The Question of Rationality in Kwasi Wiredu’s Consensual Democracy

Kwasi Wiredu’s proposal of democracy by consensus in place of majoritarian democracy on the African continent has captured the attention of a number of scholars in African philosophy such as Emmanuel Chukwudi Eze, Bernard Matolino, Helen Lauer, Ademola Kazeem Fayemi, Martin Odei Ajei, and myself. In this chapter, I continue the debate by focusing on Matolino’s defense of Wiredu and his criticism of me. In engaging with Matolino, I seek to show how he has mischaracterized my position and arguments as part of his continued defense of Wiredu’s notion of deliberation as a purely rational activity. Part of my aim is to show that he runs into a series of contradictions, logical fallacies, and quite bizarre conclusions. I demonstrate that instead of approaching debates by interpreting participants as belonging to “camps” as Matolino does, we should approach debates by assuming that deliberation has the capacity to transform the views of participants, or at least to occasion a gradual evolution of views. According to this reading of deliberation, participants should avoid doubling down on their positions even in the face of overwhelming evidence.