Consolidated Democracy, Characteristics and Forms - Essay Example

?To talk of a consoli d democracy is a myth. How far do you agree with this ment Introduction The continuous change in the social ethics and values worldwide has led to the alteration of traditional forms of political systems; this trend has been more clear in the case of democracy, a political framework which has been traditionally related to the interests of the public. In its initial form, democracy focused on the promotion of equality and fairness among the citizens; however, through the years, the priorities of democracy had to be changed in order to incorporate targets and interests, which were not compatible with democracy – referring to the initial rules and aims of the particular political system. The research on the practical implications and needs of democracy – as developed in the context of this paper – has led to the assumption that the existence of a consolidated democracy is not feasible; in fact, consolidated democracy should be rather considered as a myth. The above argument is justified in this paper by referring to the forms of democracy in a series of Mediterranean states – France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta. The political decisions developed by the governments of these countries in the context of democracy are presented and analyzed using a series of relevant examples. The comparison of these practices with those of USA, another country where democracy has been promoted, has verified the assumption that consolidated democracy should be characterized as a myth; democracy, as introduced in countries worldwide, is a political system incorporating elements of democratic behaviour and values which have been combined with the values and ethics of various political teams in order for specific political interests to be promoted. 2. Democracy – consolidated democracy, characteristics and forms In order to understand the reasons for the non-feasibility of consolidated democracy it would be necessary to refer primarily to the rules and the ethics of democracy as a theoretical framework. Then the concept of consolidated democracy would be explained and analyzed making clear the reasons for which the specific political system is not applicable – in practical terms. 2.1. Theories on democracy Through the decades, different approaches have been used by theorists in order to explain the context and the priorities of democracy as a political system which should be promoted in all countries worldwide ensuring equality and fairness for all people – reference is made to the initial aims of democracy, as included in the theoretical framework of the specific political system. In accordance with Harrison (1995) the key rule of democracy would be summarized as follows: ‘the citizen body as a whole meets to decide what to do’ (Harrison 14) – referring to a practice related to the Athenian democracy. On the other hand, Lane & Ersson (2003) notes that a distinction should be made between real democracy (i.e. real life democracy) and the ideal democracy, a concept related to justice (Lane & Ersson 2003). It is explained that the potential existence of democracy in real life can be explored using two important questions: ‘a) what are the conditions for democratic stability and b) what are the outcomes of a democratic regime? (Lane & Ersson 24). It is made clear that the use of the above two questions is helpful in order to realize why democracy is quite difficult to be developed in real life; there can be no ideal social conditions – social turbulences are likely to appear even in countries which social rights and ethics are highly promoted, i.e. social stability cannot exist – at least not for a long time; on the other hand, the benefits of a democratic regime are quite difficult to be set as a priority by governments worldwide; in this context, it is quite unlikely that the public interest is set above all interests even in countries where the interests of citizens are of high importance for the political decisions. A similar approach can be identified in the description of democracy given by Dunn (2005); in accordance with the above researcher, through the centuries, the use of democracy has been changed; it is explained that in its first appearance, in Athens, democracy was related to a specific action – the gathering of citizens in order to decide on various issues that were related to the public interest (Dunn 2005); however, today, democracy has become a term used in order ‘to refer to almost any form of rule or decision making’ (Dunn 24). This view also promotes the idea that democracy today is not applied in practice; it has become a term used for claiming fairness in decision-making. This view is in accordance with that of Axtmann (2007) who emphasized on the use of democracy in the promotion of democracy as a concept ensuring fairness and equality in the international community; Axtmann (2007) also supports that in the context of the international law democracy is likely ‘to be presented both as an ideal and as a form of government’ (Axtmann 95); however, again no practical aspects of democracy are discussed; reference is just made to the statements of international organizations and bodies on the concept of democracy. The limitation of the power of democracy is made clear in the study of Nun (2003) where emphasis is given on the use of democracy as a term reflecting a practice which is ethically justified – the initial relation of the term to the equal access of citizens in the development of political decisions is characterized by Nun (2003) as eliminated – referring to democracy as a real-life concept and not to its theoretical context. 