WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?
The Call for freedom and democracy continue to dominate political discourse and debate at international, regional, national and even local levels. Admittedly, democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation’s/society’s unique political, economic and social life. In other words, democracies rest upon fundamental principles and not uniform practices. This partly explains why for instance, many Africans through the years continue to consider the Western Model of political democracy to be narrow and alien to the African way of life in general.
Democracy comes from the Greek “demos” (people) and “kratia” (power) meaning people power. Democracy can thus be defined as government by the people in whom the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
According to the Human Development Report (2000: 56-58), the four defining variables of democracy are; holding free and fair elections, allowing a free and independent media, separating powers among branches of Government and encouraging an open civil society , which forms an integral part of human rights.
It is worth noting that that freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably although they are not synonymous. Democracy is different from freedom in the sense that in addition to being a set of ideas and principles about freedom, democracy also consists of a set of practices and procedures, molded over a considerably long time. Democracy can be said to be the institution of freedom. In other words, democracy is bigger than freedom.
Although it is been noted above already that democracies are diverse reflecting each nation’s unique political, economic and social life, there are certain principles and practices that distinguish democracies from other forms of governance.
To begin with, democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom. Democracy can be referred to as the institutionalization of freedom.
Secondly, democratic governance differs from other forms of governance in that democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled withy individual and minority rights. This is particularly very important. Governments that practice the principle of majority rule without giving due attention to individuals and minority rights cannot be called democratic.
Another distinguishing principle and practice of democracy and anon-democratic form of governance/leadership is that democracies guard against all-powerful central government. Under democratic governance, governance is decentralized to regional and local levels. In turn, it is expected that local / decentralized governance is accessible and responsive to the people as much as possible.
Leaders serving under democratic form of governance appreciate that one of their cardinal functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and belief religion, the right to equal protection under the law, and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic and social life of society.
Democracies make it possible for citizens of nations to have fire and for elections. In addition, democracies subject Governments to the rule of law and ensure that all citizens receive equal protection under the law. Democracy also ensures that the rights of all citizens are protected by the legal framework. Societies that are democratic are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation and compromise.
It needs to be pointed out that that the degree to which the above principles and practices of democracy are operational varies. It thus possible to talk of societies and nations that are more democratic than others. In spite of the fact that, democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation’s unique political, economic and social life, it is generally agreed that the institutions of democracy can legitimately claim to address universal human aspirations of freedom and self governance. Closely connected with this is the fact that democracy needs to be looked at a s a process and not an event.
Noteworthy is this that democracies flourish when they are tended by individuals willing to use their hard won freedom to participate in the life of society, adding their voices to the public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their actions and accepting the need for tolerance and harmony. Although the citizens of a democracy enjoy their right of individual freedom, they share the responsibility of joining others to shape a future that will continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government.
Democracy cannot be defined on the basis of a single principle or practice. Because a certain government adheres to one or two principles and practices of democracy, it cannot be called democratic. Governance is democratic because it is based on the pillars of democracy.
Listed, the following are the pillars of democracy.
Sovereignty of the people
Government based upon consent of the Governed
Majority rule
Minority rights
Guarantee of basic human rights
Free and fair elections
Equality before the law
Due process of law
Constitutional limits on Government
Social, economic and political pluralism
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation and compromise.
The very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics are the ones that give it resiliency. The processes of debate dissent and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are in fact democracy’s underlying strengths.
Lamentably, most democracies have been short-lived over the long course of human History, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century to the rise of one party regime at the dawn of the 21st century. Democracies continue to appear fragile and few. They have continued to succumbed to internal squabbles or to be destroyed by foreign invasion. Nevertheless democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, democracies can overcome severe economic hardships, reconcile social and ethnic division and when necessary, prevail in otherwise tough times.
From abroad perspective, democracies fall into two major types. These are direct and representative.
In a direct democracy, all the citizens without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials can participate in making public decisions. Direct democracy sometimes referred to as pure democracy is based on the civic in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision making process. Some adherents want legislative, judicial and executive powers to be handled by the people although most extant systems only allow legislative decisions. The ideal of direct democracy is to give all people of a given community a direct say in the social decision making. This is very ideal where small numbers of people are involved, where members can meet to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Modern states with their sizes and complexities do not offer opportunities for direct democracy.
