Of IMF and Democracy

The first problem in democracy is the problem of representation. How is this to be achieved in a just and fair manner to stand a chance of decisions representing the true wishes of the people. Yesterday, 28^th June 2011, IMF confirmed the nomination of Christine Lagarde of France to replace Dominique Strauss-Kahn, also of France, as Managing Director. Does this decision have any characteristics of democracy which in my previous article I defined as on a method of collective decision making  by a group which is characterized by some type of equality among the members of the society and who engage freely in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation to achieve this. Are the member nations of IMF equal? Can one say USA and Mexico for instance are equal. Certainly not! Do they engage in discussions freely? Certainly not! For one to be free there must be an atmosphere of both negative and positive freedom. You will recall that negative freedom is the absence of coercion while positive freedom is the presence of capacity to achieve what is desired. Are the members of IMF from Africa free? No! Therefore I submit that IMF is not a Democratic Institution. Similarly, United Nations has an elite club of Security Council members and some even have veto powers. Perhaps, “Structural Adjustment Policy” needs to be applied to these institutions before demanding that of poor third world nations.
If UN and IMF have problems with the definition of democracy, what chances do developing nations have. In order words what principles should be adopted in their constitutions to achieve this. With Western Democracy,when the general populace goes to the polls, they are expected to choose political representatives from a list that is predetermined usually by forces outside the scope of the powers of the majority of ordinary citizens. In most cases political parties are formed by a relatively few people who then choose candidates, in house ,to present for election. Is this not the source of many problems evident in most African and Middle Eastern countries today?

Are The following Merits of Democracy Apparent in Your Nation?

To continue our discourse on democracy, notice that the definition which I posited in my last article implies two basic types of democracy.  { i.e. direct and representative.} The direct form in which all members participate in discussions is practicable only in societies where membership is few, for example families and clubs, so when it comes to states, enormous difficulties can be expected in getting millions of people to participate directly in all matters arising. This used to be the case in ancient Greek “city states” where citizenship was limited to only a few nobles, but as the states grew bigger and bigger with time, and with the abolition of slavery, some form or the other of representational democracy had to be adopted.

The definition of democracy does not settle the question of why it is more desirable to other forms of government like aristocracy, monarchy, oligarchy or even dictatorship. However, numerous writings of great Scholars like Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, David Hume, J. Madison and J.S. Mill are available in which the following answers have been expounded. Many nations claim to have embraced democracy. It is up to the readers to make up their own minds and determine which, if any, of the forms democracy are morally or practically desirable and applicable to their own societies by asking themselves if the following merits are apparent in their own nation.

1.  Many scholars have argued that in a democracy, because of the political power in the hands of the individuals, the human rights, legal rights, interests and opinions of a bigger cross section of the citizenship of the state are taken into consideration resulting in justice and equitable distribution of national resources. In order words, in a democracy where there is free and fair elections, representatives have an incentive to act according to the will of the majority of the people as opposed to other types of rule mentioned above.

2.   On the basis of the maxim “two heads are better than one”, democracy is thought to be the best method by bringing a lot of people into the process of political decision making. It has the potential of taking advantage of many sources of information and allows for critical assessment of laws and policies and hence more likely to reach a more rational decision acceptable to a bigger section of the community.

3.     Another basic principle inherent in the idea of democracy is that of public justification.  In a democracy, because decisions are reached collectively, immediate justification of laws and policies is achieved thereby reducing the chances of dissent, strife or even civil war within the state. Experience dictates that laws and policies are acceptable and hence legitimate only insofar as they are justified in the perspectives of the citizens.

4.      An egalitarian defense of democracy says human beings, by nature, aspire for Utopian society characterised amongst other things by happiness and the principle of Public Equality. Now Public Equality is defined as the realization of equality of advancement of interests of all citizens. For people to be treated as equals and for their interests to be advanced equally, they must have an equal say in collective decision making hence the appeal to democracy. Democratic decision making respects each person's point of view on matters of common interest by giving each an equal say about what to do in cases of disagreement. If they believe they are being treated as equals, then there is a great chance that a peaceful and fair compromise is achieved. The idea is that public equality is a great value and democracy is the best form of government to achieve this.

