Governance and Government — Democracy and democratisation
Politics is in everything we do, do not leave it to politicians.
Since 1986, the proportion of Britons saying they rarely trust the government to place “the needs of the nation above the interests of their party” has gone from 12% to a plurality of 45%. Respect for the judiciary has remained robust, with 74% of people surveyed saying they trust judges and the legal system. Turning to judges to rake over political failures makes sense in a country where people retain confidence in just part of its establishment. The Executive is now full of political appointees; the legislative doing popularist politics and the judiciary is increasingly asked to arbitrate on points or investigate where politics has obscured information and even ignored data.
The view of the UK PM Kier Starmer (let us dispense with titles continuing the elitism we witness in all forms of politics regularly devoid of how such titles detract from democratic considerations)
“There are scarcely any countervailing institutions in this country between the weight of the executive, and its coercive powers, and the lives of ordinary citizens,”
He wrote this in a book published in 2003. Those instincts can now be seen in the UK’s Government. A new law will seek to end the “culture of defensiveness” by creating a legal “duty of candour” for officials, obliging them to assist inquiries and disclose relevant documents.
Democracy
Democracy is an overloaded concept[1]. The word comes from two Greek words ‘demos’ meaning ‘people’ and ‘kratein’ meaning ‘to rule’.
Abraham Lincoln popularised democracy as ‘government of the people, by the people and for the people’. The Romans’ Senatus Populus que Romanus — the Roman Senate and People — possibly marks a stage in the democratic process as we go further into the democratisation journey. Interestingly, the Founding Fathers of the United States of America established the electoral college as ‘a system born of compromise’ as they could not agree whether Congress or popular vote should elect the president noting the realities in the eighteenth century regarding people’s ignorance of all the facts given communications in infancy and education for all a work in progress. The intervening two hundred-plus years reflect the art and science of propaganda, and marketing has moved more purposefully than the governance process now overwhelmed by politicking.
Democracy has become different things to different people; hence, the term democratisation refers to a process of achieving different outcomes for different stakeholders in a system. Outcomes are regularly modelled on the neoliberalism emerging from capitalism.
Democracy is broader than politics, and it is said politicians do not bring democracy on their own. This is where social accountability has appeared in development and now political arenas.
Social in front of accountability is not alone with social justice and the emergence of the social contract.
Democracy as a term and concept is applied to many different formations and interacts with different socio-cultural traditions and practices. It has produced diverse forms of government — some more representative, participatory, accountable, and open than others. Given broader factors in how we identify ourselves individually and collectively, these factors contribute to stability, continuity, and a sense of belonging.
The question of what we feel we belong to is not often asked enough.
How would you describe yourself to a fellow citizen? To a person sharing physical features similar to yours? In person? Over a telephone call with no visuals?
Whether politics fits with democracy is a given. Whether politicians fit as easily with democratisation and its defence is something we continue to debate and now need to highlight as marketing linked to power and popularism probably serves to undermine democracy.
The term politics derives from the Ancient Greek word politika meaning affairs of the cities. Politis — citizen or resident of the city. Politeia has a range of meanings and interpretations, rights of citizens as well as a form of government (note the innuendo whereby a form of government fits with the delivery of rights). Aristotle believed polis, the governing body, to be the highest form of political community and all other human associations were encompassed in it — politics for all and all in politics. In more recent times, we seem to have separated government, politics, democracy and people with career politicians and government acting on behalf of, rather than for and with, people. Perhaps to the detriment of democracy?
With older democracies — reference the United States, United Kingdom (anglophone) and France, the Low Countries and Germany (the core of the European Union) and the countries, usually because of colonial ties and then trade, followed the blueprints set out. There is no consensus on what democracy means as a concept and how to set it as a goal to be achieved. Theorists argue whether democracy is:
- a form of government,
- a method of choosing a government,
- a reflection of legitimacy in exercising (political) power,
- a decision-making culture,
- or a term applied to a whole society and how we exercise power, influence, responsibility and accountability.
Works worth searching for to deepen knowledge: — Alexis de Tocqueville’s study of Democracy in America. Removed from Europe — in the Horn of Africa— A Pastoral Democracy: A Study of Pastoralism and Politics among the Northern Somali of the Horn of Africa — I.M. Lewis
No matter the term, the criteria of people’s participation to influence, ability to contest positions of power, and freedom of choice figure in different definitions and approaches to democratisation and democracy. Freedom of choice is a phrase regularly stated point and debatable element when control of the means of livelihood is controlled. It is difficult to exercise freedom of choice when poverty abrasively wears down your energy and undermines the time you have to exercise any choice beyond staying alive.
Politics, in its modern form, noting Ancient Greek city-states with their inclusive approach, starts to appear with measures of political legitimacy, enabling leaders in differing settings to brand their government systems as popular and representing ‘the will of the majority of people’. This is a critical point, although a vote through a legitimised electoral system does not, of its own accord, make a system democratic. It can be argued without the sophistication of balances of power, checks on power, and the accountability of pluralist[2] representation, this can differ from electoral legitimacy, popular sovereignty and a functioning democratic system of governance.
