accountable government
TRANSCRIPT
Accountable government
The liberal democratic model-Tuesday 08th April 2014
The events concerning Sri Lanka at the UNHRC at Geneva have
focused our minds on the issue of the accountability of a
government. A liberal democracy is, by any objective standard, the
only system of governance which has within it the checks and
balances, mechanisms, processes and procedures that can, up to some
extent even, provide for a responsive system of government, where
the rulers have even a modicum of accountability to the people they
govern. But it is not perfect.
A liberal democratic system of government wherein the government is
accountable to the governed has been described by analysts and
commentators, as the only form of government suitable for grownups!
All other forms of government, it is claimed, treat people as
under-aged children. In the past, where within a nation state most
of the people were illiterate, such paternalism, may be, could be
justified, as nanny governance! In the current day and age, there
is no space for such thinking.
Ordinary citizens are educated, knowledgeable and in this internet
and mobile phone age, more world aware and in touch with developing
situations globally. It is truly the information age. As a result,
as populations become more educated and informed, governments which
try to behave like the proverbial nanny, limiting citizens rights,
curtailing media freedom and freedom of association, limiting
social media such as Facebook and Twitter, and giving the defence
and security establishments a prominent role to crush dissent will
be less acceptable to its own people and the global community. Even
nationalism and national sovereignty, described, with ample reason,
as the last resort of the scoundrel, is no defence from the prying
eyes of the global community, even if the citizens rights to
dissent and freedom of expression are curtailed.
Extra-national laws, international treaties, UN treaties, rules of
groups of nations such as the European community, institutions such
as the International Court of Justice at the Hague, the
International Criminal Court, and the European Court of Human
Rights are all limitations on national sovereignty which nation
states have voluntarily imposed on themselves. Sometimes, as
happened to Sri Lanka, just at this time, justifiably or
unjustifiably, depending on your point of view, the global
community may impose an inquiry into a domestic situation within a
nation state, where it is felt that the state itself is unable to
resolve a situation in accordance with internationally-acceptable
norms of behaviour. Therefore there is no such thing as absolute
national sovereignty, it is qualified, limited and tempered by
global standards of behaviour.
Democracy a delicate plant
Democracy with universal suffrage is a very delicate plant,
particularly, but, not only in its early years. Even where
seemingly regular free and fair elections take place
(electo-cracies), a true liberal democratic environment may not
prosper. Less so, where the people have a lesser opportunity to
freely express their views at elections and through the
media.
Polity IV is an independent organisation which maintains a
democratic data base for 167 nation states. The 2012 data reveals
nation states going through periods of factionalism and various
other events which change the democratic fabric fundamentally, such
as autocratic backsliding, executive coups, violent revolutions,
and collapse of central authority, resulting in failed states and
military coups.
According to Polity IV, almost 100 countries are imperfect
democracies. This is double the number in 1990. In 1800 there were
none. The number of full autocracies is also down; in 1990, Polity
IV estimates there were around 90 in 1990, now down to around 20.
But sadly, in nations which Polity IV describes as anocracies those
whose governance is highly unstable, ineffective and/or corrupt the
number has increased from around 20 in 1990, to around 50 in 2012.
These are either crumbling autocracies or failing democracies. They
are also very vulnerable to outbreaks of armed conflict and
forcible seizures of power.
Sadly there are only 10 nation states which Polity IV describes as
full democracies in 2012. There are six to nine states which can be
described as qualified democracies or democracies with limitations.
Anocracies number between one to five, while there around five
closed autocracies and between six and 10 unqualified
autocracies.
Fundamental requirements
Lets examine the fundamental requirements for an accountable
liberal democratic system of government. Strange as it may seem,
the most fundamental factor which is required to ensure a
democratic system is two sets of restraints. One restraint, among
the people, and another, between the people and the state. These
restraints rest on four basic features, all essential.
First of all, a democracy needs citizens who have the capacity to
tolerate dissent. Dissent, that is, which operates within the law.
There must be space for what has been described as a loyal
opposition. Loyalty of the citizen to the democratic political
process must override their loyalty to their own particular
political point of view. Citizens must accept the legitimacy of a
government run by and even for their opponents. They must have the
confidence that they, who oppose the present administration, will
in time have their own turn in government. While the legitimacy of
dissent is accepted, the use of force must be ruled out.
Secondly, democracies need guardians. Those who hold positions of
political, bureaucratic, judicial or military and police power must
act within the law, recognising the need to comply with
constitutional limitations placed on their behaviour and that the
citizens have the right to challenge excesses or abuse of power,
through recourse to an independent Judiciary. The role of an
independent media to draw attention and communicate such abusive
behaviour is also essential.
The guardians are different, from those who are referred to as
bandits, in that the guardians use their powers not for their own
material or political advantage, but act according to law,
observing the legal limitations on their authority, and act in
favour of a nation of the benefit of the nation as a whole and not
in a partisan manner. One may, perhaps, contra distinguish a
statesman from a mere politician in this context.
