for all aspiring
politicians to have at least a degree (or to work towards acquiring one in
order to run political office). The electorate must be literate enough in order
to make informed choices when they vote for their leaders. So, merit as a
function of education is key in this regard. Leaders must be voted for based
on merit by a competent and well-informed electorate.
The last eight years have also been characterized by absence of the
rule of law, freedom of speech, expression and assembly and lack of
political tolerance and yet, for Plato, freedom of speech and freedom of
thought were vital elements in any just system.1 These freedoms are essential
so that citizens are informed and able to vote in their personal interests.2
The absence of the rule of law or its selective application by the
authorities that be and the failure to respect human dignity and
meddlesomeness – that is, the state’s interference with people’s freedoms and
basic liberties without right or propriety3 – is what Plato was grappling with in
Athens during his time and Zimbabwe has, in the last eight years, been facing
similar challenges. It is against this background that this article calls upon the
inclusive government to adopt principles of justice that are in sync with the
Platonic principles of justice in a bid to establish ‘merit-based’ democracy.
By inclusive government I mean the government that was put in place
in Zimbabwe when ZANU PF, the MDC-T and MDC-M agreed to work
72
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
together following the abortive March and June 2008 elections. The March
elections could not produce a clear winner although Morgan Tsvangirai
(leader of the MDC-T formation) was the front runner when the election
results were shockingly announced after one month.
Turning to the main argument now, the Platonic principles of justice
may not necessarily typify the best ever principles for an ideal state but, in
my view, they resonate with the state system which Zimbabwe adopted after
independence which epitomized justice and respect for autonomy and the
dignity of persons. I argue for ‘merit-based democracy’ (which I occasionally
refer to as ‘informed democracy’ in this article). By this I mean a
combination of meritocracy and democracy. I argue that only a sound
education policy will make ‘informed democracy’ possible and only
‘informed democracy’ will lead to a just society.
Political Violence in Zimbabwe: A Methodological Survey of
Trends since 2000
I begin this section by posing a crucial question:
Can the ‘all inclusive’ government in Zimbabwe embrace the Platonic
principles of Justice in order to establish a ‘merit-based democratic state’ in
keeping with the values of respect for human dignity and the autonomy of
persons?
A methodological survey of the trends of political violence in Zimbabwe
between 2000 and 2008 will set the tone for a philosophical exposition guided
by the above research question. Apart from the appeal to logical and/or
content analysis, the qualitative research perspective was used to produce data
for this article. I analyzed relevant documents such as newspapers (which
include: The Herald, The Sunday Mail, The Daily News, The Standard and The
Independent). I also interviewed about 10 people in each of the 9 rural districts
below: Bindura, Mt. Darwin, Rushinga, Guruve, Uzumba, Murewa and
Mutoko, Gokwe and Bikita West where political violence flared up during
political campaigns in 2000, 2002, 2005 and 2008.
The people I interviewed requested anonymity probably for fear of
victimization. Most of the people I interviewed cited intimidation and
harassment from those who were vying for political office either as Members
of Parliament or as councilors on the side of both the ruling ZANU PF party
or the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC), as the source
of their disgruntlement.
As the study found out, most of the political candidates who were vying
for political office especially in rural areas had very little education and their
understanding of the political game was also shallow, hence the appeal to
barbaric, antiquated and often primitive methods of campaigning such as
violence as a way of getting into office. The study also found out that the
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
73
electorate had chosen their leaders not on the basis of merit but on the basis
of popularity; as a war veteran or former freedom fighter, a business man or
a local and prominent peasant farmer. Of the 18 political candidates who
were vying for political office in the 2000 parliamentary and council elections
either as members of parliament or councilors (from both ZANU PF and the
MDC) in the rural areas cited above, only 5 had attained their education
beyond ordinary level which is the equivalent of grade 11 in South Africa.
It is, therefore, not surprising that most of these could not understand
the dynamics of politics and the need for political tolerance and peaceful coexistence. This is probably why cases of violence and vote buying were rife in
most of the rural areas cited above. Barbaric crimes such as arson, murder
and torture became the order of the day. In some cases, opposition
supporters would retaliate resulting in the loss of property and of human life.
