There are two key terms that require defining in this situation, democracy and stability. Starting with stability, we must first understand that stability is not necessarily always good. Stability is undermined by change, as change seeks to differ from the status quo and enter into possibly unfamiliar territory. Often, change is resisted, causing rifts in society and destabilising it. Society takes time to mature and to accept changes while maintaining the stability and unfettered change does nothing to help maintain this. As has been mentioned before in the ideas of the Social Contract, without this stability we’d be embroiled in a state of Bellum omnium contra omnes, or rather, war of all against all. This is what stability seeks to protect and what is required is to strike a balance between change and stability. An example of a society with near-absolute stability would be Saddam era Iraq or even Zimbabwe under Mugabe ere the elections. These societies had astonishingly low crime rates, but were never able to progress on a societal level.
Moving on to define democracy, we must understand that there are many forms of democracy, ranging from Athenian era-direct democracies to those of the present day. We must understand that democracy, taken in its present context is not solely restricted to the system, but incorporates in ideals and other mechanisms that have been deemed essential for the continuation of a democracy. These mechanisms include things like the Ballot Box system, the independent Judiciary as well as a Free Media. When these conditions are lacking, it is much harder to enforce a democracy that is able to progress in a stable capacity. The fundamental ideas of democracy have been touched upon earlier, but one of the issues I’d like to look at is the idea that democracy represents the people. We must understand that this is not always necessarily the case due to the existence of “Policy Packages”, whereby a candidate’s policies may not entirely be in keeping with the electorate’s ideals, but he is still voted in due to him being the candidate that best complies with the electorates wants. Likewise, party politics also influence the actions of a candidate, where his own personal views may be suppressed by the overarching party stance and he simply becomes a pawn selling policies that have simply been repackaged over and over. While this is merely a possibility, it does have the propensity for taking place, especially in countries with less informed electorates, who may simply be swung on populist policies.
We need to clarify that we are not looking at democracy based on isolated examples, but rather, must point out inherent systemic flaws or boons in democracy itself, brought about by its very operation.
Democracy, first and foremost, is entrusting power to the general populace. There are two obvious areas for potential problems; the first being how power is transferred and the second being the general populace itself. Dealing with the first potential problem, the transfer of power, we must first recognise that this problem may take place in both established and fledgling democracies. In established democracies, this problem is manifest in the form of rigged elections, though not mutually exclusive with fledgling democracies. These challenges to the very mechanisms that democracy functions upon serve to undermine the efficacy of the power wielded by the people and go against the spirit of democracy as a whole. Rigged elections tend to take place when a government in power intends to hold on to its power, bringing about the saying that “Absolute power corrupts absolutely”. This problem is inbuilt in democracies because the incumbents realise that their continued rule is dependent on the electorate and if they cannot change the electorate, the only thing they can change is the manner by which the electorate expresses itself and its will. This creates the atmosphere and motivations for such an act to take place. Fortunately, there are checks and balances to contain this, which I will touch on later.
However, in fledgling democracies, these checks and balances do not exist, cannot be maintained or are simply not enshrined in the constitution. In fledgling democracies used to a strong and decisive leadership, we see how the government’s authority is first and foremost limited and we also see how they are unable to interest the people in politics in the first place. Without civil society and an active citizenry in terms of participation in politics, there is no way for a democracy to go on smoothly, or to claim to have the “mandate of the people”. As such, there needs to be a means by which to kick-start this interest in politics, which is made worse in fledgling third world democracies due to more pressing concerns such as starvation and epidemic. The government needs to first capture the attention of a people who have traditionally existed in a society full of political apathy and needs to change the apathetic nature of these people. Examples of these would be India’s onion politics. As the world’s largest democracy, it is a farce and utter debacle that votes of whole villages are swung on the prices of onions which are promised by candidates. This shows how the power is not actually getting to the people, especially in rural areas, or that the people simply cannot be bothered.
Moving on to the second main issue for today, the general populace. Democracy dictates that the will of the general populace is sovereign. The main problem with this is that it implies the perfect state of the general populace, such that their will is implemented. The first and most glaring problem is that of the tyranny of the majority, which has been touched on by my friends. The second is that of the condition of the populace. Looking at the tyranny of the majority, attempts to solve it have been aimed at balancing majority rule with minority rights. These rights are oft enshrined in the constitution, but the problem with this is that the constitution can easily be amended, all it needs is a 2/3 majority in the house present and voting. An example of this would be Thailand, which has had its constitution amended and even wholly modified countless times in the past hundred years. In addition, the notion of “minority rights” is viewed by some purists as against the ideals of democracy itself. According to them, they claim that minority rights are firstly going against the notion that all men are equal and are elevating some men above others simply because there are less of them. This “reverse-discrimination” has oft been cited, whereby the minority end up marginalising the majority, ironic as it sounds.
The other problem in this issue, being that of the condition of the populace is another pressing one. The success of Western democracies like France on global indicators like GDP seems to vindicate this, but we must note that the journey to democracy was long and arduous. The French revolution against the ancient regime to build democracy came only after decades of public marginalisation by the royalists, and this period saw the gradual maturation of intellectual thought and public awareness through print media, laying the ground for a liberal political culture the French remain staunchly proud of today. The fact that America and Britain went through a similar process clearly demonstrates the need for a pre-existing liberal political culture which a mature and well-informed public had fought for in order for democracy to succeed. Without liberal democracy, governing on a supposedly “democratic" basis will ultimately lead to harm which has been discussed earlier.
At the end of the day, democracy does have its benefits, which are internationally recognised and have been touched upon earlier, but the problems with it seem to be fairly inherent, especially in states with problems with their electorate, lacking accountability and transparency. This occurs particularly glaringly when checks and balances are bypassed, which can easily take place due to the simple need for a majority to enact change.
The question remains, does democracy bring about stability? The very fact that people do respond in elections and messages of hope and change which JFK and Obama seek to propagate do result in certain damages to stability, but it is difficult to simply make a sweeping statement and say that all democracies are dangerously unstable. The fact that democracies fail in their aims may either result in disillusionment with the system or, if the public are apathetic, will simply result in stagnation. While society stagnates, there may be edging or pushing for change, which would destabilises society. If disillusionment sets in, the propensity is much like that of the French revolution, where disillusioned middle classes overthrow the incumbents.
So we question, is stability even possible without stagnation; is it merely a human ideal, construct and dream?
No comments:
Post a Comment