Democracy: A Maze to Good Governance

By: Leroy A. Binns Ph.D.

In a world exposed to totalitarianism and its side effects an alternate school of thought commonly defined as democracy seems most auspicious as this explosive brand of politics permeates throughout Latin American, African, Asian and the Eastern Bloc territories.

A once famous US president Abraham Lincoln in deference to the universal concept augmented the political lexicon with a memorable maxim that promotes design and purpose – government of the people, by the people and for the people. Nonetheless the collective term which is emblematic of inclusiveness, transparency, accountability, dignity and the fundamental rights of the individual, and simultaneously gives voice to a wide variety of regimes embodies complexities in approach towards an ideal form of governance.

Despite a convergence of constructs dismissing Cold War qualifiers, the like of popular or representative democracies and subsequent codification of democracy under the umbrella of an extensive declaration administrating uniformed beliefs is vulnerable to variations in practice.

At a glance democracies contain rudimentary criteria

Representative Institutions – assemblies entrusted with the responsibility to air political differences and legislate in the interest of the state.

The Judiciary – an independent conduit in its portfolio of interpreting law and adjudicating justice.

Free and Fair elections – exercises at regular intervals affording universal, equal and secret suffrage to voters in electing representatives of their choosing under transparent conditions.

Both the Westminster and presidential formulas distinctively endorse the tenets of participatory polity. The former credited with longevity and worldwide recognition has obtained the respect of commentators, scholars and political practitioners and is a product of intertwined mechanisms comprised of a prime minister, members of cabinet, parliament and the senate. In contrast is an alternative that offers a president, members of cabinet and a congressional delegation.

While in these cases the legislative branches are bicameral, the British chamber classified as the House of Lords is comprised of hereditary nobility and political appointees, and functions differently. In an asymmetrical relationship with the House of Commons this chamber only retains the power to delay legislation (money bills for the duration of a month and others for an extended period of a year) – a feature unheard of outside the British commonwealth. To the contrary across the Atlantic an apparent dissimilarity includes a system of checks and balances that is the centerpiece of the American political process.

Types of Government

Presidential                                                                  Westminster

The Executive

Head of State – President                                             Prime Minister

The Cabinet                                                                 The Cabinet

 

The Legislature

Members of Congress- House and Senate                    Members of the House of Commons                                                                                       and the House of Lords

 

The Judiciary

The Supreme, Court of Appeals and District               The Privy Council, Supreme, Crown  

courts                                                                           and magistrates Courts

In praxis albeit peddled as an attempt at incorporative elements to social and economic development, the effectiveness of the means to an end is debatable. Those in favor of the US prototype refer to impotence characterized by votes of no confidence. In denouncement Alexander Hamilton wrote In the Federalist No 70 “A feeble executive implies a feeble execution of the government… and a government ill executed whatever it may be in theory, must be, in practice, a bad government.” Such consequences dating to 1782 are infrequent but disruptive.

Some Prime Ministers defeated by Votes of No Confidence

Australia                                                          Canada

James Scullin (1931)                                       Arthur Meighen (1926)

Arthur Fadden (1941)                                      John George Diefenbaker (1963)

Malcolm Frazer (1975)                                    Joe Clark (1979)

                                                                         Pierre Elliot Trudeau (1974)

                                                                         Paul Martin (2005)

 

United Kingdom                                              Japan

Lord North (1782)                                            Katsura Taro (1913)

Stanley Baldwin (Jan 1924)                             Shigeru Yoshida 2^nd (1948)

Ramsey MacDonald (Oct 1924)                      Shigeru Yoshida 4^th (1953)

James Callaghan (1979)                                   Masayoshi Ohira (1980)

                                                                          Kiichi Miyazawa (1993)

The level of independence or institutional separation which allows for scrutiny and bipartisanship is also an asset. Proponents in defense of English bureaucracy voice adulation for its demonstration of seamlessness in decision making processes.

An extension of convolution herein becomes increasingly ostensible with reflections of Hobbes’ classical argument against democracy, Churchill’s reservation of same as “the worst form of government except all those forms that have been tried from time to time,” and Noble prize winning economist Sir Arthur Lewis’ denunciation of majority role as undemocratic due to its exclusionary measures which he categorically likens to a dictatorship. By the same token Rupert Emerson in his Book “From Empire to Nation” concludes, “ the assumption that a majority has the right to overrule a dissident minority after a period of debate does violence to conceptions basic to no Western peoples.”