In most cases, the battles between the two political protagonists, that is,
ZANU PF and the MDC supporters were charged with emotion and nothing
pointed to rational and peaceful ways of political engagement.
There were also incidences of political violence in urban areas
especially in Harare suburbs such as Budiriro, Mabvuku-Tafara and
Highfields where the state media claim that opposition supporters were chief
culprits. The study also found out that due to political violence, schools were
forced to close especially in the rural areas and some teachers were
victimized for their political beliefs.
After carefully analyzing the research findings, I have come to the
conclusion that the education delivery system, which used to churn out
brilliant leaders in politics like Morgan Tsvangirai, Robert Mugabe, the late
Edson Zvobgo, the late Witness Mangwende, Arthur Mutambara, the late
Learnmore Jongwe, Jonathan Moyo, Tendai Biti and Welshman Ncube and
brave soldiers like the late Josiah Tongogara, Solomon Mujuru, the late
Thomas Mberikwazvo (a.k.a Josiah Tungamirai) and the late Vitalis
Musungwa Gava Zvinavashe as well as a passionate skilled workforce, had
experienced total collapse.
Having explored the research question and the research design, I will
now get into the meat of the argument by first considering the theoretical
framework as the basis of my argument. The Platonic definition of justice will
precede this discussion. Please notice that in this article, I will not focus on
the definitions of justice as promulgated by philosophers like John Rawls and
Immanuel Kant and others as these are outside the scope of my argument.
However, I regard some of these definitions as refinements to Plato’s
definition especially the Rawlsian distributive justice theory and the Kantian
retributive theories. I take it that, these will be discussed in future without
necessarily undermining their impact when applied to Platonic justice and
‘the merit-based democratic’ discourse.
74
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The concept of Justice defined
In The Republic, Plato is grappling with the meaning of the word Justice as
he seems to be getting various unconvincing responses from the Sophists. As
a disgruntled and dissatisfied citizen, his interest in issues of justice is not
surprising as it stems from the fact that the leaders of Athens are trampling
upon the poor and that there is rampant corruption in state institutions as a
result of serious political meddling. This article draws inspiration from this
background. It tries to make comparisons and influence policy on how the
totally collapsed Zimbabwean state system can be rebuilt on the basis of the
Platonic principles of justice and ‘merit-based democracy.’
In this article, I sample three definitions by the Sophists which, I consider
to be striking, though they are found lacking by Plato. These definitions are
found in the first book of The Republic. I will begin by a definition from one
Thrasymarchus, who defines justice as ‘what is good for the stronger,’
meaning justice is the advantage of those in power over the city or the polis.4
In Thrasymarchus’ view, the rulers are the source of justice in every city and
their laws are just since they enacted those laws to benefit themselves.5
Plato finds this definition to be deeply flawed and asks whether the
ruler who makes a mistake by making a law that lessens their well being, is
still a ruler. Thrasymarchus agrees that no ruler will make such an error.6
This agreement gives Plato the lee way to dismiss Thrasymarchus’ definition
by comparing rulers to people of various professions.7 Thrasymarchus
consents to Plato’s assertion that an artist is someone who does his job well,
and is a knower of some art, which allows him to complete the job well.8
Thrasymarchus admits that rulers who enact a law that does not benefit
them are, in the precise sense, not rulers at all.9 In dejection, Thrasymarchus
gives up the argument.
