The Idea of Constituted Democracy. – Part One

Fighting Terrorism: Addressing the Flaws of Democracy

"This series of four articles highlights the need for a more enlightened political decision-making processes other than the simple majoritarian democracy. After rejecting both totalitarian single-party system and multi-party system, basing its arguments on the analysis of nature of conflicts in society, this series of four articles arrives at the idea of a constituted democratic system based on consensual majoritarianism. The articles explain the procedures of the new political system; provide an analysis of its advantages, and how the adoption of the new system would pave the way for a peaceful resolution of conflicts and inclusive political process. The articles propose the need to instil such consensual mechanisms throughout the decision making process in society, and the way forward for transition into constituted democracy throughout the world, including Sri Lanka."
_________________

By: Arular Arudpragasam


The Disabilities of Democracy

(April 12, Geneva, Sri Lanka Guardian) The world today is in a highly confused state. With diminished ability to resolve its problems, the hope for the future is fast eroding. A sense of insecurity and helplessness is slowly creeping in all walks of life at all levels. Extremism and terrorism have come to stay as instruments of conflict resolution. While insensitivity and disparity mark the international search for prosperity and equality, the consequences of global warming are coming out from the opposite side to deal a crushing blow to human existence.

War rages in Sri Lanka for thirty years and it has become impossible to find a just solution to the intractable ethnic problem, while the country had remained a ‘beacon of democracy’ in Asia, holding elections after elections. But strife and discord, and a process of destabilisation can now be observed throughout South Asia. Among developing nations, the only seeming stable nation in Asia seems to be China, which is not a democracy.

While the global forces are hell-bent on promoting democracy as well as do everything possible to destabilise states that are not democracies, it is time, both in the context of Asia as well as of the world, to investigate the inherent disabilities of democracies as a major cause of global destabilisation. And its promotion as a ‘per se’ panacea for global ills and aspirations, and in many instances its premature and perhaps irrelevant imposition, makes it the major cause of destabilisation, discord, strife and insecurity in Asia, and throughout the world.

Transitional Insecurity and Democracy

In many nations, where the multi party democratic system is being proposed as a way forward for peace, the insecurity which threatens all protagonists that they could be relegated and cast into opposition in any democratic process, emerges as a major stumbling block in the peace process.

Unless one is certain that the people will overwhelmingly endorse them, democratic transition can be characterised by serious procrastination. This explains why independent countries under the Commonwealth had such long periods of transition to freedom.

Where oppression, exclusion and alienation have led to revolt and armed struggle, it becomes virtually impossible to return to a peaceful life under the context of democracy, as democracy stands to perpetuate all these. A permanent solution becomes impossible within the context of democracy, as it can’t guarantee against the end-process of usurpation of sectarian interests through political extremism which democracy will continue to legitimise.

Democratic transition becomes a nightmare in a post conflict situation as democracy does not readily offer a solution for power sharing according each ones contribution and support, especially, when there are many groups contending for power. Rushing with elections is a way forward for aggravation of internal and external strife as combatants prefer a state of belligerence instead of the insecurity afforded by democracy. As democracy does not prescribe a transitional constitutional approach as way forward, the premature insertion of democratic process in conflict situation aggravates confrontation and conflicts. A democratic approach to conflict resolution is a major cause of interminable conflicts around the world.

The simple majoritarianism and sectarian usurpation.

As simple majoritarianism leads to polarisation along common identity realms based on racial, religious, linguistic and territorial divisions, sectarian usurpation sets is where the population is not homogeneous. The numerically preponderant group has the ability to usurp the majoritarian process at the expense of the rest, undermining the constitutional unity of nations. The common identity factor, raised as political ideology, determine the power base. The state and governing process also become usurped over a time alienating substantial number of people who would fall out side it. Once the democratic majority become entrenched along the sectarian contours, the disappointment and frustration leads to strife, break down of constitutional order and gradual disintegration of the state.

Though in countries like UK, from where the democratic revival originates after Greece, usage of such term as ‘Majority English’ though their population is 77% in the UK, would be considered a sacrilege of democracy, in many commonwealth countries that is not the case. In Sri Lanka for example, the term ‘Majority Sinhalese’ has been in usage from the very beginning of democratic process where their population is 70%, as if this race of people have some special rights by virtue of its numerousness in a democracy. Such a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of democratic majority, that should be based on policies, with communal majority based on identity realms, which is the way democratic majority came to be interpreted in certain countries, can be the basis for serious and intractable conflicts.