2.2 The concept of consolidated democracy Consolidated democracy has a series of different aspects; Diamond et al. (2001) note that consolidated democracy can be understood by referring to its three dimensions: a) as a behaviour, consolidated democracy is expressed through the lack across a country’s territory of initiatives that aim ‘to establish a non-democratic regime’ (Diamond 95), b) as an attitude, consolidated democracy reflects the view of citizens that democracy is the most appropriate regime for their country and c) as a constitutional framework, consolidated democracy is the regime where ‘law is used for resolving all conflicts’ (Diamond et al. 95). On the other hand, Kesselman, Krieger & Joseph (2009) distinguish between ‘the consolidated democracies and the transitional democracies’ (Kesselman, Krieger & Joseph 29); it is explained that the key characteristic of consolidated democracies is ‘their consistent adherence to the key principles of democracy’ (Kesselman, Krieger & Joseph 29) – in accordance with Kesselman, Krieger & Joseph (2009) Britain, France and USA are countries based on the specific political system. However, the non-existence of consolidated democracy in real life can be identified if referring to practices of governments in countries where a democratic regime is established. Moreover, the theoretical framework of consolidated democracy should be also clearly explained – justifying the reasons for which consolidated democracy could be considered as rather a myth than a feasible system of governance. 2.2.1 Theoretical aspects of consolidated democracy In accordance with the issues mentioned above, consolidated democracy, would require a political framework fully aligned with the principles of democracy, in the initial meaning of the term; however, such prospective is not feasible. In fact, modern democratic regimes are most likely ‘to be weakened and dominated by the world market’ (Touraine 7). The above view is made clearer through the examples of political decisions and initiatives developed in Mediterranean countries where democratic regimes are established – similar assumption is made if examining the political choices of USA government, another country based on a democratic political system. 2.2.1 Consolidated democracy in practice In order to understand the potential feasibility of consolidated democracy in countries worldwide it would be necessary to refer to the practical aspects of the specific political system. A series of examples of initiatives and measures that were developed in Mediterranean countries and the USA for the promotion of democracy are presented. The comparative analysis of these practices leads to the assumption that the form of democracy in countries worldwide is not standardized; in fact, in each country democracy, as a political system, is given different interpretation; as a result, different methods are used for its implementation. Moreover, it has been proved that the development of democracy in its country has been initiated using different methodologies and priorities. In the long term, it is considered that the above practices are responsible for the alteration of the initial form and role of democracy in countries worldwide. 2.2.1.1. Examples of consolidated democracy in Mediterranean countries – France, Italy, Portugal, Spain, Malta In Mediterranean countries, the concept of democracy – and its consolidated form – has been given different interpretations under the influence of the local social ethics and traditions. This fact is made clearer in the examples of political practices and trends developed in five Mediterranean countries – France, Italy, Portugal, Spain and Malta. In France the concept of democracy has been related to ‘the development of a large class of salaried workers’ (Hewlett 52); in other words, democracy as a term has been used in order to express the end of the reign and the power of the noble to be involved in the country’s governance. In the above country, the respect of democratic values, such as equality, tolerance and pluralism has been high; however, oppositions have been developed in regard to the need of limitation of the above democratic principles under the pressure of ‘the threat of anti-democratic forces’ (Thiel 75) – this need results to the so – called ‘militant democracy’ (Thiel 75), a political framework which is highly developed in France mostly because of the continuous and extensive threats that the country’s political system had to face in the past – reference is made for example to the following political movements which aimed to eliminate democracy in France: ‘Royalist, Bonapartist, anarchist, communist and separatist’ (Thiel 75). A similar issue is highlighted in the study of O’Kane (2004); in the above study reference is made to the use of revolution in 1789 and 1917 in order to establish democracy in France – in the above cases, revolution has been used as ‘a path to democracy’ (O’Kane 20). In accordance with the above, in France the limitation of consolidated democracy has been unavoidable being justified by the need to protect democracy – even if protection meant the limitation of democracy in its consolidated form. Inkeles (1991) has used a democracy indicator framework/ diagram in order to estimate the differences regarding the levels of democracy in Western countries; referring to France, Inkeles (1991) noted that the country’s level of democracy was found to be high during ‘the second phase of the first Mitterand presidency’ (Inkeles 80). On the other hand, Mendras & Cole (1991) note that citizens in France prefer a particular form of democracy - the direct democracy; this fact is reflected, for example, in ‘the unpopularity of Parliament as an institution and the preference for the mayoralty’ (Mendras & Cole 111). In Italy, democracy as a political system, had to be transformed under the influence of the strong social conflicts. One of the key historical events for the full implementation of democracy, as the main political system, in the country was ‘the murder (in 1978) of Aldo Moro, the leader of the Christian Democracy Party’ (Thiel 213) who initiated the establishment of a political system based on both democratic and communist