Unfortunately, throughout the history of mankind, power and wealth
have been conjoined! The idea that the two should be separate is a
relatively new and revolutionary concept, not yet totally and
universally accepted. Concepts of constitutional law such as the
Rule of Law and the Separation of Powers, and the Independence of
the Judiciary and Fundamental Human Rights and Freedoms, have all
evolved in the context of empowering and institutionalising, this
separation of power from pecuniary wealth. Fundamentally, the loot,
shoot and scoot tendency in undemocratic regimes is the very
antithesis of this concept of guardianship.
Thirdly, democracies need properly functioning markets, supported
by a well-functioning state. By a functioning market, analysts
definitely do not mean the abuse of power by the state to turn
ordinary citizens assets into a ruling classes private wealth.
So-called entrepreneurs who build their fortunes on such blatant
theft are no more legitimate than the politicians who connive with
them.
Properly functioning markets support prosperity. A social system
which is able to ensure a decent and reasonably secure standard of
living is also most likely to ensure a stable society. This enables
citizens to place trust in the rational economic behaviour of their
fellow citizens and in a stable and predictable economic future.
Most importantly, effectively functioning markets loosen the
connection between financial prosperity and political power.
Effectively functioning markets make it possible for people to
regard the outcomes of elections as important, but most
importantly, not as a matter of life and death either for
themselves or for their families. This lowers the temperature of
politics to a bearable level, rather than to one of basic
survival.
Fourthly, democracies need a commonly-accepted legal regime. Most
importantly, constitutional laws and conventions. Such laws enacted
and implemented in accordance with accepted procedures shapes the
rules of political, social and economic activities within the
state. A country that lacks the Rule of Law is permanently on the
verge of chaos or tyranny. As succinctly stated by Lord Bingham,
former Lord Chief Justice of England, described as the greatest
English judge since World War II, the Rule of Law implies that All
persons and authorities within the state, whether public or
private, should be bound by and entitled to the benefit of laws
publicly made, taking effect (generally) in the future and publicly
administered in the courts.
Elected dictatorship
The four principles enunciated above, should make it abundantly
clear, that being a democracy is more than just being an
electo-cracy, each adult, one vote, periodically! Or even: one
person impersonates an adult, by a rigged vote, on a regular basis!
The survival of a democratic system requires and entails a complex
web of rights, obligations, powers and most importantly
constraints.
Basically a democracy is the political expression of free
individuals acting in concert, otherwise it simply cannot exist.
Fundamentally, those who have won an election do not have the right
to do as they please. That is not democracy, but merely an
electo-cracy, an elected dictatorship! Without the four fundamental
requirements of- true citizens, honest guardians, functioning
markets and just laws, there cannot exist a liberal democratic
system of governance.
Such a rules-based liberal democratic system is a bulwark against
corrupt, abusive and autocratic governments. Liberal democracies
are on average richer than non democracies. They are less likely to
go to war and have a better record for fighting corruption. More
fundamentally a liberal democratic environment gives citizens the
space to speak their minds freely and shape their own and their
childrens futures.
In the second half of the 20th century principles of liberal
democracy has taken root in some very challenging political and
social environments. Post-Nazi Germany, post-colonial India, which
had the worlds largest population of poor people, and
post-apartheid South Africa. The process of de-colonisation created
a host of new democracies in Asia and Africa. In countries such as
Greece, Spain, Argentina, Brazil and Chile, autocratic regimes were
replaced.
By the year 2000, Freedom House, a think tank, classified 120
countries as democracies. But in the 21st century although more
people than ever before, estimated to be 40% of the worlds
population, live in countries which will hold free and fair
elections, democracys global advance has come to a halt and may
even have gone into reverse. Freedom House estimates that 2013 was
the eighth consecutive year in which global freedom declined. Many
nominal democracies have slipped towards autocracy, maintaining the
outward appearance of democracy through elections, the veneer of an
electo-cracy, but devoid of the rights, institutions and laws that
have shown to be an equally important aspect of a functioning
liberal democratic system.
Declining democracy
Analysts cite two main reasons for this decline: one is the
financial crisis of 2007-08 and the other the rise of the Peoples
Republic of China.
The financial crisis was brought about by populist governments
playing up to the voters greed and steadily enhancing entitlements
and handouts over decades, allowing very dangerous levels of
national debt to develop. The politicians, playing up to the voters
wish for the easy welfare state based unaffordable lifestyle,
believed that they had tamed the boom and bust cycles and were able
to control economic risks. Finally, when the credit crunch hit
home, the taxpayer had to take the hit as governments had to bail
out the financial service providers to refinance their high risk
lending.
On the other hand, the Government of China has destroyed the
democratic worlds monopoly on economic progress. China has been
doubling living standards roughly every 30 years, pulling
phenomenally large numbers of people out of poverty. The Chinese
authorities claim that their Beijing Model tight control of the
state by the Communist party, coupled with a relentless effort to
recruit talented people into the Communist Partys upper ranks
delivers economic progress in a superior manner than what the
traditional liberal democracy does; in that it does not allow
dissenting opinion to dissipate the drive to development and also
does not provide space for gridlock between the Government and its
opponents, as seen in the United States between the Democratic
President and Republican-controlled Congress.