The number game on which the simple majoritarian democracy is based, leads to excessive and competitive breeding among communities, enormously weakening communities in terms of abilities and resources, contributing to their inner sense of insecurity. Fascist tendencies and programmes of annihilation and genocide emerge through a continued process of legitimisation afforded by democracy, with attempts to reduce others in terms of numbers and percentage of population. As democracy turns out to be a process where rights are to be allocated according to numerousness and percentage of people, the numerical majority entrenches itself through usurpation and abuse of democracy as the permanent majority in a simple majoritarian democracy.

Accumulation of alienation and conflict generation

Where sectarian usurpation sets in, and permanent majorities based on identities become entrenched in a democracy, the denial and discord leads to a process of accumulated alienation, segregates people on ethnic and religious lines and shuts out people permanently from the power process, until extremism sets in as a struggle for justice within democracy. Democracy allows no room for moderation and the vested interests take hold of majoritarian opportunity and block a just rule. This eventually ends up in the piled up frustrations leading to armed revolt which is often referred as terrorism.

In the modern world, there is vast array of means in the hands of those who are in power, which would enable them to perpetuate their hold on that power preventing any genuine democratic process or transition to take hold. The continued defeat and marginalisation of particular sections of society leads to the sectoral inequalities in societies as a result of prolonged democratic exclusion, inequality and alienation. The legitimisation of this alienation and exclusion by democracy becomes a major curse of strife and breakdown of social order eventually leading to terrorism and armed insurrection where people exercise their just right to revolt against a constitution which denies them their freedom.

The democratic process becomes besieged by confrontational politics with little room left for transition to a peaceful state as democracy continues to legitimise alienation. The need to hold on to the vote banks necessitates confrontational politics. Even if everyone is aware where the solution lies, no one could take the risk of putting one foot towards the resolution of the conflict as they fear the loss of power base. The accumulated alienation become further entrenched dividing the sovereignty and limiting writs of government.

A Quantitative Assessment of Accumulated Alienation

In a simple majoritarian representative democratic electoral process, a maximum of 51% of representatives can form the government. The remaining 49% electorates have no representation in the government, and are hence shut out from the power process. Of the 51% in government, in their electorates, there is a 49% alienation factor, since in highly contested elections an equal number vote for the opposition. This leaves only just over 25% of the population having effective representation in the parliament, leaving others alienated and without any share in the power. When a party gets repeatedly elected, or sections repeatedly excluded, this alienation accumulates, leading to explosive situations.

When voting has not produced a clear winner, the coalition governments that emerge leave no better solution. Coalition governments are based on numerical minority often with lesser number in power. The legitimisation which such minority governments gets in democracy emerge as a source of perpetual tension and insecurity. This result is insecure governments with no concrete policies or programme. The result is ineffective government where the peoples mandate becomes nullified.

Extremism as a Norm in Democracy

As substantial sections of people remain alienated in democracies, and those in power wield unequal abilities to influence the people and events in decision-making processes, extremist slogans become attractive for those who are outside it aspiring for power. Those in opposition can always take a gamble without considering the consequences of their extremist actions, as the prime motivation here is ousting the opponent and coming to power, while chances of coming to power through realistic programmes remain slim. In the context of European Democracy, it is the right and left extremism that have characterised the policies of political parties for a century. Fascism, chauvinist ideologies, religious fundamentalist ideologies, proletarian dictatorship, are some of the promises that were advanced to lure people in order to capture power.

The Threats of Marxism and Reactionary Extremism

Marxism is fundamentally an extremist ideology threatening virtually everyone’s lives with change, through the promise of utopian justice and prosperity. Until the advent of its more moderate versions, and its subordination to the electoral process through the establishment of electoral communist parties, the Marxist threat had remained a generator of many counter revolutionary ideologies of extremist nature. This may be so even today in the US democracy, where the Marxist ideology, along with its collectivist agenda, remains an anathema and a prohibited ideology.

