The Elasticity of Democracy
Of the numerous forms of government and governance that have taken shape in the modern world, the two most prominent have been Communism and democracy. While the former took the world by storm in the twentieth century, it withered under some of its own ideological contradictions and due to the lack of realization of people’s free will to own property and wealth. The latter has proved to be more successful in terms of acceptability and admiration amongst most nations of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy has become the norm to the modern world akin to what the monarchy was to the Middle Ages – accepted and unchallenged. However, if the American War of Independence in the eighteenth century is taken as the birth of modern democracy, in the intervening three centuries has democracy proven to be the fool proof model of governance, a form of governance acceptable to all races, classes and sections of society. Furthermore, is democracy a strict form of government, much like theology, or can democracy in the words of King Abdullah of Jordan mean “different things to different peoples”. There are four telling examples from the past seven years that outline how democracy has been stretched to its limits, where leaders and governments have come to the helm and governed against what could be called the people’s mandate.
The principal example of this stretch of democracy is from the United States of America, the oldest democracy in the world. In 2000, the Presidential campaign saw the incumbent Vice President, Al Gore square off against the Republican contender George Bush. Both men gave a meaty fight which polarized the country down the middle. The results from Florida were contested and for the first time in Presidential elections did the Supreme Court have to intervene and declare George Bush the winner. It was also the first election where "hanging chads" saw more airtime than policy initiatives from both candidates. While the 2000 Presidential election results have been dissected ad nauseum by political pundits, journalists and politicians alike, the majority of the American population that voted for Gore felt that democracy had cheated them. How can democracy be representative when such a major section of society vehemently opposed the candidate that was elected? The ‘first past the post’ style of democracy was truly stretched in this election and many argued whether the “majority wins” model is truly representative in such cases where the verdict could have gone either way. Proponents of democracy argue that while some of the arguments against first past the post may hold merit, ultimately it is not possible for a democratic system to fulfill the desires of everyone; rather, it is the elected leader who must unite his country. The reason why this polarization has been so exacerbated in case of the US is simple. One, George Bush failed to unite his country even in his second term in office and second, more cynically, this sort of a result in the developing world would have been labeled as a sham, but because it happened in the cradle of democracy, the debate raged rather than calls for a re-election.
The merits and drawbacks of the system aside, an important question also arises from the very source that ensures democratic norms – the electorate. If one leaves the debatable 2000 elections aside and considers the 2004 Presidential elections the role of the electorate is clearly in question. If the country was outraged by the manner with which Bush used his money and political influence to win the presidency why was he not removed in 2004? There again, the proponents of democracy argue that the Bush beat John Kerry in real voting numbers and hence democracy cannot be faulted as a system. However, if one were to again leave the 2004 results aside and blame the real threat that the US faced post the September 11 attacks and also the lackluster campaign that Kerry ran, once can safely say that Bush cannot be faulted for stretching democracy. Having said that, 2007 is a telling example of the stretch of democracy. With approval ratings being the lowest for any president in living memory and a war that has turned the nation against the White House, how can democracy be truly representative if a majority of people are against the man who is in charge. Surely, by voting out a Republican held Senate and Congress will not fundamentally change the policies of the President, as has been demonstrated recently with the Presidential veto on two important bills. The right to impeach a President too lies with Capitol Hill, but if a large swathe of the electorate have lost trust in the administration why is the Hill not moving an impeachment motion? Is there not a disconnect between the public sentiment and the policies of their elected representatives. Further, how can the people complain against the President, when a majority amongst them has voted for the incumbent?
The second example is that of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a few days time the most successful Labour Party prime minister will make way for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Having won three elections, he finally had to make way for his closest rival Brown. But here again is there not a stretching of democratic norms. For the people in 2005 voted for Tony Blair for a full term as Premier. Infact, during the campaign Blair talked about a possible fourth term. He neither indicated a date to leave or whether he will be quitting in the months or years to come. While it would be naïve to deny the likelihood of Brown taking over from Blair, democratic openness should have allowed for fresh elections in case of the incumbent stepping down. The British media has used words like ‘coronation’ and ‘anointment’ for Brown’s succession to 10 Downing. That to most observers that seems like a leaf out of the dictionary of monarchs rather than a modern democracy. So, both examples do highlight the shortfalls inherent in both forms of democracy – the Presidential and the Westminster model of governance.