Polymarchus another of the Sophists, also defines justice as ‘doing
good to one’s friends and harming one’s enemies.’10 Plato agrees with
Polymarchus that justice includes helping friends, but says that the just man
would never do harm to anybody.11 In the final analysis, Plato dismisses the
two definitions as commonsensical. He invites Cephalus, another Sophist
and father to Polymarchus, to make his own contribution; he defines Justice
as ‘speaking the truth and paying whatever debts are owed.’12 Plato asks
whether one ought to return an axe to a madman if it belongs to him after
having promised to do so before the owner succumbed to this mental
derangement.13 Cephalus laughs and withdraws from the conversation.14
After dismissing the three definitions of justice by the Sophists as naïve,
Plato defines justice in the fourth book of The Republic. He defines justice as
the action of doing what one ought to do, or of doing what one does best,
according to one’s class within society.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
75
Plato maintains that a just society is one in which the organization of the
state mirrors the organization of the tripartite soul or the three elements that
define an individual person.15 Plato names the three elements as reason,
spirit and desire.16 After the definitions, Plato draws comparisons between the
individual and the society to which the individual is attached with a view to
demonstrate how justice is key to the formation of an ideal state.
Justice in the Individual and justice in Society compared
It is also imperative to notice that in his conceptualization of justice, Plato
uses the Greek word dikaiosyne which when translated means ‘morality’ or
‘righteousness.’17 For Plato, therefore, justice means living a moral life or a
life of righteousness. Plato defines justice by striking an analogy between the
individual, on the one hand, and the society on the other. An individual is
just when each element of his or her soul performs its function without
interfering with the other elements.18
Only reason should have an overriding role in the maintenance of the
soul, while the spirited element or the emotional part of the soul should be
subordinate to it.19 Both reason and spirit should control the desiring part of
the soul which forms the greater chunk of man's soul.20 As Plato remarks,
“this part has a knack for pleasurable things which would end up enslaving
the other two elements, hence the need to control it.”21
Plato argues that when each of these three elements agrees to perform
its function as allotted by its station and when reason alone is allowed to
exercise rulership over the other two elements, then there is justice and
harmony within an individual.22 Each element should have a corresponding
virtue, thus reason is linked to wisdom, the spirited part to courage and the
desiring part to temperance or moderation.23 Figure 1 below best
summarizes the nature and function of the tripartite soul and the
corresponding virtues of wisdom, courage and moderation.
Rational Soul (Thinking)
Wisdom
Spirited Soul (Willing)
Courage
Appetitive Soul (Feeling)
Moderation
Fig
i ure
re 1
76
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Corresponding to these three elements in human nature are three
classes in society namely: The guardian class which is the representative of
reason; the soldier class which is the representative of the spirited part; and
the artisan class which is representative of the desiring part of the soul.24 For
Plato, justice is like a manuscript which exists in two copies, and one of these
is larger than the other.25 It exists both in the individual and in the society,
but it exists on a larger scale and in more visible form in the society.26
As is the case in the individual soul, each and every class represents a
certain virtue. The guardian class (which Plato also called the PhilosopherKings) must have wisdom to make key decisions for the state and because of
this special role, the guardians are not supposed to marry and to own
property but to lead a communal life, while the soldier class (also called
auxiliaries) should have the courage to defend the state and the artisan class
to work and exhibit the virtue of temperance.27 Figure 2 below illustrates this
point aptly.
Rulers
Wise Decisions
Soldiers
Courageous Actions
Farmers, Merchants, and other People
(Moderated Desires)
Figure
2
F
Fig.1 and 2 courtesy of Garth Kermerling available at
http://www.philosophypages.com/referral/contact.htm (Last modified 27 October 2001)
As illustrated by figures 1 and 2 above, justice is an overarching principle
tied to the virtues of wisdom, courage and temperance as exercised by both
the individual and the state. Justice, for Plato, is the will to fulfill one’s duties
and not to interfere with the duties of another.28 According to Plato, the state
is a perfect whole in which each individual (which is its element) functions
not for itself but for the health of the whole.29
But how, in Plato’s view, does justice resonate with democracy? Is a
just society, a democratic society? For a better appreciation of this discourse,
I will begin by giving credence to the definition of democracy as we
understand it today and as the Greeks, who coined the term, understood it
during the days of Plato.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
77
Democracy defined and planted
In its modern usage, I would say, the word democracy means respecting the
rule of law and basic liberties and freedoms of the citizens such as freedom
of speech, expression and assembly. It may also mean respecting the will of
the people as a collective body and respecting human life as a basic human
good. In our modern times, we must talk of a sustainable democratic order
as one where political parties mobilize public opinion and alternate in power
to ensure accountability.30
It combines institutions with a reinforcing political culture that together
guarantee the rule of law while ensuring that policy follows the considered
preferences of public sentiment…Truly democratic institutions and political
cultures engage public opinion within a framework of checks and balances
that limit both majority rule and executive power.31
Majority rule is often described as a characteristic feature of
democracy, but without a responsible government, it is possible for the rights
of the minority to be abused by the ‘tyranny of the majority.32 Let me briefly
explain this point; it is important to notice that Zimbabwe’s independence
from the British was a result of a protracted war. The aim was to gain
independence which would open doors for majority rule that would embrace
the principles of justice, in-keeping with a democratized state.
