Democracy is a system of government whose primary principle is the social contract
A system can be defined as a set of interrelated parts that work together to achieve a goal. An educational system, for example, sets the criteria for professional qualification. A political system prescribes selection requirements for political office.
Educational and political systems are only two examples, but systems abound, operate at multiple levels, and play different and interrelated roles to enable society to function smoothly.
This article focuses on socio-political systems, whose emphases are people and society. All systems have two principal characteristics. First, they operate on principles. For socio-political systems, these principles are defined by society and are loosely defined as governing laws. Systems collapse if their governing laws are undermined.
Secondly, systems require regular monitoring for optimal performance. Effective monitoring entails responding to system signals, which can be negative or positive. Positive signals communicate system effectiveness and are reinforcing. Negative signals reflect ineffectiveness and call for reform. Undermining governing principles and ignoring negative system signals, therefore, can lead to system failure.
Democracy is a system of government whose primary principle is the social contract. This contract emerges from people’s action to create a civil society out of a “state of nature.” In this state, as Hobbes claims, life is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.” The contract is created as people transfer their right to self-government to sovereigns (politicians) in return for security, and protection of life and property.
The social contract, therefore, guides the relationship between the people and politicians and enjoins the latter to act in the interest of the former. Logically, then, if politicians breach the social contract, the people can reclaim their right to self-government and return to a state of nature.
A coup d’état is equivalent to a state of nature. It has many causes, but a primary one is a breach of the social contract.
Coup discussions have recently gripped Ghana. It happened when a leader of the #FixTheCountry Movement, Oliver Barker-Vormawor, announced what appears an intent to lead a coup if the controversial E-levy is passed. As expected, the state descended on him with colossal military power, arrested him, and set him before the court to face treason charges.
I unequivocally reject calls for a coup in Ghana. Coups have marred Ghana’s history (there have been 10 since independence ), and the devasting socio-economic and political ramifications should be plain to all inquisitive and casual observers.
But rejecting a coup can be wishful thinking unless politicians address major contributory factors: gross economic mismanagement and bad governance. A recent BBC podcast on The Inquiry attributes rising coups in West Africa to bad governance, broadly defined.
Similarly, a BBC article suggests that “African countries have had conditions common for coups, like poverty and poor economic performance”. Therefore, bad governance, poverty, and poor economic performance, which are negative system signals, are likely prime conditions for coups.
To what extent are these negative system signals present in Ghana? I list a few below:
i. Ghana’s nominal debt to GDP at the end of November 2021 was 78.4%. The consequences on the country’s economic future are unimaginable, to the say least.
ii. In 2020, Ghana lost GHS 12.8 billion due to infractions and other irregularities committed by statutory institutions.
iii. Growing perception of the culture of silence.
iv. Depreciation of the Cedi (the worst in Africa by some accounts).
v. Rampant fuel price hikes, translating into the high cost of living for ordinary people.
vi. UTAG’s long strike may severely thwart people’s educational goals and upend academic work.
The current government did not cause all these problems per se, but it is absolutely responsible for its management. Whether pass or fail, people can best judge.
To suit them, politicians often frame economic and governance problems as twisted facts, mere perception, or propaganda. That’s not surprising because these problems can harm their re-election prospects. But such responses rarely address people’s concerns. Perception and propaganda do in politics what evidence and facts do in court.
In a perfect world, facts and evidence govern politics. In an imperfect world, perception and propaganda hold considerable sway. Politicians who minimise the centrality of perception and propaganda in politics might supervise their own defeat.
I suspect the politicians in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Sudan probably saw various negative system signals in their respective countries. Or they failed to see them. And whether the negative signals were facts or mere perception, they were overthrown.
I don’t want a coup d’état in Ghana. But politicians must fix the problems. It is almost impossible for politicians to blatantly breach the social contract without system failure. In a cause-and-effect world, that’s a natural consequence.