[ad_1]
In this analysis, political philosopher LYSON SIBANDE said he supports the approach of the Maharashtra Communist Party Congress because this approach guarantees individual aspirations and personal choices, does not limit people’s dreams because of race, skin color, gender, religion or geographical area, but can concentrate power in one area, which is more democratic, competitive and efficient than trying to achieve equal distribution through discrimination and infringement of people’s freedom and personal choices.
Let me add something to the debate I sparked about the regionalist approach taken by the DPP in managing the congress, as opposed to the CPM’s approach where every party position was open and free to everyone, regardless of where they lived.
Now, I have criticized the practice of regional discrimination because it suppresses the desire and freedom of individual party members to pursue a political career, depriving them of the right to pursue positions that reflect their personal passions and skills. I am against reminding party members where they are from in order to qualify for party positions. But I agree that, eventually, the DPP will regularly allocate positions in the national general elections so that all regions are fairly represented.
However, I support the CPM’s approach of not interfering with individual desires and passions, which is to allow everyone to freely compete for any position, regardless of where they come from, and let the best candidate win. I support this system because it respects and guarantees individual freedom, promotes personal growth and competitiveness. But of course, in the end, it leads to an uneven distribution of positions in the National Conference and the party hierarchy. As we saw, during the conference, most of the senior positions in the CPM were won by candidates from the central regions.
But if a free, non-discriminatory practice is adopted, where delegates from all regions come together and freely vote for those officials who freely choose the positions they wish in the General Assembly without any form of coercion, and the delegates freely elect more than 80% of the officials in a region, what is wrong with that? What is wrong with that? As long as they are freely and fairly elected through a legitimate democratic process that respects the will of the delegates, then there is nothing wrong with that.
I’m a realist, so I’ll tell you how the world works, not how you wish it worked.
History and modern social systems have proven that every political and economic system that respects individual freedom, promotes individual ambition and the pursuit of individual achievement will only distribute power and wealth to those who are able to obtain it, without considering the equality of the distribution pattern.
Let me give you a few examples, democracy and capitalism or free market economy. These systems have all prospered and have stood the test of time. All of these systems share as common fundamental principles non-interference, freedom of individual choice and competition.
These systems have no real sympathy for the underdog, nor do they care about equal distribution. Those who have the advantage, hard work, and intelligence get more opportunities without having to apologize for it. It’s survival of the fittest: if you have to win, then you have to adapt.
There is a reason why Malawi’s president is only from the central and southern regions. The presidency does not rotate among the regions to balance the distribution of presidential palaces.
Democracy allows people to compete freely and fairly, and it doesn’t matter if only Chewas, Lhomwes, and Yaos become president. If there are enough of them to get a majority, then they will elect the president. Everywhere in the world, whether in Europe or the United States, political democracy works this way, and it remains efficient, competitive, and thriving.
Yes, there is a reason why every country has only a few billionaires at the top and many poor people at the bottom. The distribution of wealth is skewed towards the few. That is what capitalism and the free market economy do. It selects only the best and hardworking and rewards them. It does not interfere, individual choices are respected, innovation flourishes, and the invisible hand of supply and demand calls the shots. Only those who deserve to be rich get rich. It does not seek equal distribution between the rich and the poor.
My conclusion is that I support the CPM’s approach because it safeguards individual aspirations and personal choices, does not restrict people’s dreams based on race, color, gender, religion or geographical area, and is able to concentrate power in one area, making it more democratic, more competitive and more efficient than an approach that attempts to achieve equal distribution of positions through discrimination and infringement of people’s freedom and personal choices.
Follow and subscribe to Nyasa TV:
[ad_2]
Source link
