Loyal opposion

Author’s Note: This article appeared in The Daily Times of 17 June 2009. for more information write to ananiyaalick.ponje@gmail.com or alickponje1988@yahoo.com Loyal Opposition By Ananiya Alick Ponje Loyal opposition is a notion that needs to be accepted as a sophisticated phenomenon in developed democracies. The aspect of Malawi’s democracy being a young democracy as argued by many appears to miss the fact that a democracy does not remain young after 15 years. Of course this might depend on the understanding that is implied by actions that take place within the democracy. Loyal opposition implies a distinction, one of profound significance, between the interests of the state and the interests of the government of the day. The term is derived from the British constitutional practice, and has its origin in the time when politicians were beginning to outgrow the idea that opposition to the executive power was disloyal. This is what the case was during Mutharika’s first term in office. The opposition used the muscle of its majority to frustrate most of the president’s programs. It does not necessarily mean that the opposition should have gone on bended knee worshipping the government and accept everything that had been proposed but their actions were beyond the reasonable level of sanity. The notion of loyal opposition, to some extent requires that the opposition is accepted as a necessary entity in the political system, but with it playing its prudent role. It took two centuries for the notion of loyal opposition to be fully accepted in Britain. Even as late as 1937, one backbencher in parliament, speaking on a bill to provide a salary for the leader of opposition, commented on the absurdity of paying someone “to criticize and hinder the work of the government”. This was because the opposition was not there to scrutinize the works of the government but to criticize them; typical of the near past Malawi’s opposition. The opposition, on the other hand is supposed to be more than a spearhead for criticism and a searchlight for scrutiny. The government is responsible for legislative policy, the preparation of bills to be passed in parliament and the delineation of priorities. The opposition, in actual sense, is supposed to be regarded as an alternative government. That opposition may soon come to power – and if it is thought of by the opposition itself – may help to inhibit reckless criticism and rejection of bills which are for the good of the country as a whole. Ignorance of this aspect is what resulted into the terrible downfall of the Malawi Congress Party whose president was the leader of opposition in the previous parliament. With the majority of legislators occupying opposition benches in the National Assembly in the previous parliament, politics has been known as adversary politics. Just as a lawyer would so much desire to have his client acquitted even if the client has confessed to him that he indeed committed the offence he is being accused of, opposition MPs supported everything their leader put across. It was a very disloyal opposition. A crucial thing about loyal opposition is not so much the particular form it may take, or the extent to which it is concentrated, but that the legitimacy of the opposition as such is accepted. And since in Malawi, we all know that it has always been accepted since the advent of democracy, the problem is why it has always been a very disloyal opposition. Now with the government having the majority of representation in the National Assembly, perhaps the notion of loyal opposition will be implemented without much as choice.