1.0 Introduction
The chronology of democracy has been
characterized by a number of different elucidations and interpretations of the
term ‘democracy’. As a consequence, there have been different theoretical and
practical approaches to democracy in the diverse human civilizations. In recent
days, scholars and political experts have integrated the classical descriptions
of democracy with the contemporary ones to come up with emergent, and often
time, inconsistent elucidations of what democracy is (Held, 2006). Despite the
different models of democracy, most people agree that democracy is supposed to
empower the people and enable them to participate in the decision making
process over issues that concern them. Whether the government is controlled by
the people themselves of by their elected representatives, it is important that
there be a very high degree of accountability by those in power.
2.0 Models of Democracy
Any scholar who attempts to analyze
and elucidate on the models of democracy must be willing to accomplish two important
feats; firstly, such a scholar must be able to introduce and discuss the main
accounts of democracy (Tilly, 2007). Secondly, they should be able to elucidate
on the implications of democracy in the modern day.
(a) Liberal or Representative Democracy
Kuskin
et al (2004: 460) reveal that there are a number of nations in the world whose
governmental agencies are based on the system of liberal democracy; these
include the United States of America, Canada, Australia, Norway and New
Zealand. Liberal democracy refers to the form of democracy that is described as
representative. In such a political system, there are a number of
representatives that have been fairly chosen by the electorate and given the
power and authority to make decisions on behalf of the people on issues such as
legislative laws and political issues. These representatives thus derive their
power from the people; they are expected to abide by the stipulations of their
respective national constitutions (Lin and Barber, 1984). In such a democracy,
the national constitution is the backbone and genesis of all citizens’
freedoms, liberties, access to due process of law and equality. Mann (1993)
claims that liberal democracy, also referred to as representative democracy, is
amongst the most stable democracies in the world and constitutes one of the
strongest categories of civil societies. Apart from being allowed to contribute
their opinions in public discussions, on special occasions the electorate in
such democracies are allowed the opportunity to change the decisions made by
their representatives through a process of referendum.
There
are a number of criticisms that have been directed towards the liberal or
representative form of democracy. One of the most emphasized is the claim that
once the representatives in a liberal democracy are elected into their
respective offices, they wield the power and authority to make pertinent
decisions without any form of consultation with their electorate. Kuskin et al
(2004) posit that the public opinion on volatile issues such as whether or not
the country should go to war, or issues of constitution revision is usually
ignored, causing this form of democracy to be defined as an ‘elected oligarchy’
in which power is wielded by a few people. In addition to this, critics of
liberal democracy also argue that this structure of democracy lacks the ability
to safeguard the interests of the marginalized or minority groups in the event
that the majority accepts the oppression of the minority; consequently, liberal
democracy is perceived as having the ability to safeguard individual freedoms
only.
(b) Participatory or Direct democracy
According to Held (2006), direct
democracies are mostly more popular in jurisdictions that are smaller than
those governed by representative democracies. Direct democracy is also commonly
referred to as participatory, true or pure democracy. It refers to a form of
democracy in which the electorate makes their own decisions on the laws and
policies by which they will be governed. This form of democracy is a direct
opposite of the representative democracy in which representatives are chosen to
perform such functions on behalf of the people. A direct democracy works best
when the number of people being governed is relatively small and very actively involved
in their political and government agencies (Lin and Barber, 1984). Direct forms
of democracy are described as being not only by the people but also for the
people. There are a number of advantages that are assigned to direct democracy.
In such a democracy, the people wield authority over their own lives and they
can raise and deliberate upon issues that are usually concealed by
representatives in liberal democracies. In addition to this, politicians are
forced to respond to petitions by the people as well as be more accountable in
their actions Issues such as imbalance of power and irregularities in the
parliament are easily controlled by such a democracy (Kuskin et al, 2004).
The greatest challenges or demerits
of a direct democracy are the fact that it is very costly to maintain.
Moreover, some members of the society may tend to be more politically active
than others. In addition to the fact that such a democracy is usually
characterized by incidences of referenda, the government and media in such
democracies have a tendency to try to sway or manipulate the people’s opinions
and decisions.
(c) Deliberative Democracy
Deliberation
refers to the decision making technique in which the electorate is tasked with
the responsibility of making public decisions after discussing and consulting
with each other, collecting enough factual material from the different existent
perspectives and being informed of the options available to them. According to
Tilly (2007) a deliberative form of democracy is founded upon the principle
that the voters and their voters come together to deliberate upon the issues
that affect them, with the intention of formulating effective solutions. Such
deliberations are usually open ones in which the public is expected to indicate
a willingness to acknowledge, comprehend and appreciate the different values,
concerns and mind sets demonstrated by others in the society. Deliberative
democracy has a tendency to exist in a variety of forms and blends which
complement each other and increase the levels of democracy and effective
governance. Such forms include instrumental, expressive, consensual,
substantive and procedural deliberations (Held, 2006).
A
deliberative form of democracy supports and builds up the electorate’s voice in
governance by making sure that the people in the society from different
regions, races, ages, educational levels and socio-economic backgrounds are all
included in the deliberative process of determining public decisions (Warren,
2001). There are a number of merits that are associated with deliberate
democracy; in such a democracy the voters tend to put aside their differences
and develop a special concern for each other. Such a process increases the
electorate’s collaboration and common understanding. This means that the decisions
that are settled for are nit only mutually acceptable, but also satisfactory to
all those involved. The greatest disadvantage of this form of democracy is the
fact that consensus is the only way to come to a resolution or clear
conclusion.
3.0 Conclusion
This paper has effectively analyzed three models of democracy. Direct democracy is also commonly referred to as participatory, true or pure democracy and it refers to a form of democracy in which the electorate makes their own decisions on the laws and policies by which they will be governed. Liberal democracy is a form of democracy that is representative. A number of representatives are fairly chosen by the electorate and given the power to make decisions on behalf of the people. A deliberative form of democracy is founded upon the principle that the voters and their voters come together to deliberate upon the issues that affect them, with the intention of formulating effective solutions. Many nations in the modern day have indicated a tendency to try and blend and make use of more than one form of democracy. The most commonly blended, as indicated in the American example, is the direct and indirect forms of democracies.
4.0 References
Held, D.,
2006, Models of Democracy, Cambridge: Polity chapters 2 and 3 Canovan,
M. (2005) The People Cambridge: Polity Press
Kuskin,
R. C., Fishkin, J. S. and Jowell, R., 2004, Considered
Opinions: Deliberative Poling in Britain, British Journal of Political
Science, Vo. 32, pp. 455-487
Li, H. and Barber, B., 1984, String Democracy, Berkeley: London, University of California Press
Mann, M., 1993, The Sources Of Social Power.
Vol.2: The Rise Of Classes And Nation-States, 1760-1914 Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press
Tilly, C., 2007, Democracy,
New York: Cambridge, Cambridge University Press
Warren, M. E., 2001, Democracy and Association,
Princeton: Princeton University Press
No comments:
Post a Comment