|
|
|
|
Background Information on the Global Themes
> Democracy |
Democracy
|
|
|
"No one is born a good citizen, no
nation is born a democracy. Rather, both are processes that continue
to evolve over a lifetime. Young people must be included from
birth.7"
Kofi Annan |
|
Democracy describes a system
of making rules for a group of people. It comes from the Greek
words demos - meaning people - and kratos meaning power. Accordingly,
democracy is often defined as "the rule of the people";
in other words, a system of making rules which is put together
by the people who are to obey those rules.
Could such a system exist and could it possibly be a good way
of making decisions? Why did such an idea originally arise and
why is it today considered, at least by most people and most countries
in the world, the only system that is worth our attention? Does
it really make sense for everyone to rule?
Why Democracy?
There are two fundamental principles that lie at the base of
the idea of democracy and which help to explain its appeal:
- the principle of individual autonomy: that no one should
be subject to rules that have been imposed by others.
- the principle of equality: that everyone should have the
same opportunity to influence the decisions that affect people
in society.
Both of these principles are intuitively appealing to everyone,
and a democratic system of government is the only one that, at
least in theory, accepts both as fundamental. Other systems, such
as oligarchy, plutocracy or dictatorship, normally violate both
principles: they give power to a certain (constant) sector of
society and these people then take decisions on behalf of the
rest of the population. Neither equality nor individual autonomy
is respected in such cases.
The two principles above provide the moral justification for
democracy, and we can see that both are in fact key human rights
principles, but there are also pragmatic reasons that are often
given as justification for a democratic system of government,
rather than any other.
- It is often claimed that a democratic system provides for
a more efficient form of government, because the decisions that
are taken are more likely to be respected by the people. People
do not usually break their "own" rules.
- Acceptance by the population is also more likely because
decisions have been reached as a result of building a consensus
among different factions; the rules would not be realistic if
they were unacceptable to large sections of the population.
Thus, there is a form of internal control on the type of laws
that a democratically accepted government ought to consider.
- A democratic system is also supposed to foster more initiative
and therefore to be more responsive to changing conditions,
on the "two heads are better than one" principle.
Do you feel any `ownership' of the rules in your country? What
might be the reasons for this?
A good theory... |
|
|
"One
ballot is stronger than the bullet."
Abraham Lincoln |
|
In practice, it is not of course
reasonable to expect everyone in society to contribute to the
rule-making process and nor would everyone want to, so many countries
use a system whereby citizens appoint representatives to make
decisions on their behalf: representative rather than direct democracy.
Every citizen, in theory, has an equal possibility to select the
person they think will best represent their interests. In this
way, the principle of equality is observed.
This was not always the case: at the birth of democracy, in
Ancient Greece, women and slaves were not allowed to vote and
neither, of course, were children. Today, in most countries of
the world, women do have the vote but the struggle was won only
relatively recently.
There are other sections of society, which commonly include
immigrants, prisoners, children, who are not entitled to vote,
even though they are obliged to obey the laws of the land.
Could excluding certain sectors of society from the democratic
process ever be justifiable?
Control over the law-making process |
|
|
"Two
cheers for democracy: one because it admits variety and two because
it permits criticism. Two cheers are quite enough: there is no
occasion to give three."
E.M. Forster |
|
If the principle of equality
is more or less respected today, at least as far as voting is
concerned, how does the first principle, of autonomy stand in
the existing democracies? To what extent do individuals in these
societies feel any "ownership" of the laws that are
made by their representatives? The answer here is a great deal
less encouraging. Indeed, most people, in most democracies of
the world, would claim that the laws of the land are "imposed"
on them by rulers who do not represent their interests. So has
the first principle gone astray?
Is it possible, under a representative democracy, for people to
have real power over those decisions that are made on their behalf?
There are a number of senses in which people can be said to
have some control over the law-making process in a representative
democracy. Again, we shall consider the ideal model, even if it
does not seem to represent accurately the political situation
in many countries. At least it assists us in identifying the problem
areas and suggests ways in which these may be overcome.
- Citizens influence the law-making process because they select
the people who will make the laws: in theory, at elections,
citizens choose between different possible representatives of
their interests. Thus, they can choose the individual that offers
the platform that is closest to their own interests.
- Politicians have to stand for re-election. In the time period
between elections, lawmakers will be aware that they will be
judged at the next election on their performance and therefore
should not be inclined to pass laws that will be obviously unacceptable
to the populace. This is a form of tacit control.
- There are, in principle, ample opportunities for citizens
to indicate actively their displeasure with particular policies
or laws, and thus to send a message back to their representatives
that this is an area of concern.
- There are also, in theory, opportunities for citizens to
have a more positive influence on the legislative process by
engaging in consultation with political representatives, either
through NGOs, or other pressure groups and consultative bodies.
- Ultimately, any individual is free to stand for election
if they feel that none of the candidates is able to represent
their interests.
Free and fair elections - a means to an end
|
|
|
"The will of the people shall be the
basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed
in periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal
and equal suffrage and shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent
free voting procedures."
Article 21, paragraph
iii, UDHR. |
|
Elections are a method of exerting
control over the lawmakers, and they exert that control, in theory
at least, through invoking a desire, or need, for politicians
to take their electorate into account in everything they do. Such
a method clearly requires the elections to be free and fair but
it also requires something that is perhaps more fundamental: that
politicians believe that they will be held to account by the electorate
if they fail to represent their interests. No politician has any
need to represent interests that are different from his or her
own unless he or she fears the punishment of the electorate. The
system depends on that belief to operate effectively; and it therefore
depends, ultimately, on the electorate applying that sanction
from time to time or at least appearing to be ready to do so.
