A critical study of Kwesi Wiredu’s consensual democracy

Abstract

This thesis explores the normative merits of Kwesi Wiredu's consensual democracy. This theory, as presented by Wiredu, embodies arguments that reject the party system as an appropriate mode for governance in Africa. By showing the majoritarian system as adversarial and divisive, Wiredu proposes a consensual model that reflects the decision making of the traditional Africans. This thesis examines the core arguments of his proposal within the framework of deliberative democracy. It argues that Wiredu’s idea of consensus has normative appeal. But his notion of non-party society, which is a reflection of the ancient consensus system, does not seem to embrace the diversities that characterize the contemporary cosmopolitan society. A pure consensus model can degenerate into a mob rule if we affirm the primacy of popular participation over a party system. Conversely, to price the majoritarian values over consensus principles can lead to an aristocracy. The need to retrieve and adopt pre-colonial values in the contemporary context, however, seems to require a fusion of the consensus model and some of the key principles governing the party system. Hence, this thesis argues that if a multi-party coalition system is synthesized with the consensus model, it could serve as a feasible model for guiding the diverse and complex society of ours.