The Nature of Opposition in Kwasi Wiredu's Democracy by Consensus

Kwasi Wiredu has argued that democracy by consensus, unlike majoritarian democracy, posits a political system that is not characterised by competition for power between political parties. While majoritarian democracy vests political power in the party that has won a simple majority at the polls, hence proscribing losers to opposition, democracy by consensus seeks to avoid appropriation of power to winners on the basis of majority votes. Two of the most persuasive reasons advanced in favour of consensual democracy are that sectional appropriation of power to the majority party may lead to the tyranny of the majority at the exclusion of minority parties and that democracy by consensus provides maximal representation for the electorate. While I sympathise with most of the claims made on behalf of democracy by consensus I have some reservations about the theoretical outline of the role of the opposition in this polity. In this article I wish to present an outline of three serious difficulties that are attendant to Wiredu's formulation of the notion of party in democracy by consensus and the envisaged place and role of opposition parties in such a set up.