But it seems to me that twenty eight years after independence,
dictatorial tendencies like lawlessness, utter disregard for morality, manifest
injustice and the unprovoked use of armed force which characterized
European rule – as Mogobe Ramose would put it – 33 are still evident and
apart from the above, there is a new wave of violence targeting the minority
groups, especially the white commercial farmers. This is a slap in the face of
informed democracy; I call this ‘tyranny of the minority’.
I argue that although the colonizer seized Zimbabwe’s land somewhat
fraudulently; the ZANU PF government, in an effort to correct these historical
imbalances, should simply have followed just and democratic processes in the
redistribution of the land rather than the use of force and violence against a
relic of the white commercial farmers. Two wrongs do not make a right.
In as much as the violence of the unjust wars of colonization was the
violation of both the territorial and the political rights of the African people,34
the political violence that has gripped Zimbabwe since 2000 is also a violation
of the territorial and political rights of the Zimbabwean people. Why? Because
of two reasons; first, the displacement of people [especially in rural areas]
through intimidation, maiming and killing (as observed after the March 29
harmonized elections) is a violation of people’s territorial rights as a citizens.
Second, the fear to exercise one’s democratic will by voting for the
person or party that he or she wants (as has been happening in Zimbabwe
78
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
since 2000) constitute a violation of that person’s political right. It is
important to notice that these are the same injustices that were perpetrated
by the colonizer. How are we any different from the colonizer? Where the
conqueror defined justice arbitrarily as that which was due only to the
conqueror and thus imposed no obligation on the part of the conqueror to
reciprocate.35 Probably, the period between 2000 and 2008 has also seen
the ZANU PF government defining justice as what was due only to them as a
party with no obligation to reciprocate. Probably, Ramose is right to say,
‘African leadership appears to be either unable or unwilling to pursue
resolutely the path of historical justice.’36
But how did the Greeks define democracy and why did Plato criticize
it? For the Greeks, the word democracy was a combination of two words,
namely: demos which meant ‘people’ and kratos which meant ‘rule’ or
‘authority.’37 Literally taken, the word democracy meant ‘rule by the
people’.38 In a representative democracy, all citizens had the right to vote.39
Citizenship, however, was limited to men over the age of eighteen who
could prove that both their parents were of Athenian birth.40
Since Women did not have the right to vote; it meant that only a
minority of the people had citizenship rights to vote.41 For all his talk about
justice in his imaginary state and the need to uphold it, Plato’s scathing
criticism of democracy in The Republic is rather surprising. One would
expect him to twin justice and democracy in his conception of an ideal state.