The second type or form of democracy which is representative democracy appears to be the most common form of democracy. Under representative democracy, citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws and administer programes for the public good. Candidates with manifestos purporting to share the concerns of a section of society compete to represent a given constituency. Elected officials there act on behalf of respective electorate to deliberate on complex public matters in a thoughtful and systematic manner. The process of electing peoples representatives varies from nation to nation, society to society. Whatever the method used, elected officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of their constituents and remain accountable to the people for their actions. Indirect democracy has its pitfalls.
Individuals elected to office in representative democracy tend not to be demographically representative of their constituency. The tend to be wealthier, more educated, more male and closer to the majority ethnic group and religion than a random sample would produce. An example of this is the Uganda Peoples Defense Forces representatives in parliament.
Another demerit of indirect/representative democracy has to do with conflict of interest,. The interests of elected representatives do not necessarily correspond with those of their constituents. Once again In Uganda, the demands by Members of Parliament to have their welfare improved are not at part with what the electorates subscribes to.
Since representative democracy often times necessitates formation of political parties, combined resources are often needed to get candidates elected. However such parties mean that individual representatives must compromise their own values and those of the electorate, in order to fall in line with the party platform.
Apart from the above broad types of democracy, democracy can also be categorized as delegated democracy. Under this arrangement, delegates are instructed by their electors and are expected to express and carry out these instructions faithfully.
Democracy can also be said to be cascade in which case representative’s delegates are selected at the lowest tier of democracy by their constituents. Candidates for each next level of representation/delegation are chosen from and selected by their peers.
Democratic governance can also take a form of subsidiarity where the exercise of authority is carried out at the lowest practicable level with minimal (if any) input from higher tiers of authority. Each tier of decision making is accountable solely to its constituents/electors.
Defensive democracy is another minor type of democracy in which democratic society has to limit some rights and freedoms in order to protect the institutions of democracy.
The matter of majority rule and minority rights regarding democracy deserves some form of amplification. Although all democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule, rule by majority is not necessarily democratic. No one, for example would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in serve to protect the rights of minorities- whether ethnic, religious or political or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and cannot be eliminated by the majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
A look at the years 1954 to date (2007) regarding the political panorama of Uganda indicates that the country had different forms of Governance, none of which can be said to have been strongly democratic. In some of the forms of governance Uganda has had, some basic tenets of democracy have been present to fairly rather insignificant proportions. Uganda has had a multiparty system of political governance (1962-1967), monocracy and military rule (1967-1979), pseudo multiparty spell (1980-1985) military governance, the movement system (which can be argued to have been more or less one party rule) and multi party dispensation following the famous 2006 referendum.
In the last four decades of Uganda’s post independence life, there has not been peaceful transfer of power. Although the coming into power of the then National Resistance Movement in 1986 gave people a sense of hope with the promises of a fundamental change, a lot remains to be desired regarding democratic governance. Presently, under the multiparty dispensation, Uganda practices a form of indirect democracy, where governance by the people is through elected representatives, right from local council levels to the presidency. The elected officials who include members of parliament make decisions on behalf of the electors. It is arguable how far those elected go in representing the interests of those who elected than their own interests. The recent debate by members of parliament, for each to have 60 million shillings for purchase of an executive car is an example of how elected officials may for some reasons choose to push for an agenda that is not necessarily that of the electors or constituents. Under what is popularly called the Edmund Burkes principle, representative ought to act upon their own conscience in the affairs of representative democracy. This is contrasted to the expectation that such representatives should consider the views if their electors.
In Uganda, indirect or representative democracy continues to have implications, some of them with far reaching consequences. One of the major issues here is accountability. Naturally, representatives are expected to be accountable to the electorate lest they risk not being returned into office. Following last years presidential and parliamentary elections, courts of law have been busy handling election petitions. The judges of the Supreme Court admitted while delivering judgment regarding the lodged presidential elections petition that several electoral irregularities had occurred. Accountability by elected officials remains an ideal than a practice since there are possibilities that many elected officials can buy their way into power. This in turn undercuts the strength of democratic governance.
