majoritarian and consensual democracy
INTRODUCTION
In
social and political relationships of man, the two paramount ideals are the
creation of a stabilized and peaceful society where freedom and equality are
significant characteristics. In an attempt to achieve these ideals, several
systems of government like monarchy, oligarchy, theocracy, plutocracy etc. has
developed over the years but each of these systems in one way or the other has
failed to provide a suitable and sustainable result to these sublime ideals.
Moreover, there remains this system of government where the above mentioned
ideals are to a greater extent guaranteed because they are preconditions for
it; this system of government is democracy.[1]
Nevertheless, Dipo Irele points out that the etymology of the word does not
provide a sufficing definition of the concept which would be relevant and
applicable at all times. As a result of that, the meaning of democracy has
changed over the centuries and as such it has received several interpretations
and improvements by numerous social and political thinkers to capture and
emphasize a particular aspect of it.[2]
To
the interpretation and improvement of the concept of democracy is the contribution
of Arend Lijphart. Nils-Christian Borman commented that Lijphart’s typology of
democratic systems has been one of the major strides and contributions to
comparative political science.[3] Lijphart
in his book titled ‘Patterns of
Democracy’ makes a submission of majoritarian and consensual types of
democracy. He further posits that the majoritarian-consensus contrast arises
from the most basic and literal definition of democracy or the representative
democracy. [4]
This
brings us to the proper discussion and goal of this work which is focused on
examining the two typologies of democracy and then providing sufficient support
for the preference of one of them. In a bid to achieve this very goal, we shall
firstly seek to present the definition of democracy and then delineate its
origin and historical development. Afterwards, we shall provide a succinct
overview of majoritarian and consensual democracy and then provide arguments to
support the preference of consensual democracy then follows the conclusion.
Nevertheless, in order to fashion our study in cognizance of the course - Social
and Political Philosophy, we shall focus our arguments at providing the ideal
society. This is tenable because of the normative nature of the course.
DEFINITION AND HISTORICAL
DEVELOPMENT OF DEMOCRACY
The
term democracy first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical
thought in the city-state of Athens during classical antiquity.[5] The word comes from the combination of two
Greek words ‘demos’ and ‘kratos’ which mean ‘people or district’
and ‘rule or strength’[6]
thus etymologically, democracy means people’s rule. It contrasts with forms of
government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy,
or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy.
Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what
participants do but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes. The
uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces
struggle repeatedly for the realization of their interests, being the
devolution of power from a group of people to a set of rules.[7]
According to political scientist Larry Diamond,
democracy consists of four key elements:-
ii.
The active participation
of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life.
Also,
Arend Lijphart points out eight criteria proposed by Robert A. Dahl for
measuring and defining democracy. The criteria are:-
i.
The right to vote
ii.
The right to be elected
iii.
The right of political
leaders to compete for support and votes
iv.
Elections that are free
and fair
v.
Freedom of association
vi.
Freedom of expression
vii.
Alternative sources of
information
viii.
Institutions for making
public policies depend on votes and other expressions of preferences.[9]
These requirements pointed out by Dahl are
already implied in Abraham Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy as
government by the people (or by representatives of the people) and for the
people. For instance, ‘by the people’ implies a universal suffrage, eligibility
for public office, and free and fair elections. However, elections cannot be
free and fair unless there is freedom of expression and association both before
and between elections. Similarly, ‘for the people’ implies Dahl's eighth
criterion of responsiveness by the government to the voters' preferences.[10]
More
so, Majority rule
is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities
to be oppressed by the tyranny of the majority
in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential
part of an ideal representative democracy is competitive elections
that are substantively and procedurally fair,
i.e., just and equitable.
In some countries, freedom of political expression,
freedom of speech,
freedom of the press,
and internet democracy are considered
important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote
according to their own interests.[11] Also,
it is suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters
to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. With its emphasis
on notions of social contract
and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterized
as a form of political collectivism
because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens
have an equal say in lawmaking.[12]
Athenians
established what is generally held as the first democracy in 508-507 BC[13]
and their democracy took the form of a direct democracy. More so, the Romans
contributed significantly in many aspects of democracy. The Romans’ model of
governance inspired many political thinkers over the century and today's modern
representative democracies imitate more the Roman than the Greek models because
it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected
representatives.
In
the modern period, the conception of democracy has the form of a representative
government. This is visible in the English Puritans who migrated in 1620 and
established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic and
which contributed to the democratic development of the United States.[14] Nevertheless,
the 20th century witnessed a transition to liberal democracy which
is resulted from wars, revolutions, decolonization, religious and economic circumstances.[15]
MAJORITARIAN DEMOCRACY
AND ITS LIMITATIONS
Majoritarian
democracy is a political agenda that claims that a majority (sometimes
categorized by religion, language, social class or some identifying factor) of
the population is entitled to a certain degree of primacy in a society and has
the right to make decisions that affect the society.[16] It
further argues that majority should govern and that minorities should oppose. Advocates
of Majoritarianism argue that majority decision making is intrinsically
democratic and that any restriction on majority decision making is
intrinsically undemocratic. However, David Graeber, an anarchist anthropologist
posits that majority democracy is so scarce in the historical record. This is
so because majority democracy can only emerge when these two factors coincide.
