In the modern world, Democracy – in theory and practice, is a concept fraught with many inherent contradictions because it’s a subject, as well as an object, that is susceptible to various definitions, interpretations, and applications. The result is, the theoretical meaning of Democracy, generally deviate from the practice of Democracy. Therefore the general understanding of what constitute democracy or event what is democracy becomes very obscure, especially in its application in and by non-Western nations whose socio-political, and socio-economic history and background is not traditionally derived from Western political thought, philosophies or history.
The United State Information Agency attempts to provide a definition of democracy and the specific principles the have to prevail in order to be defined as a democratic state. According to the Agency, “Democracy comes from the Greek word, "demos," meaning people. In democracies, it is the people who hold sovereign power over legislator and government. Although nuances apply to the world's various democracies, certain principles and practices distinguish democratic government from other forms of government.”
1. “Democracy is government in which power and civic responsibility are exercised by all citizens, directly or through their freely elected representatives.
2. Democracy is a set of principles and practices that protect human freedom; it is the institutionalization of freedom.
3. Democracy rests upon the principles of majority rule, coupled with individual and minority rights. All democracies, while respecting the will of the majority, zealously protect the fundamental rights of individuals and minority groups.
4. Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that local government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.
5. Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
6. Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to all citizens. Elections in a democracy cannot be facades that dictators or a single party hide behind, but authentic competitions for the support of the people.
7. Democracy subjects governments to the rule of law and ensures that all citizens receive equal protection under the law and that their rights are protected by the legal system.
8. Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices.
9. Citizens in a democracy not only have rights, they have the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.
10. Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. Democracies recognize that reaching consensus requires compromise and that it may not always be attainable. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."
In general these ten guiding principles essential define the scope of what constitute a Democracy in the Western sense. Therefore, while attempting to perpetuate the ideals and good governance of classical democratic principles, the Western “Democracies” have sought to impose these ideals on the whole of the global community. This situation leads democracy, in theory and practice, to be a tool by which nations large and small seek to use in various ways – to punish or reward; to identify friend from foe; or even to mock or to applaud. From the “third world” perspective the belief is that it is common knowledge that Western societies are guilty of using democratic preconditions as a tool for cohesion, punishment, endorsement or acknowledgement. Hence, from this standpoint, the expectation of Democracy or democratic practices are a ‘multi-purpose’ sophisticated tool perpetuated as a political tool when countries want to validate, legitimate and/or differentiate friend from foe; as an economic tool for determining the allocation of economic rewards, sanctions or penalties; or as a social tool for gaining national solidarity, or fostering a common national and/or regional identity; and mobilizing citizen participation in, or support for, a given issues or cause. As a tool democracy’s legitimacy as the next best ideology is compromised, therefore can we really say that the virtues of Democracy really exit?” From left to the right, opinions vary on this one.
While the existence or non-existence of democracy is not the issue to be debated in this paper because the focus of this paper is to investigate whether the practice of having democratic elections is a legitimate way of evaluating whether a nation or society is Democratic. Given that the process of holding Elections is considered on of the most fundamental principle and indicators of a democratic society, I advance a thesis which negates this assumption and proposes that elections do not necessarily indicated or validate a country as a Democracy or for that matter, the existence of democratic social values. Through the presentation of Zimbabwe’s election process as a case study, I will illustrate that elections as a basic principle of Democracy have been used as a tool to legitimize a quasi-authoritarian regime. Unfortunately this is not only unique to Zimbabwe, but to other nations as well, which take us to another question - that is - so where is Democracy today? This is a question that will not be addressed here but whose answer may be insinuated at the conclusion of this exercise.
THE EVOLUTION OF ELECTIONS AS A FUNDERMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF DEMOCRACY.
In classical democracy the basic principles were simple and straightforward, embracing the ideals of Liberty, Equality and Freedom. . Hence, to achieve total liberty, liberty would be seen as equality and on the other hand, as freedom. Pericles offered the “conception of the democratic principle of equality indicates a place for an explicit recognition of merit”. However from another overriding perspective, Aristotle advances the idea that “the democratic idea of equality is equality of condition and outcome” and further emphasizes “the idea that majority rules”. However to achieve liberty through equality, inherently presents a contradiction to the ideal of liberty as freedom. According to Held, classical democracy defined freedom as being the ability “to live as you like…not to be rule by anyone”. According to Aristotle, in order to enjoy both liberties as equality and as freedom, there needed to be a reconciliation by which individuals would have the opportunity to “Rule and being Ruled in turn”, that is embracing the idea “to be ruled by alternation” which meant taking turns to rule others. He points out that:
“ From these fundamentals and from rules thus conceived, are derived the following features of democracy: (a) Election to Office by all from among all. (b) Rule of all over each and of each by turns over all. (c) Offices filled by lot, either all or at any rate those not calling for experience or skill. (d) No tenure of office dependent on the possession of a property qualification or only the lowest possible. (e) The same man not to hold the same office twice, or only rarely, or only a few apart from those connected with warfare/ (f) Short terms for all office or for as many as possible…...(k) No official has perpetual tenure, and if any such office remain in being after an early change, it is shorn of its power and its holders selected by lot from among picked candidate. These are the common characteristic of democracies.” (Aristotle, The Politics, pp362-4)
From Aristotle’s political thought emerged the principle of elections. The process and conditions of holding elections to choose who should rule by turns become the primary and definitive stipulation of Democracy and its practice. The notion of Elections in classical democracy was really an attempt to reconcile the need for individual freedom and equality.