The consequences of Marxist ideological domination and over projection of class conflict, and the assertion of establishing a single party dictatorship based on irreconcilability and perpetual discord between classes, which was demonstrated in the subsequent success of the Russian revolution which rejected democracy, eventually fused the ideologies of individualism and selfishness with democracy. Though Marxism has become considerably weakened in recent times fascist usurpation continues to hound democracies throughout the world.

Negation of the Middle Path under the Conditions of Democracy

The perpetual power struggle, into which democracy plunges societies, and the legitimacy it offers to political extremism, negates the middle ground and political justness from the ideological platform of democracy. The voices of moderation and sanity are drowned in a chorus of extremist slogans and day-to-day tensions, which democracy breeds. Whereas, the just middle path has remained the norm of civilised governance (which in many civilised societies is entrenched as the ‘per se’ ideology of governance), the legitimacy which democracy provides for extremist ideologies has submerged the opportunity for entrenching an ideological middle way and a just rule as a methodology of governance, throughout the democratic world.

Excessive pretensions of democracy as a way forward for peace and prosperity has turned out to be nightmare for many nations as a result of the rejection of the middle path and strife and discord it generates. Buddha teaches the importance of Middle Path in ones actions and Thiru Valluvar’s ‘Naduvu Nilai’ stipulates ideological centrism as the ideology of governance. As democracy makes for no such provision for middle path in governance and enthrones extremism as ideology of governance, even such ancient civilisations as Buddhist civilisation and Tamil civilisation are at a loss adopting the middle path and are trapped in unreasonableness and violence as a result of subscribing to democracy.

The Conflict between Entrenched Ideologies and Democracies

Ideological systems prescribe the nature of governance as a means of realising the ideological objectives without giving room for a change of the fundamental ideological system, whether it is Marxism or Islamic rule. There is constant struggle between such holistic ideological systems and democracy. Such a struggle opens the way for radical negation and replacement of the entrenched ideological system through the democratic process. This type of conflict, that gave rise to the cold war conflict in the post revolutionary period between the West and the Soviet Union, is also the main cause for the current conflict between the West and the Islamic world.

The Mindset of the Opposition in Democracies

When the democratic process casts defeated political parties into the opposition, and turns them into political nonentities, the transformation and adjustment from a governing aspirant to that of an outcast has to take place from top to bottom of the party, which is no easy matter. No one is prepared to sit it out in the opposition for the next five or so years, listening to the victors. This difficulty often shows up as non- endorsement of defeat, which in many instances leads to violence. The resulting scenario initiates a process whereby all what the opposition wants to do is to undermine the elected government, and does everything in its power to pull down the government, undermine the governing process, and pursue an agenda of non-cooperation in providing a peaceful and effective government to the people within the state.

No one feels secure in such a state of political strife generated by the demonisation and counter demonisation by the Government and Opposition. The instability that the election process leaves in democracies undermines the governmental process and drains political power and national resources into providing security. The government ends up with a programme of day-to-day emergency services, instead of implementing a vision for the future of the country. This tends to increase when confidence is given to the Opposition through media, through which it increases its potential to win the elections. The insecurity of the governing party often leads to fraudulent practices in elections, and violence, aggravating the conflict that democracy perpetuates between political parties.

The right an opposition has to pull down the government in power and create sense of insecurity in a government often leads undemocratic means to secure the power. Subversion and killings emerge are a necessary tools for maintaining the security of state. Emergency rule, suspension of fundamental rights and violation of human rights emerge as the order of the day and a necessity for the defending the stability of governments.

The Cost of Radical Change of Governments

The change of governments that has to take place can be a formidable exercise especially if it is accompanied by a radical change in policy. This change of policy can be from right to left or from secular to religious fundamentalism. Such changes are accompanied by discontinuing the expensive programmes of the past, demanding radical shift in loyalties and changes in the administration. When there is a shift of the pendulum to the extremes, this can be a costly and time-consuming affair, draining the resources and the will of people. With these time-consuming changes, the new government will have just enough time for dealing with discontinuation and restart when it has to face the next election, so that the newcomer would start the process all over again.