Although Uganda’s Country’s constitution promulgated in 1995 spells among other things, a number of important principles that would other wise be a springboard for democratic governance, principles themselves are not enough. Both principles and practices are important. Uganda continues to particularly suffer ‘a practice deficiency’ when it comes to democratic governance. Over the last 20 years, the country continues to register so many workshops and seminars in the name of nurturing and supporting democratic institutions. All this cannot be said to be fruitless, surely a lot remains to be seen in the domain of practices that have a bearing on the day- to-day life of a Ugandan citizen. A look at the pillars of democracy is helpful in defining what type of democracy Uganda has, if it can truly be said that there is actually a form of democracy existent in Uganda. The pillars of democracy have already been referred to in this submission. Once again they are; sovereignty of the people, Government based upon consent of the governed, majority rule, minority rights, guarantee of basic human rights, Free and fair elections and, Equality before the law,. Other pillars of democracy are the due process of law, Constitutional limits on Government, Social, economic and political pluralism and Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation and compromise. In the face of the pillars of democracy, Uganda continues with a ‘limp’ particularly concerning guarantee of basic human rights, and free and fair elections. Although the current Government agrees in principle that the country is under a multiparty dispensation, political pluralism is not operational. Ugandans with political convictions that are not the same as those of the Government continue to life with difficulties with many opting to leave the country. The number of applications for asylums by Ugandans especially in the United Kingdom and the United States is on the rise.
In conclusion, democracy as a concept has different meanings and it varies depending from one state to another to which it is practiced and for what purpose, which calls for no clear view about the definition however, there is a clear agreement to involve participation, freedom of rights and representation. There are several types practices in the world but Uganda practices three types of democracy-indirect, representative and parliamentary since the country exhibits some tendencies of democracy such as freedom of speech and other human rights hence this should not mean that its’ purely democratic. Similarly the merits and demerits will also differ therefore different types will yield different results.
REFERENCES
Cary. M (1997), A History of Rome: Down to the reign of Constantine, St. Martin’s press, 2nd edition.
Fotopoulos, Takis (2005), The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy, Gordios Athens (English translation from the Greek).
Gerber, Elisabeth. R (1999), The Populalist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation, Princeton University Press.
Human Rights Network (2000), Human Development Report.
Museveni Y.K (1997) Sowing the Mustard seed, The struggle for freedom and Democracy in Uganda, Elizabeth K and Kevin S (eds), Mac MILLAN Publishers, Printed in Malaysia.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), Government of Uganda, Entebbe.
Democracy comes from the Greek “demos” (people) and “kratia” (power) meaning people power. Democracy can thus be defined as government by the people in whom the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.
According to the Human Development Report (2000: 56-58), the four defining variables of democracy are; holding free and fair elections, allowing a free and independent media, separating powers among branches of Government and encouraging an open civil society , which forms an integral part of human rights.
It is worth noting that that freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably although they are not synonymous. Democracy is different from freedom in the sense that in addition to being a set of ideas and principles about freedom, democracy also consists of a set of practices and procedures, molded over a considerably long time. Democracy can be said to be the institution of freedom. In other words, democracy is bigger than freedom.
Although it is been noted above already that democracies are diverse reflecting each nation’s unique political, economic and social life, there are certain principles and practices that distinguish democracies from other forms of governance.
To begin with, democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom. Democracy can be referred to as the institutionalization of freedom.
Secondly, democratic governance differs from other forms of governance in that democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled withy individual and minority rights. This is particularly very important. Governments that practice the principle of majority rule without giving due attention to individuals and minority rights cannot be called democratic.
Another distinguishing principle and practice of democracy and anon-democratic form of governance/leadership is that democracies guard against all-powerful central government. Under democratic governance, governance is decentralized to regional and local levels. In turn, it is expected that local / decentralized governance is accessible and responsive to the people as much as possible.
Leaders serving under democratic form of governance appreciate that one of their cardinal functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and belief religion, the right to equal protection under the law, and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic and social life of society.
Democracies make it possible for citizens of nations to have fire and for elections. In addition, democracies subject Governments to the rule of law and ensure that all citizens receive equal protection under the law. Democracy also ensures that the rights of all citizens are protected by the legal framework. Societies that are democratic are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation and compromise.
It needs to be pointed out that that the degree to which the above principles and practices of democracy are operational varies. It thus possible to talk of societies and nations that are more democratic than others. In spite of the fact that, democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation’s unique political, economic and social life, it is generally agreed that the institutions of democracy can legitimately claim to address universal human aspirations of freedom and self governance. Closely connected with this is the fact that democracy needs to be looked at a s a process and not an event.
Noteworthy is this that democracies flourish when they are tended by individuals willing to use their hard won freedom to participate in the life of society, adding their voices to the public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their actions and accepting the need for tolerance and harmony. Although the citizens of a democracy enjoy their right of individual freedom, they share the responsibility of joining others to shape a future that will continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government.