The third example is that of the Palestinian group Hamas. In an election in 2006, Hamas won with overwhelming majority in what were called free and fair elections by most Western governments. What followed was a total subversion of the mandate with the Western world imposing sanctions on the newly elected government. While for decades the West talked about the welfare, freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people, why could the West not accept the voice of the electorate? It would be dangerous to defend the actions and policies of Hamas, a known militant group hell bent on destroying Israel, but then there are countless examples of democratically elected governments that have waged wars against their neighbors. Further, in all fairness, the West never let the Hamas led government take charge of the Palestinian territories with immediate economic sanctions crippling the virtually non-existent Palestinian economy and radicalizing youths against the West. The relevant question that comes up is this – is democracy only considered credible if the person in charge is friendly with the West or a section of the developed world? Does the people’s mandate lose its significance because of the elected government’s non – conformity with the foreign and economic policies of the West? By systematically removing the Hamas government from power, the West has further reduced the chances of heralding democracy to the Middle East anytime soon.
The final example comes from our own politics. 2004 is considered a watershed for the Congress party in India. They not only strengthened their position as a party, they left political pundits red-faced by bucking the trend and coming to power in the general elections held that year. The campaign and the run-up to the elections saw a clear division of all political parties into the NDA camp and the then non-existent UPA. The NDA had projected Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the nominee for the premiership. The Congress on the other hand projected, albeit unofficially, Sonia Gandhi as their prime ministerial candidate. Today, the Congress party may deny any such move to install Mrs. Gandhi as prime minister; history though, exposes their lie. In 1998, after mid term elections, the Congress Party went to the President where Mrs. Gandhi proclaimed that she had the required 272 to form a government and become premier. The proclamation fizzled out due a variety of reasons and Sonia lost her chance to become Prime Minister. The 2004 campaigning saw the Congress actively looking to project Mrs. Gandhi for the top post in case the party came to power. Most Congress voters voted for them in the hope of installing Mrs. Gandhi as the premier. Had the debate on a foreign born becoming the prime minister not gained considerable ground as it did during the campaign, Mrs. Gandhi would have become India’s prime minister. However, her now famous “inner voice” spoke and she decided to hand over the premiership to Dr. Manmohan Singh. While Dr. Singh enjoys excellent credentials as an economic powerhouse and for his scholarly insights, his electoral campaigns, though, were a major source of embarrassment for the Congress party. In such a scenario, where the section of the population who voted for Congress wanted to see Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, did she not disrespect their mandate by installing Dr. Singh? Was democracy not stretched to its very limits with such a move? How can the Prime Minister confidently say that he is the right man for the job when not one person voted for him per se, to take over the mantle of premiership? How can such a move be called a representation of the national sentiment when the person who people voted for backs out the very last minute. More importantly, has Sonia Gandhi not shied away from the responsibility the nation’s electorate had entrusted in her?
So, where lies the solution and how can democracy become more representative and ever evolving in the modern world. While for smaller countries the luxury of a re-election is an option, as is the right to impeach their head of State or government. But for larger nations like us, the idea of having a run-off as in the case of the French Presidential election, till a single party wins a majority is neither feasible nor will it be representative. The right to recall a government is an option that is a fundamental requirement of every democracy. A referendum is the key to ensuring whether a government stays or goes. While the idea may be extravagant and expensive, it will put the checks and balances that are required to make democracy truly representative. However much tinkering that we may do with the democratic model, the beauty of the system is the very fact that we can modify and criticize it. So while there may not be solutions to make democracy truly representative, we should never underestimate the power of democracy and its ability to change nations – like ours. Democracy has ensured free speech and right to ownership, a fundamental of human nature that has not changed since the evolution of man, and one must respect the democratic model on that count, flawed as it maybe, but then so are humans.