Simple Majoritarianism and Sectarian Usurpation

Simple majoritarianism leads to polarisation along common identity realms based on racial, religious, linguistic and territorial divisions. This leads to sectarian usurpation, when the population is not homogeneous. The numerically preponderant group has the ability to usurp the majoritarian process at the expense of the rest, undermining the constitutional unity of nations. The common identity factor, raised as political ideology, determines the power base. The state and governing process also become usurped over a time, alienating substantial number of people who would fall outside it. Once the democratic majority becomes entrenched along the sectarian contours, the disappointment and frustration leads to strife, break down of constitutional order, and gradual disintegration of the state.

Is Representation Possible in a State of Non-Ideological Democratic Process?

In a multi-party simple majoritarian democracy where the policy process has eroded, though the individual in society is given a chance to elect a representative of his choice, the nature of a simple majoritarian government is such that it limits the power of the individual to a non-decision maker in the governmental process, while, by subjecting him to the democratic process, the individual subjugates himself to the will a few who can be serving interests contrary to the interests of the individual. When personalities come to dominate politics and political parties, the legitimacy of the process of usurpation that is carried through the elections, drains the individual opportunity for choice of government, and turns whole process into a deceptive exercise.

The Political Party Becoming a One-man Party, and Dynastic Political Parties

The variety of methodologies democracy endorses as being legitimate enables the usurpation of leadership of political parties by scheming individuals who are guided by nothing else but thirst for power. The control of the party by the individual and cohorts, leads to the nullifying the internal party democracy, giving rise to dynastic political parties. The dwindling of opportunities leaves little choice for the people, in terms of policies that should be arrived at through the broader participation of people or choice of leadership of the political party. The shrinkage of policy and personality choice within political parties leads to corrupt practices and emergence of dictatorial methods which stifle democratic dialogue in political parties, eclipsing the democratic ideal.

The Endemic Corruption of Democracies

The endemic corruption of democracies begins with the phenomenal cost of elections that, in modern times, have become an exercise of expensive media spin, where the one who has the ability to spend, survives. The party-funding and contributions leads to an uneven empowerment, where the moneyed have the opportunity to back candidates with the objective of prospering further after elections. The threat of short life of the parliament, and the sense of insecurity that grips everyone in the government, including those in the administration who have no fear of accountability, induces people in government to go for quick benefits.

And that makes corruption endemic in democracies. In many instances the democratic governmental process has become a form of racketeering opportunity for money making.

Conflict between Constitutional Process and Democratic Process

The British parliamentary system, which serves as a model for all democracies and has evolved from a feudal monarchical system, has left the democratic process wanting in terms of constitutional experience, especially within the Commonwealth. In many instances, where, as a result of nation’s inadequate constitutional foundation and anchoring, the basic issues of nationhood have been left unsettled and weak, the imposition of the fundamentally divisive, alienating, exclusionary democratic process further weakens the polity, and aggravates conflicts, through its disintegrative pressures. Furthermore, such issues as sovereignty, constitution, unity and integrity, subjected to simple majoritarian electoral endorsement, turn into contentious issues leading to unsettled nations. In the absence of an alternative inclusive process for constitutional integration, the abuse of simple majoritarian principle in constituting nations, fails to arrest the disintegration of nations.

As political legitimacy in democracy can be obtained through simple majoritarian principle, political parties can very often advance sectarian unconstitutional agendas, and come to power and gain legitimacy. Once it is claimed that the new sectarian policy has the mandate of the people, the governing process subordinates and undermines the constitutional process, leading to disintegration of nations. In the conflict between constitutional process and governmental process, the loser has always been the constitutional process in democracies. The sectarian foundations of democracies, and the shadow of impermanency, always tend to slant the democratic process towards a culture of strife, discord and disintegration.

The Mirage of National Governments

In many nations, people yearn for national governments and see this option as way for peaceful and harmonious existence. But a national government remains a mirage in democracies, as the nature of democracy is such, that strife, divisions and conflicts are the order of the day. The competition, contest, defeat and exclusion, which characterise democracies, and the rejection of political agenda of various protagonists in the democratic process, make national governments an illusion. The rules of the game in a democracy are directed at sustaining situations of irreconcilability and perpetual discord, and the rules do not provide for the harmonious integration of national governments.