Democracy cannot be defined on the basis of a single principle or practice. Because a certain government adheres to one or two principles and practices of democracy, it cannot be called democratic. Governance is democratic because it is based on the pillars of democracy.
Listed, the following are the pillars of democracy.
Sovereignty of the people
Government based upon consent of the Governed
Majority rule
Minority rights
Guarantee of basic human rights
Free and fair elections
Equality before the law
Due process of law
Constitutional limits on Government
Social, economic and political pluralism
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation and compromise.
The very aspects of democracy cited most frequently by its critics are the ones that give it resiliency. The processes of debate dissent and compromise that some point to as weaknesses are in fact democracy’s underlying strengths.
Lamentably, most democracies have been short-lived over the long course of human History, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century to the rise of one party regime at the dawn of the 21st century. Democracies continue to appear fragile and few. They have continued to succumbed to internal squabbles or to be destroyed by foreign invasion. Nevertheless democracies have also demonstrated remarkable resiliency over time and have shown that, with the commitment and informed dedication of their citizens, democracies can overcome severe economic hardships, reconcile social and ethnic division and when necessary, prevail in otherwise tough times.
From abroad perspective, democracies fall into two major types. These are direct and representative.
In a direct democracy, all the citizens without the intermediary of elected or appointed officials can participate in making public decisions. Direct democracy sometimes referred to as pure democracy is based on the civic in which all citizens can directly participate in the decision making process. Some adherents want legislative, judicial and executive powers to be handled by the people although most extant systems only allow legislative decisions. The ideal of direct democracy is to give all people of a given community a direct say in the social decision making. This is very ideal where small numbers of people are involved, where members can meet to discuss issues and arrive at decisions by consensus or majority vote. Modern states with their sizes and complexities do not offer opportunities for direct democracy.
The second type or form of democracy which is representative democracy appears to be the most common form of democracy. Under representative democracy, citizens elect officials to make political decisions, formulate laws and administer programes for the public good. Candidates with manifestos purporting to share the concerns of a section of society compete to represent a given constituency. Elected officials there act on behalf of respective electorate to deliberate on complex public matters in a thoughtful and systematic manner. The process of electing peoples representatives varies from nation to nation, society to society. Whatever the method used, elected officials in a representative democracy hold office in the name of their constituents and remain accountable to the people for their actions. Indirect democracy has its pitfalls.
Individuals elected to office in representative democracy tend not to be demographically representative of their constituency. The tend to be wealthier, more educated, more male and closer to the majority ethnic group and religion than a random sample would produce. An example of this is the Uganda Peoples Defense Forces representatives in parliament.
Another demerit of indirect/representative democracy has to do with conflict of interest,. The interests of elected representatives do not necessarily correspond with those of their constituents. Once again In Uganda, the demands by Members of Parliament to have their welfare improved are not at part with what the electorates subscribes to.
Since representative democracy often times necessitates formation of political parties, combined resources are often needed to get candidates elected. However such parties mean that individual representatives must compromise their own values and those of the electorate, in order to fall in line with the party platform.
Apart from the above broad types of democracy, democracy can also be categorized as delegated democracy. Under this arrangement, delegates are instructed by their electors and are expected to express and carry out these instructions faithfully.
Democracy can also be said to be cascade in which case representative’s delegates are selected at the lowest tier of democracy by their constituents. Candidates for each next level of representation/delegation are chosen from and selected by their peers.
Democratic governance can also take a form of subsidiarity where the exercise of authority is carried out at the lowest practicable level with minimal (if any) input from higher tiers of authority. Each tier of decision making is accountable solely to its constituents/electors.
Defensive democracy is another minor type of democracy in which democratic society has to limit some rights and freedoms in order to protect the institutions of democracy.
The matter of majority rule and minority rights regarding democracy deserves some form of amplification. Although all democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule, rule by majority is not necessarily democratic. No one, for example would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In democratic society, majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in serve to protect the rights of minorities- whether ethnic, religious or political or simply the losers in the debate over a piece of controversial legislation. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and cannot be eliminated by the majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.