Of the numerous forms of government and governance that have taken shape in the modern world, the two most prominent have been Communism and democracy. While the former took the world by storm in the twentieth century, it withered under some of its own ideological contradictions and due to the lack of realization of people’s free will to own property and wealth. The latter has proved to be more successful in terms of acceptability and admiration amongst most nations of the world. After the collapse of the Soviet Union, democracy has become the norm to the modern world akin to what the monarchy was to the Middle Ages – accepted and unchallenged. However, if the American War of Independence in the eighteenth century is taken as the birth of modern democracy, in the intervening three centuries has democracy proven to be the fool proof model of governance, a form of governance acceptable to all races, classes and sections of society. Furthermore, is democracy a strict form of government, much like theology, or can democracy in the words of King Abdullah of Jordan mean “different things to different peoples”. There are four telling examples from the past seven years that outline how democracy has been stretched to its limits, where leaders and governments have come to the helm and governed against what could be called the people’s mandate.
The principal example of this stretch of democracy is from the United States of America, the oldest democracy in the world. In 2000, the Presidential campaign saw the incumbent Vice President, Al Gore square off against the Republican contender George Bush. Both men gave a meaty fight which polarized the country down the middle. The results from Florida were contested and for the first time in Presidential elections did the Supreme Court have to intervene and declare George Bush the winner. It was also the first election where "hanging chads" saw more airtime than policy initiatives from both candidates. While the 2000 Presidential election results have been dissected ad nauseum by political pundits, journalists and politicians alike, the majority of the American population that voted for Gore felt that democracy had cheated them. How can democracy be representative when such a major section of society vehemently opposed the candidate that was elected? The ‘first past the post’ style of democracy was truly stretched in this election and many argued whether the “majority wins” model is truly representative in such cases where the verdict could have gone either way. Proponents of democracy argue that while some of the arguments against first past the post may hold merit, ultimately it is not possible for a democratic system to fulfill the desires of everyone; rather, it is the elected leader who must unite his country. The reason why this polarization has been so exacerbated in case of the US is simple. One, George Bush failed to unite his country even in his second term in office and second, more cynically, this sort of a result in the developing world would have been labeled as a sham, but because it happened in the cradle of democracy, the debate raged rather than calls for a re-election.
The merits and drawbacks of the system aside, an important question also arises from the very source that ensures democratic norms – the electorate. If one leaves the debatable 2000 elections aside and considers the 2004 Presidential elections the role of the electorate is clearly in question. If the country was outraged by the manner with which Bush used his money and political influence to win the presidency why was he not removed in 2004? There again, the proponents of democracy argue that the Bush beat John Kerry in real voting numbers and hence democracy cannot be faulted as a system. However, if one were to again leave the 2004 results aside and blame the real threat that the US faced post the September 11 attacks and also the lackluster campaign that Kerry ran, once can safely say that Bush cannot be faulted for stretching democracy. Having said that, 2007 is a telling example of the stretch of democracy. With approval ratings being the lowest for any president in living memory and a war that has turned the nation against the White House, how can democracy be truly representative if a majority of people are against the man who is in charge. Surely, by voting out a Republican held Senate and Congress will not fundamentally change the policies of the President, as has been demonstrated recently with the Presidential veto on two important bills. The right to impeach a President too lies with Capitol Hill, but if a large swathe of the electorate have lost trust in the administration why is the Hill not moving an impeachment motion? Is there not a disconnect between the public sentiment and the policies of their elected representatives. Further, how can the people complain against the President, when a majority amongst them has voted for the incumbent?
The second example is that of the British Prime Minister Tony Blair. In a few days time the most successful Labour Party prime minister will make way for his Chancellor of the Exchequer, Gordon Brown. Having won three elections, he finally had to make way for his closest rival Brown. But here again is there not a stretching of democratic norms. For the people in 2005 voted for Tony Blair for a full term as Premier. Infact, during the campaign Blair talked about a possible fourth term. He neither indicated a date to leave or whether he will be quitting in the months or years to come. While it would be naïve to deny the likelihood of Brown taking over from Blair, democratic openness should have allowed for fresh elections in case of the incumbent stepping down. The British media has used words like ‘coronation’ and ‘anointment’ for Brown’s succession to 10 Downing. That to most observers that seems like a leaf out of the dictionary of monarchs rather than a modern democracy. So, both examples do highlight the shortfalls inherent in both forms of democracy – the Presidential and the Westminster model of governance.