From procedural to delegative to substantive democracy.
Procedural democracy, also known as ‘working democracy,’ is broadly defined as the institutionalisation of specific procedures, such as regular elections, based on universal suffrage and pluralist political participation and contestation to produce an electorally legitimated government.
Delegative democracy is a procedural democracy whereby an all-powerful head of state is elected, but without the checks and balances preventing a single person from exercising power in the way he/she sees fit between the elections. Elected heads can manipulate the procedures and delegation of power. It is a widely inclusive and competitive system; however, ultimately, it requires a transition from procedural democracy to substantive liberal democracy.
Substantive, liberal, democracy rests on developing what is generally recognised as a liberal tradition with inalienable rights enshrined in respected law and with social accountability for all government elements working to achieve rights. The separation of powers, checks and balances for establishing and safeguarding these rights[3]. This goes further and in terms of the settings we have natural, basic, rights to have access to water and food, to be able to generate a livelihood for one’s family and seek health and education are, it is argued, far more fundamental than being able to exercise a vote to change representatives without the necessary resources to impact the delivery of rights, basic and emerging legal rights.
But what comes next?
Networked Democracy — reflecting a society’s reinvigoration of government for the people by the people?
With the manner societies have changed given the age of the internet, the manner connectivity has changed, and with it how the community is defined, there are opportunities, some would say need, to investigate participation and inclusion again.
Inclusion offers up availability and accessibility to express opinion and offer engagement through multiple media streams without fear or favour. No more closed meetings and decisions in smoke-filled rooms. But inclusion does not mean participation because many of us do not know, some do not care, and others are wary regarding repercussions since fear and favours exist. Offering the means and opportunity still requires work to facilitate participation in influencing, if not taking, decisions impacting one’s livelihood and well-being. This stated, how many of us can knowledgeably espouse points on the economics of debt relief or be able to calculate the quality-of-life changes when looking at investing in infrastructure?
Networked democracy moves us to facilitate active engagement, offering fresh thinking and approaches in countering abuses of power and flagrant denial of accountability structures as political processes seem to have been removed from critical elements of democratic processes. The open-source technology now available has been shown to invigorate localisation and counter the creation of false stories deliberately used to drive extremist agendas.
There are levels of engagement and an openness to communication allowing us to challenge our own ignorance and the still-held views of some who feel government should be left to the elites. Oversight is the role of everyone who believes democracy is still the best form of governance if we are to address systemic and structural problems, delivering social justice through accountability so all are committed to the other much-used phrase — the social contract.
Where We Are: Challenging Linearity
Drawing from the USA and Europe seeking to develop and impose, some would argue, the liberal democracy they feel is a democracy, look at how Afghanistan and Iraq have stagnated or reverted to ‘traditional’ authoritarianism. These examples tend to reflect any democratisation instigated from outside stands little chance of success if the nature of reciprocity and social engagement is not understood and worked with to incorporate the role and remit of democracy in community and wider societies, noting the basic tenets set out regarding respect for individual and collective rights and the power to control or influence profoundly the delivery of rights.
Key element: personalisation of leadership and how power tends to consolidate without continuous references to principles. Alongside this is the capability to have accountable leadership, political or cultural, in setting and delivering for people. This can become a social anthropological point, drawing on cultural practices embedded in patriarchal societies. The point highlights how rights are supported through the government to reinforce governance.
Does democracy grow from within a society?
- A simple service model can be the basis for fundamental democracy. Democracy is far more than political legitimacy, and in a setting where basic service provision is weak and regularly not under government control, the leading question is: How can good governance be developed and assessed as developing to deliver for, with, people?
Going forward:-
As we support and facilitate government at all appropriate levels and in all proper forms to extend its engagement with people.
Then engagement with people becomes people taking back influence through participation with networked democracy, constellations of people as stars shining light for responsible and accountable government
As we facilitate the transfer of the required skills to technically support and defend the delivery of rights.
Then we have technically able organisations and institutions learning from and reinforcing public-private partnership as it should be.
When we establish resource accountability for those providing funding, taxes, and other key resources for the delivery of rights then we can talk the social contract.
Then we, all stakeholders, contribute to social accountability and reciprocity as founding elements in the democratisation foundational to good governance:-
government of the people, by the people and for the people
[1] https://pesd.princeton.edu/node/251
[2] Pluralist — a system where two or more groups, or principles or even sources of authority coexist. Democratisation is a journey where tolerance for political debate is apparent and there is a wider (social) accountability with people able to voice points in open dialogue to reinforce accountability and enable the necessary dialogue and discussion for development.
[3] Some differentiate between natural rights and legal rights. Legal rights could be seen as the normative rules enshrined in law at different levels of governance, whereas natural rights can be seen as the more practical elements, such as the provision of basic services.
[4] https://www.undp.org/arab-states/publications/arab-human-development-report-2002-0