Why did he criticize democracy? Plato uses the analogy of the state and the
ship in his criticism of democracy:
Plato compares the state to an elaborate and expensive ship. A ship, to
accomplish a safe and successful journey, needs an expert navigator at the
helm, a captain who knows the capacities of the vessel, geography,
meteorology, water currents, navigational astronomy, supplies management
and other related matters. An ignorant and untrained person at the helm of
ship would endanger the vessel, cargo, crew and passengers alike. Similarly,
Plato suggests, the ship of the state needs expert governors at the helm,
governors who are well informed about such things as law, economics,
sociology, military strategy, history and other relevant subjects. Ignorant and
incompetent governors can be and have been disasters for citizens and
states.42
For Plato, a democratic self government does not work because ordinary
people have no knowledge of how to run the ship of the state.43 They are
not familiar enough with such things as economics, military strategy,
conditions in other countries or the confusing intricacies of law and ethics.44
They are not inclined to acquire such knowledge because the effort and selfdiscipline required for serious study is not something that they (most people)
would enjoy.45
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
79
In their ignorance, they tend to vote for politicians who beguile them
with appearances and nebulous talk…politicians who are guided by
emotions more than by careful analysis.46 In short, this is Plato’s criticism of
democracy in The Republic. But when democracy fails, as Plato contends,
what shall we look to? What is the most ideal form of government which
would satisfy conditions for a just society?
Plato believes that a government of technocrats would be the most
ideal. Semantically, the term technocrat comes from technocracy which
means the control of society by technical experts; or a ruling body of such
experts. A technocrat is, therefore, a member of a technocracy exercising
administrative power.47 As Plato argues, the government of technocrats
would make all relevant and necessary decisions on the basis of objective
analyses and unbiased deliberations.48 Since neither the demos nor ordinary
politicians were expected to acquire this sort of competence, a committee (a
ruling class) of philosopher-kings (and other philosopher queens) was to be
chosen to guarantee justice, public welfare and peace.49
This committee, according to Plato, comprises scientists, scholars,
high-level experts and similar sophisticates… As a just and healthy person is
governed by knowledge and reason, a just society is to be under the control
of society’s most cultivated and best informed minds, “lovers of wisdom”.50
In order to nurture and cultivate the minds of these philosopher-kings (and
queens), education and training are key. Does Plato propose any form of
education for the Philosopher-kings (and queens), if so, what is the nature
and scope of this form of education?
Plato’s Theory of Education as a blue print
In his quest to construct a just society, Plato prescribes four major educational
aims that cut across almost all fields of philosophy namely epistemology,
metaphysics, ethics and philosophical anthropology. The pursuit of truth is his
main contribution to knowledge, while the development of the mind is his main
contribution to metaphysics and philosophy of the mind and the development
of character is his main contribution to ethics.51 The fourth and most important
of these aims (especially for this work) was the sorting of students into social
classes based upon the disposition of their souls.52 This is his contribution to
philosophical anthropology. But how was this to be done?
Plato argues that since a person’s class is determined by an
educational process that begins at birth and proceeds until that person has
reached the maximum level of education compatible with his or her interest
and ability, those who complete the entire educational process would
become philosopher-kings.53 They are the ones whose minds are so
developed that they would grasp the forms and make the wisest decisions.54
80
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the sake of clarity, I will briefly discuss Plato’s theory of forms here. It is
important to observe that The Phaedo is the first dialogue in which Plato
decisively posits the existence of abstracts objects that he often called forms
or ideas.55 These forms, according to Plato, are eternal, changeless, and
incorporeal. We come to have knowledge of them only through thought.56
The theory of forms or ideas involves the belief that general
conceptions are not derived from experience but are logically prior to it. For
example, each of us knows what a perfect circle is, even though every circle
we have seen or might attempt to draw falls short of perfection. It is by
means of our concept of a circle that we identify circular objects.57 Similarly,
it is by means of our concept of justice that we are able to identify just acts.
Plato insists that we must have knowledge of the form justice, in order to
recognize a just person. Only education enables us to reach that level.
To this end, a Platonic curriculum places the highest emphasis on
those studies that develop reasoning skills and lift one’s thoughts above the
mundane world. His curricula emphasize the humanities and mathematics
because they are rooted in intellection and the abstractive world of ideas,
while he discards the natural sciences for their rootedness in commonsense
physicalism.58 I have deliberately decided to be very brief and succinct in this
section so as to retain the ethical flavour of this article thereby avoiding the
temptation to turn it into an article in pedagogy of some sort. I believe this
brief survey of Plato’s education allows me to conclude that education is key
to the reconstruction of an ideal Zimbabwean state.