The Equality in Democracy as an Illusion

As democracy is not an ideology in itself but a procedural methodology, it does not contain within it, any agenda for social justice or equality. The seeming justice and freedom in democracy has to be guaranteed by laws enacted.

Also, equality and social justice within the democratic process is limited to two concepts: One-person-one-vote, and Equality-before-law. On its own, democracy has little commitment for social justice. The unprincipled foundation of democracy necessitates the continued struggle for social justice and equal access to provisions under democracy. The freedom means nothing to many when their opportunities and means are constrained. However, the electoral drama gives an opportunity for everyone to feel they are the king makers and this elation and illusion comes to an end on the day of the election, under democracy.

The Struggle of Democracies to be Inclusive

Barbaric irreconcilability with civilisations that led to the inevitability of evolution of democratic form of governance has generated irreconcilable contradictions in societies in modern era. The assumptions that led to the entrenchment of simple majoritarian democracy as a universal principle, has led to a perpetual struggle with other civilisations, from within as well as from outside, which uphold values of inclusiveness and integration. This is so in the case of Islam where the inclusive character of Islam devours a natural reaction of democracy and the discord and division democracy upholds. The interests that guide party policies are very often limited to a few and often limited to power, which are often at odds with traditional values, while vast mass of marginal interests that characterise and govern traditional societies never get herd in a democracy.

The excessive pretension of democracies that they bring freedom and prosperity has prevented the realisation of aspirations of people which are based on security and permanency rather than change towards which democracies strive at all cost. The individual freedom linked to democracies challenges the traditional normative structures which are the foundation of peace and stability in many societies.

The traditional ideological struggles have been between right and left, change and reaction, but the struggle of people yarning for sustainable and contented life against modernism’s perpetual change has never been on the agenda of democracies. This exclusion of policy realm of sustainability and permanency has led to the subordination of democratic policy process to a culture of change and growth, leading to a pervading insecurity and strife as well as promotion of culture of greed that threatens human existence today.

Parliament as a Cradle of Conflict and Alienation

The supremacy of parliament which is central to democracy leads to the supremacy of perpetual discord and conflict and persistence of permanent antagonism in a democracy which transcends the body politic of a democratic nation. The parliament keeps the conflict alive until the next election. Even if a harmonious situation arises outside, parliament intervenes with its right of supremacy and undermines the evolving harmony and turns the situation into a state of confrontation.

The leadership of parliament sustains nations in a state of belligerence and it affords little opportunity for transition into a peaceful harmonious existence. The basic assumption that people would fall back to a barbaric state without parliamentary democracy could apply to barbaric societies that have been transformed into democracies but in the case of civilised societies, the societies would revert to their peaceful and secure traditional normative structures in the absence of a parliamentary system. As parliamentary system is not rooted in civilisational foundation, it fails to integrate and comprehend the peaceful and unifying foundation of civilisations and the parliamentary system seeks to undermine it leading to conflict and strife in civilised societies.

Conclusion

Man’s quest for a perfect governing system is ages-old. Democracy has been around for two thousand years, intermittently. Its sway has never been as powerful as in the current epoch. But its flaws are equally formidable, increasingly leading to a chaotic world. In Sri Lanka, it has been the major cause of discord and bloodshed. One of the major reasons of failure to find a solution to the internal strife is that, all attempts at finding a solution has been tried within the context of democracy, while democracy has been the real culprit and generator of the conflict. Democracy was treated as a sacred cow, never infallible, while the various communities were at each other’s throat.

Looking at the flaws of democracy and bringing about a fundamental change in the form of democracy and replacing it with a more inclusive political process can lead to a resolution of the conflicts in Sri Lanka and throughout the world.

At least it can remove that part of the contribution to the conflicts that is generated by our subscription to democracy. Questioning the cardinals of democracy need not, at all, end the positives that democracy holds. It will thus be appropriate to look into an alternative governing process that will be inclusive, and also uphold the freedoms and values that make peaceful and prosperous life possible, without perpetual strife and discord under a failing democracy.

The author is the Director General of the programme Global Sustainability Initiative, Trincomalee and can be reached by email at: globsustain@hotmail.com

The ‘Idea of Constituted Democracy’ is a Foundation Lecture of the GSI Programme

-Sri Lanka Guardian