5.       In 1861, J S Mill, a celebrated British philosopher gave an argument that democratic processes tend to enhance the autonomy, rationality and morality of participants and that these are beneficial characters worth having in themselves.   Mill said that democracy tends to make people stand up for themselves more than other forms of rule like dictatorship, monarchy or aristocracy because it makes collective decisions depend on them. He said, in democratic societies individuals are encouraged to be more autonomous and in addition, people  tend to think carefully and rationally more than other forms of rule because it makes a difference whether they do or not. He also argued that democracy tends to enhance the moral qualities of citizens because they have to listen and justify themselves to others and they are forced to take into consideration the interests of others. In addition to the beneficial effects on the character of the citizens, a society of autonomous, rational, and moral decision-makers is more likely to produce better legislation than a society ruled by a dictator or a monarch.

Before we get carried away by the merits of democracy outlined above, it is worth having a look at the demerits too. There are powerful counter arguments to these and in particular there are many problems that appear during the implementation phase of democracy. We will take a look at these in the next article.

Democracy in Developing Nations

Majority of the citizens of developing nations are illiterates and even amongst the ranks of the literates, the acquisition of the knowledge of the concept of democracy is informal. We can hardly expect everybody to have degrees in Political Science and so many of us have learned about democracy in passing, either during our early school age from parents and teachers  or from sources like newspaper articles, television or radio broadcasts, informal discussions and debates with peers and friends or even from propaganda materials of Governments and  International organisations. The idea of democracy  has been passed down from generation to generation in this manner since the time of the early Greek Scholars and today it is no surprise that we are remote from the original concepts of the founding fathers and have inherited, unconsciously, the prejudices of the western world in the applications to our contemporary societies. We are constantly bombarded by donors and other powerful western forces to adopt the principles of democracy, which we do without thinking twice, because of poverty. Consequently , because our conception of democracy is uninformed ,we fail to see that these principles rest on presuppositions and concealed premises which require a thorough philosophical understanding and that even the so called champions of democracy are themselves undemocratic. Even though democracy is perhaps the most potent instrument of development so far devised by man, it can, and has had , both good and adverse results when applied to different societies in different situations. What is needed therefore is an informed reflective awareness of the tenets of democracy and their relevance to the needs of each society today. Democracy cannot be and must not be a turnkey project.

This and subsequent articles therefore are designed to fill in the gaps in the knowledge of the average citizen, for when all citizens are enlightened then the task of good governance becomes simple and everyone benefits. To achieve this I will attempt to answer a few pertinent questions on the definition, types and criticisms of democracies, purposes, justification, historical developments , the role of citizens  and the legislature in a democracy, the conflict between majority and minority interests and the limits of democratic authority. This particular article will focus on the definition of democracy.

 What then ,is the meaning of democracy.  The term “democracy”  in its general sense ,refers to a method of collective decision making  by any group which is characterized by some type of equality among the members of the society and who engage freely in a process of reasoned discussion and deliberation to achieve this. This definition applies to any set of people with a common interest , be they families ,clubs ,companies, industries, tribes ,nations, international organisations and alliances of states. However the most common usage of this term applies to nations and states where democracy is a method of giving all eligible citizens a fair share in the political decision making.

 Some aspects of this definition are worth noting for they are the foundations of conflicting views. Firstly, democracy concerns collective decision making, by which is meant that decisions are binding on all the members of the group. Secondly, decisions are made through reasoned discussions which are objective and which consider the interest of the whole group as one unit. Thirdly, membership criteria must be clearly stated and members must engage freely in decision making without coercion. Fourthly, the kind of equality required must be established beforehand. Finally the definition does not suggest how collective decision is to be arrived at. It could be through direct participation of all members in discussions or it could be through representation and if so how representation is to be achieved is not predetermined.  

When applied to States, two conflicting views of democracy arise as to what to place emphasis on. Either emphasis should be placed on all eligible citizens to participate in government or on the need for decisions to reflect the true aspirations of the people whether they are ignorant or not.

This and other questions will be the topics of subsequent articles.