Observations: Approaches to democracy
The January edition of the Journal of Democracy contains an insightful article by Thomas Carothers. It considers the the strategic differentiation between political and developmental approaches to democracy.
The political approach Carothers writes, follows from a "relatively narrow conception of democracy-focused, above all, on elections and political liberties" - a view of democratization as a "process of political struggle in which democrats work to gain the upper hand in society over nondemocrats. It directs aid at core political processes and institutions - especially elections, political parties, and politically oriented civil society groups - often at important conjunctural moments and with the hope of catalytic effects".
Alternatively, the developmental approach rests on a broader notion of democracy, one that "encompasses concerns about equality and justice and the concept of democratization as a slow, iterative process of change involving an interrelated set of political and socioeconomic developments."
The article really resonates with us here at NIMD. We believe democracy assistance goes hand in hand with development. While the incremental, developmental approach is slow and process-orientated in the long term it contributes to the creation of conditions for durable development within countries.
NIMD Soapbox (formerly known as 'Observations') is a blog about democracy and democracy assistance work.
A fundamental aspect of western “democracy” is the idea that the people will first split into many opposing factions, who will debate eachother as opposing forces on all issues simultaneously and into which play personal aspects. The people will decide which collection of opinions gets support, in a coalition model if no party attains a majority the opposing forces will have to broker a deal, mend the gaps between their positions, and then basically rule until the next election without having to pay any more attention to the public (until close to election date.) In theory this model could be augmented by referendum laws. The fundamental movement made by this system is: from creating opposing factions accross the entire nations, to determining strenght of each faction, to coming together of these factions. No doubt this model represents the historical development of this model in Europe. As such, it is a historical model.
I`d like to “increase the NIMD knowledge base” with another possible model: the voter-group model. In this model the people group in non-opposing tiny groups of say 50 people. Each group selects a representative. A group of representatives forms a Government. By dividing areas and the nation into, say 50 sectors, the delegates in which elect further delegates from between them: regional and national Governments result. The fundamental movement of this principle is quite different from the multi-party democracy. This model can also be outfitted with referendum law. In addition, it is quite easy for the small voter groups to replace their representative: a trivial matter involving only a tiny fraction of the people. That means the Government is under pressure from the people continuesly.
(See my website for a worked out model, in law, also tackling the “economic question” in a democratic fashion.)
It must be said that a multi-party coalition model seems to function much better then the winner takes all model (such as used in the USA), which degenerates into single party rule (one party, two wings.)
Because the European model is a historical model, and not a logical model, it is possible it is a model that will only work in one culture and under certain conditions occuring there (namely fractionization of the people in opposing camps having different views.) It is entirely possible that western style “democracy” does not function well in Africa (where party-debate seems to become violent), and elsewhere, because the system does not find the conditions from which it developed itself. Note also that the party model is sensitive to corruption and demagoegery, because the distance people / politician is very wide indeed. In a block model that distance is reduced to virtually nothing.
best regards,
jos boersema
PS On my website http://www.jhwh.be you can also find free (GPL) referendum software, which brings out the vote of individuals in greater detail, and is very hard to manipulate by both voters and the people organizing the vote (sede – secure democracy, was published on in Linux Magazine some time ago.)
PPS Another form of referendum law is: give the abstentions to the representative (see my proposed Constitution law 3.1.b.)