A look at the years 1954 to date (2007) regarding the political panorama of Uganda indicates that the country had different forms of Governance, none of which can be said to have been strongly democratic. In some of the forms of governance Uganda has had, some basic tenets of democracy have been present to fairly rather insignificant proportions. Uganda has had a multiparty system of political governance (1962-1967), monocracy and military rule (1967-1979), pseudo multiparty spell (1980-1985) military governance, the movement system (which can be argued to have been more or less one party rule) and multi party dispensation following the famous 2006 referendum.
In the last four decades of Uganda’s post independence life, there has not been peaceful transfer of power. Although the coming into power of the then National Resistance Movement in 1986 gave people a sense of hope with the promises of a fundamental change, a lot remains to be desired regarding democratic governance. Presently, under the multiparty dispensation, Uganda practices a form of indirect democracy, where governance by the people is through elected representatives, right from local council levels to the presidency. The elected officials who include members of parliament make decisions on behalf of the electors. It is arguable how far those elected go in representing the interests of those who elected than their own interests. The recent debate by members of parliament, for each to have 60 million shillings for purchase of an executive car is an example of how elected officials may for some reasons choose to push for an agenda that is not necessarily that of the electors or constituents. Under what is popularly called the Edmund Burkes principle, representative ought to act upon their own conscience in the affairs of representative democracy. This is contrasted to the expectation that such representatives should consider the views if their electors.
In Uganda, indirect or representative democracy continues to have implications, some of them with far reaching consequences. One of the major issues here is accountability. Naturally, representatives are expected to be accountable to the electorate lest they risk not being returned into office. Following last years presidential and parliamentary elections, courts of law have been busy handling election petitions. The judges of the Supreme Court admitted while delivering judgment regarding the lodged presidential elections petition that several electoral irregularities had occurred. Accountability by elected officials remains an ideal than a practice since there are possibilities that many elected officials can buy their way into power. This in turn undercuts the strength of democratic governance.
Although Uganda’s Country’s constitution promulgated in 1995 spells among other things, a number of important principles that would other wise be a springboard for democratic governance, principles themselves are not enough. Both principles and practices are important. Uganda continues to particularly suffer ‘a practice deficiency’ when it comes to democratic governance. Over the last 20 years, the country continues to register so many workshops and seminars in the name of nurturing and supporting democratic institutions. All this cannot be said to be fruitless, surely a lot remains to be seen in the domain of practices that have a bearing on the day- to-day life of a Ugandan citizen. A look at the pillars of democracy is helpful in defining what type of democracy Uganda has, if it can truly be said that there is actually a form of democracy existent in Uganda. The pillars of democracy have already been referred to in this submission. Once again they are; sovereignty of the people, Government based upon consent of the governed, majority rule, minority rights, guarantee of basic human rights, Free and fair elections and, Equality before the law,. Other pillars of democracy are the due process of law, Constitutional limits on Government, Social, economic and political pluralism and Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation and compromise. In the face of the pillars of democracy, Uganda continues with a ‘limp’ particularly concerning guarantee of basic human rights, and free and fair elections. Although the current Government agrees in principle that the country is under a multiparty dispensation, political pluralism is not operational. Ugandans with political convictions that are not the same as those of the Government continue to life with difficulties with many opting to leave the country. The number of applications for asylums by Ugandans especially in the United Kingdom and the United States is on the rise.
In conclusion, democracy as a concept has different meanings and it varies depending from one state to another to which it is practiced and for what purpose, which calls for no clear view about the definition however, there is a clear agreement to involve participation, freedom of rights and representation. There are several types practices in the world but Uganda practices three types of democracy-indirect, representative and parliamentary since the country exhibits some tendencies of democracy such as freedom of speech and other human rights hence this should not mean that its’ purely democratic. Similarly the merits and demerits will also differ therefore different types will yield different results.
REFERENCES
Cary. M (1997), A History of Rome: Down to the reign of Constantine, St. Martin’s press, 2nd edition.
Fotopoulos, Takis (2005), The Multidimensional Crisis and Inclusive Democracy, Gordios Athens (English translation from the Greek).
Gerber, Elisabeth. R (1999), The Populalist Paradox: Interest Group Influence and the Promise of Direct Legislation, Princeton University Press.
Human Rights Network (2000), Human Development Report.
Museveni Y.K (1997) Sowing the Mustard seed, The struggle for freedom and Democracy in Uganda, Elizabeth K and Kevin S (eds), Mac MILLAN Publishers, Printed in Malaysia.
The Constitution of the Republic of Uganda (1995), Government of Uganda, Entebbe.
posted by mwesigye herbert at 8:32 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home