The pursuit for reformation has elevated a discourse particularly within the undeveloped world where flaws seem more apparent. In Maharashtra the MLSs have been given the dubious distinction of Benthamites. Reports reference lawmakers as party hopping backroom dealers in support of self aggrandizement. In the words of one local journalist, “A legislator is elected in our country not as a lawmaker and custodian of the public interest. A legislator is essentially a disguised executive and his primary objective is to exercise unaccountable power ranging from transfers, postings, promotions, contracts tenders, licenses, public projects and police cases without restrictions.’ Comparable accusations have likewise been leveled against the Peoples’ National Party (PNP) of Jamaica with opposition leader Bruce Golding venting the charge concerning the seventeen year old government’s unchecked monopoly illustrated through scandals. In both instances remedy in the form of constitutional reform to centralized power could include a separation of executive and legislative branches of government, term limits and set election dates.

America’s political process is also the subject of intense analysis. President Woodrow Wilson, a scholar and admirer of renowned British essayist Waiter Bagehot in his early writings sought the substitution of the presidential model with the British style government as do some current observers opposed to filibusters that hinder the approval of assignees within Congress. Disclosures from the Congressional Research Service spanning a period from 1980 to 2002 attest to the filing of cloture motions on fourteen court of appeals and district court nominations. In addition there were rejections of a similar nature to President Bush’s federal court appointees Charles Pickering, Janice Roger Brown, William Pryor and others.

The path to democracy lacks boundaries and is therefore remiss without Swiss and Belgian interpretations. In Bern power sharing is demonstrated via a seven member national executive representing a broad coalition of political parties namely the Christian Democrats, Social Democrats and Radical Democrats – all of whom hold about a fourth of the seats in the lower house. The Swiss Peoples party has executive representation as well due to its control of one-eighth of the seats in the assembly. On the other hand the Belgian constitution formally requires that the executive branch is composed of representatives from large linguistic groups thus reflecting a multiparty system in the legislature.

Unfortunate both models although consensus driven are imperfect. Beyond the accommodations expressed response to socioeconomics is perplexing with additional divisions and transformed political platforms as is the case with the Social Democrats who receive the support of working class elements from the Radical Democrats. Moreover unlike Switzerland language has been a decisive factor in the erosion of major parties in Brussels and has contributed a revolving door of short lived cabinets with an average live span of approximately two and a half years.

Efforts elsewhere are exposed to examination yet in most instances less equipped to offer the functional prerequisites and as a result some of the following components are poorly executed or lacking.

Effective divisions of state power and civilian control

A pluralistic structure that enables the dispersion of power resources

The protection of individual freedom

An adherence to constitutionalism

Legal autonomy

Open debate on issues of governance

Election based transfer of power

The violation of state power and circumvention of parliament and the courts as displayed by post 1994 Haiti and the Fujimori regime to name a few add credence to democracies in waiting.

Deficiencies aside with the passage of time a substantial number of states gained popular status in subscription to the process of liability and engagement.

Beliefs about Accountability and Representation in 15 Nations (by percentage)

                   Voting makes a      Person/s in power    elections represent       Party

                        Difference           make a difference    voter’s views               represent voters

Bulgaria           61                                65                                52                                46

Czech               48                                57                                28                                78

France             62                                42                                61                                58

Germany         46                                35                                40                                69

Hungary          81                                77                                52                                73

Ireland            69                                55                                65                                78

Israel               80                                76                                47                                68

Mexico            60                                54                                47                                48

New Zealand    68                                59                                55                                80

Norway            66                                52                                na                                82

Poland             49                                61                                49                                40

Portugal           59                                59                                38                                56

Sweden            81                                76                                58                                78

Switzerland      70                                65                                59                                87

Taiwan             62                                57                                51                                37

Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) 2001

Patterns of Electoral Engagement in 15 Nations (by percentage)

                              Voted               Engaged in campaign  Persuaded others          Contact with

                                                                                    how to vote                  candidate

Bulgaria           79                                6                                  7                                  8

Czech Republic 74                                20                                26                               30

France              79                                7                                  29                                7

Germany          94                                7                                  28                                13

Hungary           83                                10                                15                                8

Ireland             85                                9                                  13                                56

Israel                89                               11                                32                                18

Mexico             72                                13                                9                                  18

New Zealand     84                                7                                  na                                22

Norway             83                                7                                  18                                15

Poland              58                                4                                  7                                   6

Sweden            88                                3                                  13                                 7

Switzerland      74                                7                                  16                                18

Taiwan             82                                8                                  16                                73

 Source: Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) 2001

Moreover according to data released by Freedom House in 2001, sixty nine of eighty seven countries classified as free report high scores on political rights and civil liberties. Empowerment in an established political arena with the prevalence of liberation also enhances economic evolution as complimentary ideas of productivity and investments reinvigorate the landscape.

In acknowledgement of a favorable correlation between democracy and political effectuation as exhibited by old and new nation states worldwide, democracies must confront modern challenges of demographics, resources, competition and global alliances with commitments to institutional, cultural and legal preconditions. A full supplement of comprehensive policy and stable governance is therefore warranted to attain a vision towards a daunting and elusive paradigm.