ENGDemocracy, Why it Matters a Lot
It is not uncommon to hear and read about or even witness the tragic stories of human sufferings in many corners of the globe, in both near and far distant places. It is not also uncommon that they are, more often than not, Man-made tragedies: political repressions, violent social strife, armed conflicts, rebellion, to name but a few. If gauged by their immeasurable and profoundly enduring consequences on human lives, the urgent need to fathom their root cause is beyond any shadow of a doubt. And only then could humanity genuinely answer the yearning calls of the helpless and powerless victims.
Across space and time, political
repressions, violent social strife, armed conflicts, etc. are either generated or
intensified by mainly three factors: a lack of strong and independent
institutions, a high and persistent degree of concentration of powers,
and a lack of institutional transparency and accountability.
Yet it is not enough to just
identify the causes of these enduring tragedies. After all, the pressing task
is to identify plausible measures and workable solutions to deal with them;
that is, the real challenge is to unearth the ways in which the aforementioned
factors could be mitigated if not entirely eliminated. The aim here is exactly
to undertake that task.
I shall contend that a functioning
democracy, understood as a political system or a form of government that promotes
strong and independent institutions, guarantees the separation of powers, and invariably
ensures transparency and accountability of state apparatus, is the ultimate
solution. It is absolutely true that I am adopting a functional definition of the
concept of democracy; but it is equally true that these are the central goals
of a functioning democracy. I shall explore how it achieves best each of these
goals and how it is thus better equipped to alleviate the above mentioned
tragedies.
To be sure, however, democracy is
not an infallible system—it can in fact often be messy, frustrating, and most
of all unstable—perhaps the Brexit farce and the Trump White House epitomize best
what democracy can entail if or when taken for granted. Nevertheless, a
functioning democracy, as described above, works better than its alternatives;
and there lies its particularity: “Democracy”, Winston Churchill asserted quite
pointedly in 1947, “is the worst form of government except all the other forms
that have been tried from time to time.”
First, a functioning democracy is
more likely to better promote strong and independent institutions. For
instance, unlike authoritarianism and dictatorship, both of which succeed only
by weakening or dismantling institutions, democracy is based on the core tenet
of building and strengthening them. Indeed, both authoritarianism and
dictatorship are built around strong leaders, who quite simply strive to
project personal strength and guts by amassing political powers at the expense
of institutional checks and balances. Quite sadly, however, the fall of these
regimes is more likely to bring the country into chaos, state failure, and even
armed conflicts as different factions compete for state power—with the rules of
the game usually being the law of the jungle; this is particularly true for
countries that have witnessed long years of authoritarian/dictatorial rule. Iraq,
Yemen, Libya, and today Sudan (amongst others) offer illustrative cases in that
regard. Likewise, undemocratic regimes are more prone to chronic instability
since they often lack legitimacy beyond rentierism. Though they might manage to
stay in power despite popular discontents, these regimes usually succeed in
doing so through recourse of coercion, persecution, and constantly manufactured
fear of repercussion and oppression for disobedience.
Moreover, to succeed in
consolidating power, authoritarian and dictatorial regimes invariably endeavor
to centralize and concentrate political powers with the aim of having control
over the entirety of state apparatus. The danger, yet again, is that such
regimes are more liable to social and political grievances as they are
inherently exclusive and blatantly discriminatory. They must, therefore, have
recourse to brutal force and political wickedness to remain in power; no wonder
coups and counter-coups are likely to become ubiquitous as the military becomes
politicized, and politics militarized. By sharp contrast, however, a working democracy
functions best through a separation of powers (executive, judicial, and
legislative), thus not only promoting institutional independence and broader
social inclusion, but also, and perhaps more significantly, allowing for checks
and balances of the state apparatus. Moreover, democracy is better equipped to
allow broader and more inclusive political participation and social engagements
through party competitions, popular elections, and demonstrations.
Finally, by allowing strong and
independent institutions to flourish and by permitting the separation of powers
and checks and balances, democracy ensures transparency and accountability. For
instance, a corrupt or incompetent government will surely be voted out of the
office either through (peaceful) protests or through ballots. By the same
token, the independence of institutions would also ensure that corrupt leaders
are fairly and transparently held accountable for their misdeeds. Undoubtedly,
the principle that democracy guarantees transparency and accountability renders
it ever more stable and more enduring both as a political system and as a form
of government.
In a nutshell, in promoting strong
and resilient institutions that have the capacity to resist and absorb shocks
(both internal and external), a functioning democracy helps foster the
stability and security of the state. Likewise, in preventing the concentration
of powers in the hands of despots, democracy ensures that even the most
vulnerable social layers—children, women, elderly people, and disabled—would
not be encroached at will by the mighty. Indeed, in addition to protecting the
most vulnerable from political oppression and persecution, it allows for more
inclusiveness and more political participation; thus ensuring that people can
express their grievances without having recourse to violent strife, armed rebellions,
or revolution, as the system ensures that no one is above the law or immune to
transparency checks and ushering in the required accountability.
According to Andrew Heywood, democracy can play an even greater role in alleviating Man-made human tragedies through sustainable peace and security since it fosters the legitimacy of the ruling regime through consent (of being ruled); it also allows rival interest groups to live together with relative peace through compromise, conciliation, and negotiation; and finally, democracy “operates as a feedback system that tends toward long-term political stability” and human prosperity.
If the utility of any political and
social system is measured by its ability to protect and improve the wellbeing
of its population; and given that the more capable a system of government is in
playing a positive role in social and economic developments the more legitimacy
it gains; and, above all, given that the value of any form of government must
be gauged by its ability to promote independent and resilient institutions,
ensure an effective and equitable distribution of powers, and guarantee the
accountability and transparency of the state apparatus, there are, undoubtedly,
solid enough reasons to argue for democracy to be the worst of all, except for
all those that have been tried from time to time.