Thus "elections" may be quite easily introduced into
a political system without necessarily having the effect of making
that system genuinely democratic. Structural elections only contribute
to a democratic system where the electorate uses them to call
its representatives to account. High voter apathy in most democratic
countries at the beginning of the twenty-first century threatens
the effectiveness of this system of control.
It also calls into question the legitimacy of so-called democratically
elected governments, which are, in some cases, actually elected
by a minority of the total electorate. |
|
|
Elections and apathy
|
"Stockholm, May 17 (IPS)
- Apathy among voters muted celebrations after the first-ever
elections to a national parliament for Sweden's indigenous
reindeer-herding people, the Saami ... the turnout in Sunday's
inaugural election was low, with less than 50% of 12000
eligible voters going to the polls." InterPress Third
World News Agency (IPS), 1993
"The Vladivostok City Duma's
elections set for December 17 are already facing major setbacks
when 12 candidates withdrew their nominations over the absence
of voters in previous elections." Vladivostok Daily,
29 November 2000
"Although the election
results represent a swing to the left, what is more indicative
of the political atmosphere in Romania is the number of
voters who failed to vote. Turnout was registered at an
all-time low with a mere 44.5% participating in the election
as compared to 56.4% in 1996." Central Europe Review,
12 June 2000
"Turnout at the general
election in the UK dropped to an 80-year low with around
60% of the electorate bothering to cast their vote. Among
the lowest was Liverpool Riverside where it stood at 34.1%
of the electorate. Across the country 18-25 year olds were
most apathetic, poll evidence suggests." BBC, 9 June
2001
"While turnout in the 1994
Slovak parliamentary elections was more than 70% overall,
it is estimated that turnout among voters aged 18-25 was
as low as 20%." Rock volieb, 1998
|
|
|
|
|
|
Democracy in
the real world |
|
|
|
|
There are as many different
forms of democracy as there are democratic nations in the world.
No two systems are exactly the same and no one system can be taken
as a "model" of democracy. There are presidential and
parliamentary democracies; democracies that are federal or confederal
or unitary in nature; democracies that make constant use of referenda;
ones that involve more consultation, or less, with outside organisations;
democracies that use a proportional voting system, and ones that
use a majoritarian system - or combinations of the two; and so
on.
Each of these systems can lay some claim to being "democratic"
in virtue of the fact that they are, nominally at least, based
on the two principles above: equality of all citizens, and the
right of every individual to some degree of personal autonomy.
It is clearly not realistic to regard "autonomy" as
meaning that every individual can do what he or she likes, but
at the least the system, in allocating equal votes to all citizens,
recognises that each individual is capable of independent choice
and is entitled to have that choice taken into account. After
that, a great deal depends on the individual citizens. |
|
|
|
|
Nevertheless, despite the claims of almost every nation in the world to be "democratic",
there is no doubt that every democratic system currently in existence
is quite capable of being more democratic than it is at present,
something that each of them is arguably in need of.
Problems with democracy |
|
|
"In
Northern Ireland we are discussing a new Bill of Rights. I want
to link the rights in this bill to the lives of the youngsters
in our youth club."
Tara Kinney, Northern Ireland Youth
Forum, participant at the Forum on Human Rights Education, 2000.
|
|
There is fairly universal concern
about the status of democracy at the beginning of the twenty-first
century. Much of this is based on the low levels of citizen participation
at elections, which appear to indicate a lack of interest and
involvement on the part of citizens and which undermine the democratic
process in some of the ways that have been discussed.
Although this is undoubtedly a problem, there are other studies
which indicate that participation in different forms is actually
on the increase - for example, pressure groups, civic initiatives,
consultative organs, and so on. These forms of participation are
just as essential to the effective functioning of democracy as
voter turnout at elections, if not more so. Elections, after all,
are a crude way of ensuring that people's interests are accurately
represented, and four or five years, which is the normal gap between
elections, is a long time to wait to hold the government to account.
People have short memories!
There are two further problems that are more intricately connected
to the notion of representative democracy, and these concern minority
interests. The first problem is that minority interests are often
not represented through the electoral system: this may happen
if their numbers are too few to reach the minimum level necessary
for any representation, or it may more commonly happen because
electoral systems often use a "winner-takes-all" system.
The second problem is that even if their numbers are represented
in the legislative body, they will have a minority of representatives
and these may not therefore be able to summon up the necessary
votes to defeat the majority representatives. For these reasons,
democracy is often referred to as "rule of the majority".
|
|
|
"Democracy
is the theory that the common people know what they want and deserve
to get it good and hard."
H.L. Mencken |
|
Democracy itself cannot be relied
upon to solve the second of these issues. It is perfectly conceivable
- and has happened innumerable times - that the majority authorise
decisions that are detrimental to the minority. That it is the
"will of the people" is no justification for such decisions.
The basic interests of minorities as well as majorities can only
be safeguarded through adherence to human rights principles, reinforced
by an effective legal mechanism - whatever the will of the majority
may be. |
|
|
We fight for: |
freedom and human rights,
so that every individual, woman and man, can have full political
rights without being discriminated against on the basis
of class, caste, gender, religion or race.
equality, and against
any form of discrimination among individuals; for social
justice; for equality between the genders; for equal opportunities
and equal access to knowledge.
democracy, based on the
principles of freedom and equality, and against authoritarianism,
populism and dictatorship; for the right to self-determination,
to liberty and freedom of expression for all peoples.
universal solidarity,
because we believe in the possibility of collective action
for the liberation of individuals.
political solutions to
problems, because we believe in the ability of human beings
to change the world. |
|
|
|
|
|
References
Endnotes
|
|
|