LIBERAL DEMOCRACY ON ELECTIONS:
Originating from the ideas of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, the meaning of liberalism “attempts to uphold the values of freedom of choice, reason and toleration in the face of tyranny…” against absolute monarchs. In time the meaning of liberalism, inherited from the thought of Hobbes and Locke that under the state of nature individuals are ‘free, equal and endowed with natural rights’, and consistence with the emergence of capitalist economic values became to be understood as central to the individual’s right and freedom to pursue his/her own interests. From a political stand point ideas of liberal democracy emerge from the attempt to reconcile individual sovereignty from state power while attempting to incorporate the system of representation. Held point out that two traits of liberal democracy emerge where on the one hand, protective democracy serves to protect individual interest through establishment of ‘accountable institutions’ and on the other hand, developmental democracy facilitates for the full political participation of the citizens through democratic mechanisms such elections.
As modern European and American political thought evolved dominant thinkers and writers like Jeremy Bentham, James Mill and James Madison further developed the understanding of liberal democracy by refining the theory of protective democracy. As Held points out:
“In their hands, the protective theory of liberal democracy received arguably its most important elaboration: the governors must be held accountable to the governed through mechanism [of] the secret ballot, regular voting and competition between potential representatives, among other things, which give citizens satisfactory means for choosing, authorizing and controlling political decisions”.
Further, Madison provided one of the key importance of elections in his writing on dealing with factions, by recognizing that having elections is another way minority groups can use their power to remove or change leaders that do not support their minority interests. In the Federalist papers #10, Madison by presenting the concept of political representation, the idea of which “involves the permanent transfer of government to a small number of citizens elected by the rest”. The process towards a representative government in a democracy allow that elected officials be “trustee of the electors” and through the realization of this process, elections as a mechanism to achieve this paves the way for public issues to be discussed and clarified. Furthermore the idea of competition between representatives allows that those individuals who can withstand the election process are competent and capable of “discerning thee true interest of their country” , that is the interest of the citizens. Hence, in Federalist paper #57, Madison point out that "The aim of every political constitution is...first to obtain for rulers, men who possess most wisdom to discern, and most virtue to pursue the common goal of society."
DIRECT DEMOCRACY ON ELECTIONS:
Other philosopher like Karl Marx, under the rubric of direct democracy presents the idea of a ‘pyramid’ or delegation structure of elections where at the micro level, elections are conducted within small grassroots communities and the elected delegates of these grassroots community represent them at the district level, while those elected at the district level serve as delegate representatives of their districts at the national level. Some developing countries like Zimbabwe, at the time of independence, attempted to implement this election system through the introduction of VIDCOs (Village Development Communities) and WADCOs (Ward Development Community), as democratic vehicles for local political mobilization, participation and representation. However, they quickly found out that this form of direct democracy while in theory sounded great as legitimate democratic political structures, in practice it was more complicated to manage, monitor and maintain.
PLURALIST DEMOCRACY ON ELECTIONS:
Held notes that, for the pluralist, “elections and parties alone do not secure the equilibrium of democratic state”. They propose that the active involvement of various groups of different “type and sizes” is paramount to sustaining the democratic process in advancing the interest of the citizens. One of the chief supporters of pluralist democracy, Robert Dahl proposes that when, “competitive electoral systems are characterized by multiplicity of groups…..democratic rights will be protected and inequalities avoided…..Democratic theory is concerned with processes by which ordinary citizens exert a relative control over leaders”. Yet under pluralist democracy, the unit of analysis and focus is groups and not individuals, therefore the interest they address are generally at the macro level of policy interests and not individual interests. While the pluralist offers a somewhat slightly different focus of analysis, they still maintain an similar democratic election framework to the liberal democracy, in prescribing that the control of elected politicians requires two key mechanisms:
a) Regular elections
b) Political competition among parties, groups and individuals.
But add that rule of multiple minorities as a necessary condition for a thriving democratic environment. As Dahl point out “a tyrannous majority is improbable because elections express the preference of various competitive groups rather than the wishes of a firm majority”.
With these competing democratic ideas on the significance of elections as the legitimization of democracy, countries such as Zimbabwe, which were not traditionally a democratic society even prior to its “negotiated independence” in 1980, arrived into the global bi-polar political order. The current ZANU-PF regime gained independence in 1980 from Ian Smith’s UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) regime, of which the latter had seceded from the British colonial power in 1961 and has been in power since then despite periodic election! Elections have definitely failed to bring about democratic and frankly I do not expect them to. Its a foreign inapplicable and incompatible system that does not take into account the context historical culture, traditions, governance practices and social frameworks of Zimbabwe pre-colonization. Even the United states with its electoral college system does not have a one-man-one vote system, therefore one asks, is it truly a democracy? The idea that turn-taking of political parties constitutes democracy should also be abandoned.
In conclusion, Elections are not an adequate indicator of democracy! From many case studies the result have been dismal. Western powers should move away from touting the false notion that "Elections" qualify a nation as a "democracy". On the other hand emerging nations should move away from the myth that having elections is an act of democracy and should actually take in the consideration some of the traditional practices of democratic governance, which in my opinion were far more superior to some of the tenets of westernized governance. In addition, these traditional practices of governance will need to be updated to take into account principles of diversity, equity and inclusion so that marginalized groups can have representation in the political process. Other indicators to take into consideration for democratic governance would be rule of law; order; freedom of speech; economic development milestones as well as political, and administrative accountability.
Originally published: @ Fall 2002 by Dr. Tendai D. Ndoro. All copyright reserved. Republished July 2023. https://www.linkedin.com/in/docndoro/
