Abstract
How is power to be distributed in a political party in the light of characteristically Africancommunal values, or Ubuntu for short? Wiredu in his consensual democracy argues that power should be distributed equally to all who are party to governance. I find problems with such a distributive model by making three arguments against it. First, I show that the positionalities of those within a political party ought to be recognised rather than ignored or treated as irrelevant, for the benefit of entrusting power to the one who possesses favourable qualities and competencies. Second, I show the identity of interests’ thesis which is foundational to Wiredu’s consensus is not only untrue but also undesirable. Third, I argue that making agreement the fundamental value leads to the lack of interest satisfaction that might come about from certain kinds of deference. In contrast to Wiredu, I argue that power should be distributed in a partialist sense by paying attention to one’s qualifications to entrust the most qualified with political power. This qualification could be judged based on one’s competence, or on arbitrary things like one’s race or one’s gender to name a few, if the intention is to address past injustices, but above all, on one’s ability to be in relationship of identity and solidarity with others. This model favours a sort of hierarchy, the sort that captures our intuition about the proper relationship in the family or the right relationship between the teacher and the student. The unique thing about this sort of relationship is that power is exercised not so much as a right but as a duty, a duty to protect and advance the humanity of those under the politician’s influence of authority, while also respecting the humanity of strangers. On this model, even though political power could be authoritative, it ought to be productive, transformative, and compatible with individual dignity. My position avoids the problems that face Wiredu’s model.
M.A. (Philosophy)