‘Merit-based democracy:’ A new start for Zimbabwe
From a careful reading of the above criticisms of democracy, it seems to me
that Plato favours meritocracy over and above democracy. Well, I will agree
with him that during his time, Athenian democracy had serious flaws especially
its failure to respect the rights of women in the process of electing their leaders.
It is important to note that already in the fifth century B.C; Plato had recognized
that women could be men’s equals in capacities and potential.59 Significantly,
too, Plato also understood that, if that potential was to be released, this might
have dramatic implications for the restructuring of society.60
And while he had other broader reasons for prescribing communal
living for the guardians of his Republic, Plato clearly believed that equality
for women was incompatible with individual family life and indeed with
individual homes and possessions.61 I agree with Plato’s thinking that
women could be men’s equals in capacities and potential, I disagree with
him when he argues that equality for women will be incompatible with
individual family life and I believe that if the family as an institution will allow
for the abuse of women’s rights then it does not serve any purpose. I
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
81
certainly believe that women are as rational as men and they deserve equal
treatment on matters that affect their existence, including politics even if that
will threaten the family institution and the custody of children. I [also] have
serious problems with Plato when he wants meritocracy to replace
democracy. It does not need to be over emphasized that meritocracy is not
without its own flaws, for instance, it promotes some form of elitism and
injustices in society, for instance, if the intellectuals govern, the interests of
the common people may not be adequately represented because of human
nature’s inclination to self serving goals and aspirations. On another note,
Plato does not seem to prescribe the formula for electing the committee of
technocrats who should govern, that is, who chooses this committee and
why? Is there any guiding framework for the choosing? It is my contention in
this article that Plato left these questions unanswered.
While I would appreciate his efforts in highlighting the major
limitations of democracy, especially the issue of giving Tom, Dick and Harry
the power to choose their leaders given their limited knowledge of politics, I
feel that ‘democracy based on merit’ is more ideal and representative than
meritocracy (which, in most cases, represents the interests of the elite leading
to the ‘tyranny of the minority’) and democracy (which represents the interest
of the majority sometimes leading to ‘tyranny of the majority). I propose,
therefore, that if some elements of democracy and those of meritocracy are
blended together then we could come up with this ideal form of government.
Democracy and meritocracy should complete each other in that regard. This
could be the way to go in Zimbabwe. If Morgan Tsvangirai’s speech (at his
inauguration as prime minister of Zimbabwe at Zimbabwe’s state house on
February 11, 2009) is anything to go by then, we could actually be moving
in the direction of ‘informed democracy’:
People of Zimbabwe, I have a vision for our country that will guide me as
prime minister. I will work to create a society where our values are stronger
than the threat of violence; where our children’s future and happiness are
more important than present political goals and where a person is free to
express an opinion loudly, openly and publicly without fear of reprisal or
repression.62
But how will this be possible given the current state of affairs in the inclusive
government where ZANU PF, the MDC-T and M are likely to differ along
conservative and progressive lines? Whatever differences exist between the
three political formations in the inclusive government, I think there is need to
prioritize on formal education. More funds should be channeled towards
educating the masses about the value of justice and good governance. It is
my humble submission in this article that upon receiving good education,
the masses will be able to choose the committee of technocrats who will
become guardians of the land.
82
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
The phrase ‘merit-based democracy’ requires some bit of explaining
here. I take it that meri- has to do with the ‘ability’ or ‘informed choice’
exhibited by the electorate when they choose leaders on the basis of merit.
Education brings about this ability, which means merit is a function of
education. When meri- is combined with demos- it then means that by
allowing the educated and informed civilian population to choose their
leaders who merit their positions (on the basis of having the right
qualifications), real or ‘informed democracy’ is being promoted under the
banner of ‘merit-based democracy.’ The suffix – ‘cracy’ is derived from an
ancient Greek word kratein which means ‘a form of government’ or ‘state’.