Firstly, a feeling that people should have equal say in making group decisions
and secondly, a coercive apparatus capable of enforcing those decisions.
Graeber argues that those two factors almost never meet where egalitarian
societies exist; it is also usually considered wrong to impose systematic
coercion where a machinery of coercion did exist, it did not even occur to
those wielding it that they were enforcing any sort of popular will.[17]
Nevertheless,
Arend Lijphart outlines several limitations of majoritarian democracy after
making cursory evaluations of its effectiveness and consequences in United
Kingdom, New Zealand and Barbados. Lijphart points out that majority rule
wields vast amount of political power to rule as the representative of and in
the interest of the majority that is not of overwhelming proportions. A large
minority is thus excluded from the power and condemned to the role of
opposition. And as a result of this, Hailsham called this system of government
and ‘elective dictatorship’.[18] More
so, the majoritarian system tends to produce highly disproportional results and
thus possibly drift to pluralitarian democracy instead of a majoritarian
democracy. Also, by concentrating power in the hands of the majority, the majoritarian
model of democracy sets up a government-versus opposition pattern that is
competitive and adversarial.[19]
Furthermore, Sir Arthur Lewis points out that majority rule and government
versus opposition pattern of politics is undemocratic because of its principle
of exclusion. He further claims that the primary meaning of democracy is that
all who are affected by a decision should have the chance to participate in
making decision either directly or through chosen representatives. Its
secondary meaning is that the will of the majority shall prevail. However, if
this means that the winning parties may make all the governmental decisions and
that the losers (the minority) may criticize but not govern, Lewis argues that
the two meanings are incompatible i.e. to exclude the losing groups from
participation in decision making clearly violates the primary meaning of
democracy.[20]
Moreover, the limitation of majoritarian model is clearly seen in plural
societies i.e. societies that are sharply divided along religious, ideological,
linguistic, cultural, ethnic, or racial lines, the flexibility necessary for
majoritarian democracy is likely to be absent. Under these conditions, majority
rule is not only undemocratic but also dangerous because minorities that are continually
denied access to power will feel excluded and discriminated against and may
lose their allegiance to the regime. Taking Northern Ireland as an instance,
majority rule spells majority dictatorship and civil strife rather that
democracy. Therefore, a consensus model of democracy is needed instead of
majoritarian. [21]
CONSENSUAL DEMOCRACY
Consensual
democracy is the application of a broad unanimity or a widespread agreement
among all the members of a group in the decision making and the process of
legislation in a democracy. it is characterized by a decision making structure
which involves and takes into account a broad range of opinions as possible. It
also features increased citizen participation both in determining the political
agenda and in the decision making process itself. It further refers to a
general model integrative-indirect democracy, a
specific version of which can be found in countries like the Netherlands,
Belgium, Switzerland, and Austria. It is built on the explicit conviction of
dissensus and outlooks in life which needs to be compromised, accommodated and
pacified.[22]
Moreover, consensual democracy is opposed to the systems of democracy where
minority opinions are ignored by vote-winning majorities.
Brian
Williams illustrates Arend Lijphart’s conception of consensual democracy as a
form of government where institutional structures allow power-sharing to take
place in politically heterogeneous and divided societies. According to
Lijphart, consensus democracies empower ethnic, religious, linguistic or
ideological minorities by them into governmental decision making process and gives
them leverage I the process of state policy formation. In Lijphart’s words, the
consensus model of democracy, instead of relying on pure and concentrated
majority rule, tries to limit, divide, separate and share power in a variety of
ways.[23]
Lijphart identifies ten variables which determine whether a country is either a
consensus democracy or a majoritarian democracy, the variable are:-
i.
The institutional design
of a fully consensual democracy would allow executive power sharing to take
place through the application of proportional representation to the executive
office. That is, it allows most of the important parties share the executive
power in a broad coalition
ii.
It would be a
presidential system rather than a parliamentary system.
iii.
The legislature would be
bicameral rather than unicameral.
iv.
The system would allow
for multiparty governance.
v.
There would be
proportional representation in the legislature
vi.
There would be interest
group corporatism
vii.
It would be made up of a
federal intergovernmental arrangement with relatively autonomous regions at the
more local levels.
viii.
A constitutionally
enshrined checks and balances.
ix.
A judicial review process
x.