The third example is that of the Palestinian group Hamas. In an election in 2006, Hamas won with overwhelming majority in what were called free and fair elections by most Western governments. What followed was a total subversion of the mandate with the Western world imposing sanctions on the newly elected government. While for decades the West talked about the welfare, freedom and dignity of the Palestinian people, why could the West not accept the voice of the electorate? It would be dangerous to defend the actions and policies of Hamas, a known militant group hell bent on destroying Israel, but then there are countless examples of democratically elected governments that have waged wars against their neighbors. Further, in all fairness, the West never let the Hamas led government take charge of the Palestinian territories with immediate economic sanctions crippling the virtually non-existent Palestinian economy and radicalizing youths against the West. The relevant question that comes up is this – is democracy only considered credible if the person in charge is friendly with the West or a section of the developed world? Does the people’s mandate lose its significance because of the elected government’s non – conformity with the foreign and economic policies of the West? By systematically removing the Hamas government from power, the West has further reduced the chances of heralding democracy to the Middle East anytime soon.
The final example comes from our own politics. 2004 is considered a watershed for the Congress party in India. They not only strengthened their position as a party, they left political pundits red-faced by bucking the trend and coming to power in the general elections held that year. The campaign and the run-up to the elections saw a clear division of all political parties into the NDA camp and the then non-existent UPA. The NDA had projected Atal Bihari Vajpayee as the nominee for the premiership. The Congress on the other hand projected, albeit unofficially, Sonia Gandhi as their prime ministerial candidate. Today, the Congress party may deny any such move to install Mrs. Gandhi as prime minister; history though, exposes their lie. In 1998, after mid term elections, the Congress Party went to the President where Mrs. Gandhi proclaimed that she had the required 272 to form a government and become premier. The proclamation fizzled out due a variety of reasons and Sonia lost her chance to become Prime Minister. The 2004 campaigning saw the Congress actively looking to project Mrs. Gandhi for the top post in case the party came to power. Most Congress voters voted for them in the hope of installing Mrs. Gandhi as the premier. Had the debate on a foreign born becoming the prime minister not gained considerable ground as it did during the campaign, Mrs. Gandhi would have become India’s prime minister. However, her now famous “inner voice” spoke and she decided to hand over the premiership to Dr. Manmohan Singh. While Dr. Singh enjoys excellent credentials as an economic powerhouse and for his scholarly insights, his electoral campaigns, though, were a major source of embarrassment for the Congress party. In such a scenario, where the section of the population who voted for Congress wanted to see Sonia Gandhi as prime minister, did she not disrespect their mandate by installing Dr. Singh? Was democracy not stretched to its very limits with such a move? How can the Prime Minister confidently say that he is the right man for the job when not one person voted for him per se, to take over the mantle of premiership? How can such a move be called a representation of the national sentiment when the person who people voted for backs out the very last minute. More importantly, has Sonia Gandhi not shied away from the responsibility the nation’s electorate had entrusted in her?
So, where lies the solution and how can democracy become more representative and ever evolving in the modern world. While for smaller countries the luxury of a re-election is an option, as is the right to impeach their head of State or government. But for larger nations like us, the idea of having a run-off as in the case of the French Presidential election, till a single party wins a majority is neither feasible nor will it be representative. The right to recall a government is an option that is a fundamental requirement of every democracy. A referendum is the key to ensuring whether a government stays or goes. While the idea may be extravagant and expensive, it will put the checks and balances that are required to make democracy truly representative. However much tinkering that we may do with the democratic model, the beauty of the system is the very fact that we can modify and criticize it. So while there may not be solutions to make democracy truly representative, we should never underestimate the power of democracy and its ability to change nations – like ours. Democracy has ensured free speech and right to ownership, a fundamental of human nature that has not changed since the evolution of man, and one must respect the democratic model on that count, flawed as it maybe, but then so are humans.
Labels: International Affairs
posted by Karan Thakur @ 3:04 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home