principles – in the context of ‘the ‘Compromesso Storico’ (Historic compromise) project’ (Thiel 213). In accordance with Cain (2006) democracy in Italy has been characterized by the following facts: a) the continuous reforms from 1970s onwards trying to increase the trust of the public to ‘the public administration processes’ (Cain 120) and b) the extensive interaction between ‘politics, economics and the media’ (Cain 120). On the other hand, Spotts & Wieser (1986) noted that the development of democracy in Italy is related to entrance of the country in the Common Market – an event that enforced the country’s commerce and increased significantly the revenues of Italians. From another point of view, Diamandouros & Gunther (2001) note that the delay in the establishment of democracy in Italy can be identified in the failures of political parties to develop an effective administrative and ideological framework; this failure was made, according to the above researchers, especially in the early 19th century when the efforts to establish democracy failed because of the political parties of that period were ‘poorly centralized, bureaucratic and un-disciplined’ (Diamandouros & Gunther 160). In the case of Spain, the development of democracy has been delayed because of the following fact: ‘the destruction of democratic political system during the Civil War in 1930s’ (Tusell 270). Signs of the democratization of the country can be identified in the efforts for the establishment of the freedom of the press and the religion in 1973; most important the pressures for ‘the establishment of freedom of trade unions’ (Tusell 271) – also in 1973 onwards – had critical role in the beginning of the process for the democratization of Spain. In accordance with Baker (2002) Spain is an indicative example of the transition of a country from ‘authoritarianism to democracy’ (Baker 165). After its establishment in Spain, democracy was aligned with the country’s existing social ethics; the mode of democracy developed in Spain proved the following fact: a consolidated democracy can have ‘a low degree of institutionalization’ (Baker 165); this form of democracy reflects a political system where the distance between the citizens and the central government is significant. But in the case of Spain, this mode of democracy has managed to survive showing the viability of democratic regimes even if they are significantly transformed. In Portugal, the democratic regime was established – in 1974 – through a similar path. However, it seems that the current form of democracy in Portugal is more stable compared to Spain – taking into consideration the view of Wiarda (1996) who noted that if democracy in Spain and in Portugal was examined using the criterion of ‘two successful swifts, by electoral means, from one administration to the next’ (Wiarda 99), then Portugal could rank higher compared to Spain in regard to the stability of its democratic regime. In accordance with Weiner & Ozbudun (1987) the key characteristic of democratic regime in Portugal is the following one: the balance between the power of political parties and the power of other parties (like the army and the church) to intervene in the development of political decisions (Weiner & Ozbudun 320); in this terms, the democratic regime in Portugal is considered as limited because of the existence of many forces influencing the country’s politics. In Malta, the form of democratic regime has included patterns similar to the other European countries – as indicatively described above; however, the influences from the local social ethics were not avoided. An indicative example is mentioned in the study of Eccardt (2005) where reference is made to the fact that ‘related persons are often chosen as members of the government’ (Eccardt 81). Another aspect of the democratic regime of Malta is mentioned in the study of Beetham (2006) – reference is made to ‘the annually financial and compliance audit of all Government offices and other public offices’ (Beetham 145). On the other hand, Loughlin, Hendricks & Lidstrom (2011) note that the evaluation of Malta’s political system would not offer important information mostly because of the rather short period of the country’s existence – its independency from United Kingdom took place in 1964. 2.2.1.2. Aspects of consolidated democracy outside Europe – the case of USA In accordance with Merolla, J. & Zechmeister (2009) USA is country where the negative effects of foreign policy on a country’s democratic regime can be made clear; it is explained that the development of measures against terrorism, had led gradually to the transformation of the hierarchy of values and freedoms that constitute the basis of the country’s democratic regime (Merolla, J. & Zechmeister 188). Despite the importance of democracy for USA’s governance, the transition of the country to a democratic regime had many phases: first, the Declaration of Independence from UK, then the Civil War and the Civil Rights Laws in 1960’ (Beatty 122). On the other hand, it is noted that ‘democracy in USA could be characterized as rather a political democracy focusing on the form of the government’ (Watts 306). It is clear that the role of democracy in USA is different compared to that of the Mediterranean countries; this difference is analyzed below referring to the events that establish this differentiation. 