The presence of
centralized bank independence.[24]
THE IDEAL SYSTEM OF
DEMOCRACY: CONSENSUS DEMOCRACY
As
was stated above in the introductory section, the creation of a stabilized and
peaceful society where freedom and equality is idealistic is man’s social and
political endeavor. This demonstrates the preference of prescriptive undertone
and perspective rather than a descriptive one. Based on this salient element,
this work envisions claiming the preference of a consensus model of democracy
over the majoritarian model. Nevertheless, it would seem plausible that the
majoritarian model is simpler and quicker in practice; nevertheless, its
catastrophic consequences like, tyranny of the majority and social conflicts
are not worth embarking on.
Despite
the fact that the ideal consensus model of democracy might be difficult to
achieve, Robert Michels asserts that it can be automatically developed through
striving for it where he says:-
“The peasant in the
fable, when on his death-bed, tells his sons that a treasure is buried in the
field. After the old man’s death, the sons dug everywhere in order to discover
the treasure. They do not find it. But their indefatigable labor improves the
soil and secures for them a comparative well-being. The treasure in the fable may
symbolize democracy”[25]
Also, Dr. Harald Wydra maintains that development of
democracy should not be viewed as a purely procedural or as a static concept
but rather as an ongoing process of meaningful formation.[26]
Therefore, in pursuit of this ideal society, the
development of democracy is paramount. However, it is not just any model of
democracy but that very model which would seek to enhance an adequate societal
relationship and co-existence. Brian William posits that building consensus
democracy is central to the resolution of social conflicts thus as the level of
popular agreement increase, the level of political division decreases
commensurately. He further argues that since individuals are largely motivated
by some conception of the common good, the adoption of a consensus democracy
serves better to pacify this idea. Moreover, ideally speaking, consensual
outcomes are a product of shared irenic cultural norms, rather than
institutional constraints placed on strategic actors with narrow interests (Majoritarianism).[27]
CONCLUSION
In a nutshell, we have determined that consensus
democracy serves the better purpose in social and political relation i.e. the
creation of a society where every sane voice and vote counts in decision making
and election. Relating this to the course, social and political philosophy, it
is explicit that consensus democracy serves that purpose of prescribing the
ideal system of governance whereby peaceful co-existence, equality and freedom
are essential.
[1] Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction
to Political Philosophy, (Ibadan University Press, Ibadan, 1998) p. 86
[2] Cf. Dipo Irele, Introduction
to Political Philosophy. pp. 83-84
[3] Cf. Nils-Christian Borman, Patterns
of Democracy and its Critics (Center for International Comparative Studies,
Zurich 2010) p. 1
[4] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) p. 1
[5] Cf. John Dunn, Democracy: the
unfinished journey 508 BC-1993 AD. (Oxford University Press, 1994) p. 1-5
[6] www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=democracy
[7] Cf. Adam Przeworski, Democracy
and the Market, (Cambridge University Press, 1991) pp. 10-14
[8] Cf. Larry Diamond and L. Morlino, In Search of Democracy: The Quality of Democracy, (Routledge
publication 2016) pp. 15-17
[9] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 48-49
[10] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 48-49
[11] Cf. Aharon Barak, The Judge
in a Democracy: Protecting the constitution and democracy. (Princeton
University Press, New Jersey 2006) p. 27
[12] Cf. Richard Snyder and David Samuel, “Devaluing the vote in Latin America” in Larry Diamond and Marc F.
Plattner Electoral systems and democracy. (John Hopkins University press,
Baltimore 2006) p.168
[13]Cf. R. Po-chia Hsia, Lynn Hunt, Thomas and Co., The Making of the West, Peoples and Cultures, A concise History, Volume
I: To 1740 (Bedford/St. Martin’s, Boston 2007)p.44
[14] Cf. Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy
in America (Barnes & Noble, New York, 2003) p. 11, 18-19
[15] Cf. Larry Diamond, Timeline:
Democracy in Recession, (The New York Times. 15 Sept. 2015). Retrieved 25
January 2016
[16] Cf. Adam Przeworski, Democracy
and the Rule of Law (NetLibrary, JM Maravall 2003) p. 223
[17] Cf. David Graeber, Fragments
of an Anarchist Anthroplogy, (Prickly Paradigm Press, Chicago. 2004) p. 89
[18] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy, (Yale University Press, New Haven 1999) pp. 10-12
[19] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy. Pp. 15-20
[20] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy, p. 31
[21] Cf. Arend Lijphart, Patterns
of Democracy. pp. 32-33
[22] Cf. www.oxfordscholarship.com/view/10.1093/
[23] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How
Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian
dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from
sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside) p. 3-4
[24] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How
Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian
dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from
sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside) p. 4
[25] Cf. Robert Michels, Political
parties by Crowell-Collier 1962 (Transaction Publishers, New Jersey, 1999)
p. 243
[26] Cf. Harald Wydra, Communism
and the Emergence of Democracy (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2007)
pp. 22-27
[27] Cf. Brian D. Williams, How
Consensual are Democracies? A reconsideration of the consensus/majoritarian
dichotomy and a comparison of Legislative Roll-Call Vote Consensus Levels from
sixteen countries (University of California at Riverside) pp. 2-3
Comments
Post a Comment