It is, therefore, my contention in this article that ‘political power in the
hands of an uneducated person is like a loaded rifle in the hands of a
madman.’ In a ‘merit-based democracy’ or ‘informed democracy’, education
is power and power is education! ‘Merit-based democracy’, allows the
masses and the leaders to play their roles reasonably in the creation of a just
society. This committee of technocrats will, however, exercise an overriding
role in the whole process, just as reason controls both the spirit and appetites
in an individual.
This is the possible synergy I see between the forms of education I am
proposing for new Zimbabwe and the inherent Platonic principles of justice
discussed earlier on. To achieve this key objective, our curricula must give
priority to the Social Sciences and Humanities addressing such issues as
policy formulation, ethical leadership, political education and governance
from elementary to tertiary level.
Only those who will have acquired a certain level of education as set
by the state and as enshrined in the constitution must be allowed to vote and
those falling short of the requirement should be left out of the voting
equation. I propose that a person who has at least an ‘ordinary level’
qualification is better informed and can vote. Those to be voted for must
have at least a first degree in any discipline. In that regard we will be able to
build a better Zimbabwe. It is critically important to note that while Plato’s
principles of justice must be appropriated in our education system, his
conceptualization of democracy cannot be swallowed whole.
But it is also important not to lose sight of the fact that Plato’s criticism
of democracy in Athenians could not have been influenced by his ‘lack of
understanding’ of the tenets of democracy, but maybe by the model that
Athens adopted during his time. This gives me the latitude to argue that the
concept of democracy can be understood differently depending on context,
in which case I can still argue that democracy is key to the promotion of
justice in Zimbabwe today but, as you have seen, this is not the argument I
am pursuing in this article, it is, however, important to note that research in
this area continues and I reserve this argument for the future.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
83
Conclusion
I argued in this article that Plato’s theory of justice resonates with ‘meritbased democracy’ which I defined as a blend of meritocracy (which, Plato
jealously defended in The Republic) and democracy (which he heavily
criticized). I argued that in order to create a just Zimbabwean society,
premised on ‘informed democracy’ there is need for the inclusive
government to prioritize on education. It is through education that the
Platonic principles of Justice can be appropriated in our system and it is also
through education that the masses will be able to elect leaders of substance
who are not bent on fanning violence as a method of getting into political
office.
While Plato criticized democracy and favoured meritocracy, I argued
that meritocracy is elitist if it has no support of the masses and that it may
lead to a ‘tyranny of the minority.’ One way of getting round this problem
would be to combine both meritocracy and democracy to form ‘merit-based
democracy’ or ‘informed democracy’ where the masses will be involved in
choosing the committee of technocrats who should govern. I argued,
therefore, that the school curricula should be fine tuned to give emphasis to
the human sciences and issues of policy, ethical leadership, governance and
political administration must be given credence.
Select bibliography
Books
1. Albert, E.M, Denise, T.C, and Sheldon, P.P. (1988). Great Traditions in Ethics.
Belmont: Wards worth Publishing Company.
2. Almond, B. (2006). The fragmenting family. Oxford.: Clarendon Press.
3. Audi, R. (1995).
The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
Cambridge.:
Cambridge University Press.
4. Barak, A. (2006). The judge in a democracy. Indianapolis.: Princeton Press.
5. Bloom, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato (English translation). New York.: Basic
Books.
6. Gove, P.B. (1993). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language Unabridged. Cologne.: Konemann Publishers
7. Hay, W.A. (2005). “What is democracy? Liberal institutions and stability in changing
societies.”:Paper presented on the 12th September 2005 to the FPRI study group on
America and the West. Philadelphia.
8. Hoptner, J.B. (1964). What you should Know about democracy-and why. New
York.: Scholastic Book Services.
9. Simpson, J.A, and Weiner, E.S.C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol. XVII).
Oxford.: Clarendon Press.
84
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Book chapter
10. Ramose, M. B. (2002). Justice and restitution in African political thought. In
Coetzee, P.H and Roux, A.P.J (Eds.), Philosophy from Africa: A text with readings.
Cape Town.: Oxford University Press.