2.2.1.3 Comparative analysis of the forms of consolidated democracy - Mediterranean region v USA In Mediterranean region, democracy is most viewed as a framework for the promotion of the interests and the needs of the public; there is no much attention paid on the form of government as on the role of the government for achieving these targets – this made clearer in the case of Italy where democracy was developed under the influence of the economic benefits resulted for the public – related to the entrance of the country in the European Union – and in the case of Spain where the democracy was considered as the most appropriate means for promoting freedom – as this trend has been mostly related with the freedom of trade unions. On the other hand, in France the development of democracy has been highly related to the promotion of human rights – especially the equal participation of people in the development of political decisions, a fact reflecting in the popularity of direct democracy; this fact makes France the country with the most ‘consolidated’ democratic regime – at the level that such regime can exist today, being alternated and limited in its elements as explained above. In USA, while the initiatives developed for the establishment of democracy – as explained above – were appropriate, through the years the priorities in regard to the country’s political decisions were changed – under the pressure of the global market and the increase of terrorism worldwide. This fact, affected negatively the country’s democratic regime. 3. Conclusion The development of democracy in Mediterranean countries, examined in this study, has followed various paths – being influenced by the different political and social structure and the different perceptions on the role of politics in the promotion of the public interest. The comparison of the aspects of democracy in Mediterranean countries with those developed in USA showed that the use of democracy for the achievement of political and social targets can be differentiated in accordance with the position of each country in the international community. In regard to the key question examined in this paper, i.e. whether consolidated democracy is a myth or not, it would be stated that the specific regime is not feasible in real life; the forms of democracy developed worldwide – as presented above – have many characteristics of consolidated democracy but they do not fully meet the requirements of the specific regime. In fact, in certain cases, the distance between the consolidated democracy as a theoretical political framework and a country’s democratic regime can be significant. References Axtmann, R. (2007). Democracy: problems and perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press Baker, R. (2002). Transitions from authoritarianism: the role of the bureaucracy. Greenwood Publishing Group Beatty, B. (2003) Democracy, Asian values, and Hong Kong: evaluating political elite beliefs. Greenwood Publishing Group Beetham, D. (2006) Parliament and democracy in the twenty-first century: a guide to good practice. Inter-Parliamentary Union Bondebjerg, I., Madsen, P. (2009) Media, democracy and European culture. Intellect Books Cain, B., Dalton, R. & Scarrow, S. (2006). Democracy Transformed? Expanding Political Opportunities in Advanced Industrial Democracies. Oxford University Press Diamandouros, N. & Gunther, R. (2001). Parties, politics, and democracy in the new Southern Europe. JHU Press Diamond, L. & Plattner, M. (2001). The global divergence of democracies. JHU Press Dunn, J. (2005). Democracy: a history. Atlantic Monthly Press Eccardt, T. (2005) Secrets of the seven smallest states of Europe: Andorra, Liechtenstein, Luxembourg, Malta, Monaco, San Marino, and Vatican City. Hippocrene Books Harrison, R. (1995). Democracy. London: Routledge Hewlett, N. (2005). Democracy in modern France. Continuum International Publishing Group Inkeles, A. (1991). On measuring democracy: its consequences and concomitants. Transaction Publishers Keller, A. (2006) What is a just peace? Oxford University Press Kesselman, M., Krieger, J. & Joseph, W. (2009). Introduction to Comparative Politics: Political Challenges and Changing Agendas. Cengage Learning Lane, J. & Ersson, S. (2003). Democracy: a comparative approach. London: Routledge Loughlin, J., Hendricks, F. & Lidstrom, A. (2011). The Oxford Handbook of Local and Regional Democracy in Europe. Oxford University Press Mendras, H., Cole, A. (1991). Social change in modern France: towards a cultural anthropology of the Fifth Republic. Cambridge University Press Merolla, J. & Zechmeister, E. (2009) Democracy at risk: how terrorist threats affect the public. University of Chicago Press Nun, J. (2003). Democracy: government of the people or government of the politicians? Rowman & Littlefield O’Kane, R. (2004). Paths to democracy: revolution and totalitarianism. Routledge Ondrias, K. (2007) Crimes of Democracy Versus Crimes of Communism. Trafford Publishing Spotts, F. & Wieser, T. (1986). Italy, a difficult democracy: a survey of Italian politics. Cambridge University Press Thiel, M. (2009). The 'militant democracy' principle in modern democracies. Ashgate Publishing Touraine, A. (1997) What is democracy? Westview Press Tusell, J. (2007). Spain: from dictatorship to democracy: 1939 to the present. Wiley-Blackwell Watts, D. (2004) Understanding US/UK government and politics: a comparative guide. Manchester University Press Weiner, M., Ozbudun, E. (1987). Competitive elections in developing countries. Duke University Press Wiarda, H. (1996). Iberia and Latin America: new democracies, new policies, new models. Rowman & Littlefield Bibliography Balfour, S. (2005). The politics of contemporary Spain. Routledge Boix, C. (2003). Democracy and redistribution. Cambridge University Press Casper, G. & Taylor, M. (1996). Negotiating democracy: transitions from authoritarian rule. University of Pittsburgh Press Congress of Local and Regional Authorities of Europe (1997) North/South local democracy: the European Charter of Local Self-Government in action: Malta, 14-16 March 1996: international conference. Council of Europe Council of Europe (2008). Corruption and democracy: political finances, conflicts of interest, lobbying, and justice, Volume 2006. Council of Europe Crouch, C. (2004). Post-democracy. Wiley-Blackwell Nardulli, P. (2008). International perspectives on contemporary democracy. University of Illinois Press Zhao, S. (2008) China-U.S. relations transformed: perspectives and strategic interactions. Routledge Read More