China says its political leadership changes, within the Communist
party, every decade or so, and the supply of fresh talent at the
peak of the pyramid of power is achieved by party cadres being
promoted on their ability to deliver in lower level posts in the
hierarchy. Critics condemn China for crushing dissent and public
opinion. Yet the Communist regimes obsession with control
paradoxically means it has to pay close attention to public
opinion.
Some Chinese commentators argue that democracy is destroying the
West, particularly America, by institutionalising gridlock,
trivialising decision making and throwing up incompetent leaders
with no track record. They say that democracy makes things overtly
complicated and frivolous and allows certain sweet-talking
politicians to mislead the people. They point out that many
developing countries that have introduced democratic values of
governance are experiencing disorder and chaos. They say that China
offers an alternative model and counties such as Rwanda, Dubai and
Vietnam seems to be taking this seriously by curtailing democracy
and dissent and racing headlong on a steamroller of economic
development.
Freedom in political choice is fundamental
Other analysts feel that this challenge to liberal democratic
principles from the Beijing Model is not sustainable. As citizenry
gains more economic capacity and wealth, he yearns for freedom.
Freedom in political choice is fundamental. As long as a nation is
struggling to feed its poor, the citizenry will tolerate a
government imposing a policy and repressing dissent thereto. But
once a level of prosperity has been reached, citizens yearn after
political freedom. Whether the Beijing Model can face up to that
challenge remains to be seen.
For liberal democracies too, the challenge comes from within, from
the voter stakeholders themselves. What Plato, stated as his
greatest worry about democracy, that citizens would live from day
to day, indulging the pleasure of the moment has turned out to be
true. Populist government have got into the bad habit of running up
huge debts as a matter of course, borrowing to give voters, what
they want in the short term, to ensure the re-electability of the
politicians in power. Balancing budgets is history.
This flagrant spending extravaganza is taking place in the context
of an ageing population. There are less and less people of working
to generate the finances to support retired workers. The result is
that many populist democracies now face the challenge of choosing
between inherited entitlement bills and investments in the future.
Cynicism of voters towards the political class also raises
challenges to democracy. Surveys have shown that people have no
trust in government and think that politicians tell lies all the
time!
Often democratic political systems have been subverted by interest
groups, even by dynasties. Patrick French, a British historian has
noted that every member of Indias lower house under the age of 30
is member of a politically dynastic family. An analysis on this
basis of Lankas recent Provincial Council elections in the west and
south will raise eyebrows.
Elections to the fore
One reason that liberal democracy seems to be in jeopardy is due to
elections being seen as the main requirement and not the other
fundamental requirements. As has been mentioned, the Rule of Law is
vital. The power of the state has to be checked by an independent
Judiciary. The power of the individual also must be limited so as
not to violate anothers rights. Without the freedom of speech and
the freedom to associate and communicate, citizens cannot
articulate their grievances or push for preferred policies.
Majoritarianism is a great threat. Too often winning an election is
taken to mean that the majority has the unconstrained power to do
what it likes. These are dangerous trends. The only way to control
this is to limit the power of national institutions. The United
Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the
European Union, all place constraints on a nations discretion. Such
checks and balances on the power of the states domestic policies
are required in the interest of promoting good governance.
The growing size and power of the state is one factor which
jeopardises the survival of a liberal democracy. The relentless
expansion of government, into business and enterprise, into the
provision of goods and services hitherto provided by private
enterprise, reduces liberty and hands even more power to vested
special interest groups. The governments have the habit of making
promises that it cannot fulfil, given the economic realities of the
national budget.
In the 1980s giving control of monetary policy to independent
central banks tamed the rampant inflation of the time. The same
principle of limiting government should be extended to a broader
sector in order to ensure the survival of liberal democratic
systems. This can be done in many ways.
Tight fiscal rules can be imposed, making fiscal responsibility an
obligation of the budget process. Balancing budgets can be made
compulsory. Sunset clauses can be introduced into legislation
providing freebies and handouts to voters, so that politicians are
forced to renew laws, within a timeframe and reconsider the
affordability and practical nature of the law.
Non-partisan independent commissions to handle long-term policy
formulation, to manage the Administrative Service, the Police
Service, the Judiciary and the Military, and other national
instructions is another option. Such constraints can strengthen
democracy by preventing people voting for spending policies that
produce bankruptcy. They can protect minorities from persecution
and ensure an independent Public Service, Police Service and
Judiciary. Delegation also can be made to the voting public, by
institutionalising referendums on important issues. Even allowing
referendums to initiate policy reform, like in California,
USA.
While globalism constraints the power of the state, localism, by
empowering voters and micro level power, can only strengthen
democracy. The devolution of power using the principle of
subsidiarity that power must be exercised at the point closest to
its impact is important. These will go a long away in ensuring
accountable liberal democratic governance.
(The writer is a lawyer, who has over 30 years of experience as a
CEO in both State and private sectors. He retired from the office
of Secretary, Ministry of Finance and currently is the Managing
Director of the Sri Lanka Business Development Centre.)