Periodicals
11. Chipangura, T and Chimhavi D. (2009). ‘Rifts divide hope of peace.’ City Press.
Johannesburg.: RCP Media.
Gleanings from the internet
12. Plato: On using the word dikaisyne as English equivalent for justice at
http://www.peerspapers.com/essays/Plato/75644.html
13. Plato:
The
ideal
curricula
for
the
guardians
at
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com.php
14. Plato:
The
failure
of
democracy
at
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
15. Plato:
Training
for
the
guardians
at
http://people.moreheadst.edu/fs/w.willis/edel/680.html
16. Plato: The state and the soul at
http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2g.htm
17. The Republic
(Plato). From
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ (Plato)
1. Hoptner, J.B. (1964). What You Should Know About DEMOCRACY –and Why. New
York.: Scholastic Book Services. p.30
2.
Barak, A. (2006). The judge in a democracy. Indianapolis.: Princeton Press. p. 27
3. Gove, P.B. (1993). Webster’s Third New International Dictionary of the English
Language Unabridged. Cologne.: Konemann Publishers. p.1401
4. The Republic
(Plato). From
Wikipedia,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_(Plato)
5.
Ibid.
6.
Ibid.
7.
Ibid.
8.
Ibid.
9.
Ibid.
the
free
encyclopedia
at
10. Ibid.
11. bid.
12. Bloom, A. (1991). The Republic of Plato (English translation). New York.: Basic
Books. 331c-d.
13. Ibid.
14. Ibid.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
85
15. Op-cit. The Republic (Plato). From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ (Plato)
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
at
16. Ibid.
17. Plato: On using the word dikaisyne as English equivalent for justice at
http://www.peerspapers.com/essays/Plato/75644.html
18. Op-cit. The Republic (Plato). From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_ (Plato)
Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
at
19. Ibid.
20. Plato: The state and the soul at http://www.philosophypages.com/hy/2g.htm
21. Ibid.
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid.
24. Ibid.
25. Ibid.
26. Ibid.
27. Ibid.
28. Ibid.
29. Ibid.
30. Hay, W.A. (2005). “What is democracy? Liberal institutions and stability in changing
societies.”: Paper presented on the 12th September 2005 to the FPRI study group on
America and the West. Philadelphia. p.136
31. Ibid.
32. Ibid.
33. Ramose, M. B. (2002). Justice and restitution in African political thought. In Coetzee,
P.H and Roux, A.P.J (Eds.), Philosophy from Africa: A text with readings. Cape Town.:
Oxford University Press. p.467
34. Ibid, p.462
35. Ibid, p.467
36. Ibid, p.462
37. Op-cit. Hoptner. (1964). p.29
38. Ibid.
39. Ibid.
40. Ibid.
41. Ibid.
42. Plato:
The
failure
of
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
democracy
at
43. Ibid.
86
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
44. Ibid.
45. Ibid.
46. Ibid.
47. Simpson, J.A., Weiner, E.S.C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (Vol.XVII).
Oxford.: Clarendon Press. p. 705
48. Op-cit.
Plato:
The
failure
http://faculty.frostburg.edu/phil/forum/PlatoRep.htm
of
democracy
at
49. Ibid.
50. Ibid.
51. lato:
Training
for
st.edu/fs/w.willis/edel/680.html
the
guardians
at
http://people.morehead-
52. Ibid.
53. lato:
The
ideal
curricula
http://www.philosophyprofessor.com.php
for
the
guardians
at
54. Ibid.
55. Audi, R. (1995). The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy. Cambridge.: Cambridge
University Press. p.621
56. Ibid.
57. Albert, E.M, Denise., T.C., Sheldon, P.P. (1988). Great Traditions in Ethics.
Belmont.: Wards worth Publishing Company. P.11
58. Ibid.
59. Almond, B. (2006). The fragmenting family, Oxford.: Clarendon Press. p. 58
60. Ibid.
61. Ibid.
62. Chipangura, T and Chimhavi, D. (2009). ‘Rifts divide hope of peace.’ City Press.
Johannesburg: RCP Media. p.27
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
87