Let Them Compete, But Let Them Be Civil

The Patriarch’s efforts should be spent less on “reconciliation” and “consensus” and more on promoting a responsible competition.

May the better one win..

Something is off in most of the commentary you read about the Metn elections today. What everyone seems to agree on is that the Metnis are vicious, man-eating animals who are just waiting for an excuse to jump at each other’s throats. If I were a Metni, I’d be really insulted.

To see all those politicians, religious figures and journalists scuttling about warning of the apocalyptic mayhem this election could bring, you’d think people are talking about war, not ballots. The buzz words on everyone’s lips are “consensus” and “reconciliation”, mystical panaceas they hope can mitigate deep seated and historical political differences.

They all seem to forget that elections were invented in the first place because people have irreconcilable differences. The right thing to do in Metn is to hold the elections, and as one commentator in this blog puts it, live with the consequences of their choice.

But does that mean the good wishers should wash their hands from potential sabotage and mob clashes? Not necessarily.

There are two kinds of mediation, a wrong kind and a right one. The wrong kind is basically telling the parties: “Let’s ignore our differences and, for the better of the people, not compete.” Most good Samaritans, including the patriarch, are trying to take this road. But there’s a better way.

The right kind of mediation would be telling the competing leaders: “Listen, we know you two have different points of view, and people will settle this in the ballots. But you have to promise, in public, while shaking hands, that this will be a clean fight, and that the only weapon you’ll use is positive persuasion. You have to also promise that whoever loses will make a concession speech congratulating the other person, in which you say these precise words: I may have lost, but democracy has won”