Democratic Governance in a Real-Life Issue - Essay Example

As I would not be a slave, I would not be a master. This expresses my idea of democracy. -Abraham Lincoln Democracy may be described as a form of government in which the general public can participate in its decision making process. However, democracy is often used as a term to identify any system that is not patently a dictatorship. Democracy may be addressed not only as a political, but also as a social system with implications in every day life. The ultimate example of exalting at least temporary equal powers is democracy. Democracy comes from the Greek word, "demos," meaning people. In democracies, it is the people who hold sovereign power over legislator and government. In fact, democracy is the institutionalization of freedom. It is a set of principles that protect human freedom. All democracies operate on the principle of majority rule, keeping in mind the interests of the minority groups as well as individuals. Democracies are diverse, reflecting each nation's unique political, social, and cultural life. Democracies rest upon fundamental principles, not uniform practices. 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. 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. Democracy functions in the gamut of defined and undefined parameters. It also manifests itself in the form of certain parameters. A deeper understanding of these parameters would provide an insight into the functioning of a democracy. In fact from a macrocosmic perspective, democracy just cannot be restricted to the political ambit. It is a way of life and extends to one's personal as well as professional demeanor. However in order to understand its extension and application into these areas, it is mandatory to take a deeper look at what democracy entails and ensues. There are systems that serve as indicators of a democratic set up. These indicators not only shape the democratic operations but also sustain them. Equality is an innate parameter plus an indicator of a democratic set up. Equality reflects a positive connotation. Equality in its prescriptive usage has a close connection with morality and justice. When we talk about democratic equality, a natural question arises: equality in what Democratic equality cannot mean equality in everything: there are many inequalities that democracy does not deal with. There are five criteria that mark a democratic process: voting equality, effective participation, enlightened understanding, control of the agenda, and inclusion of all adult members in collective decisions. These five criteria make the democratic process fully consistent with the logic of political equality. Violating any of the five criteria not only renders the process undemocratic, but also renders it incompatible with the logic of political equality. Professor Giovanni Sartori's two-volume book, The Theory of Democracy Revisited, contains an excellent treatment on various forms of equality and their roles in democratic thinking. Sartori thinks that "[i]nequality is 'nature'; equality is denaturalization. . . . Equality stands out, first and foremost, as a protest ideal, indeed, as the protest ideal par excellence" (Sartori, 1987, p. 337). In terms of their relationship with democracy, says Sartori, some equalities preceded democracy, while others are democratic claims. Pre-democratic equalities include equality before the law, equal and inalienable rights and equal freedom or moral equality. These equalities are more the products of Christianity, ethics, natural law and liberal ideals than of democracy. In contrast, three other equalities stand out as distinctively democratic demands. These are full political equality, social equality (as equal status and consideration regardless of class or wealth) and equality of opportunity (as equal access and equal start). Equality and Democracy Bo LI Perspectives, Vol. 1, No. 4 September 25 2006, Justice is as in-built a concept, as is the conception of democracy. The idea of justice is both a cause and effect of equality. Justice is not only the outcome of a process but also the operational parameter. It is indispensable to a democratic set up. At the political level, it refers to the presence of a progressive school of thought where everyone not only gets equal opportunity in the decision making process but also a chance to rectify any unjustified decisions. It imparts the power of election (though temporary) and also re-election. However, if equality and justice are to prevail and if the populace has to have a say, it does not mean that anarchy should be the driving force. It might seem contradictory, but even justice and equality have to be controlled. This control emanates from the power circuit that defines and designs the parameter of Power Relationships. The network of power relationships is however very complex. It works in both strata - the authority as well as those subjected to authority. But this interaction does not imply absolute power. There are limits to the concept of absolute power in a democracy. In fact, power relationships work on the dictums of synergy, where there is participation at the level of the leader and there is temporal delimitation of power. The simplicity of the story is its application in real life. Democracy may be described as a form of government in which the general public can participate in its decision making process. However, democracy is often used as a term to identify any system that is not patently a dictatorship. Democracy may be addressed not only as a political, but also as a social system with implications in every day life. When democracy is perceived in the social context, its indicators and operators can define its function in real life. Therefore it can be pertinently applied to a real life situation, which is as common and popular as democracy in workplace. Democracy in Workplace Workplace democracy is the application of democracy in all its forms (including voting systems, debates, democratic structuring, due process, adversarial process, system of appeal and so on) to the workplace. It usually involves or requires more use of lateral methods like arbitration when workplace disputes arise, but these are often carried out far more efficiently than the high-overhead methods common in undemocratic workplaces. It might sound startling, but workplace democracy is has a long history and is arguably more basic and common than the hierarchy system in human work organization. A further analysis of implementation of the democratic framework at workplace could bring forth the ideology of trade unions as principal catalysts to such a system. Most unions have a democratic structure as far as the election of the leader is concerned. Since the representative is chosen in a democratic fashion, it entails a democratic approach in solving disputes and making settlements. But this does not mean that the workplaces that do not have unions are undemocratic. Nor does it imply that workplaces with unions always employ democratic techniques to resolve issues. There have been several studies in management science to evaluate the democratic operations at workplace. Industrial and Organizational Psychology as well as formal management science have delved into the techniques of workplace democracy. None of the streams however dedicate the prevalence of workplace democracy to any political movement or agenda. In fact, studies reveal the presence of 'command hierarchy' (where the boss hires and fires and has absolute power) as the pushing factor to foster democratic ambience and systems at the workplace. Karl Marx's concept of the workplace as a cauldron was contested by 20th century theorist de Paepe, who proposed the tenets of democracy as driving agents at the workplace. Besides these studies, farm and retail co-operative movements accelerated the theory and practice of workplace democracy. This initiated the application of the concepts of gender equality and co-leadership. Wikipedia, The Free Encyclopedia, 25 September 2006 Some organizations have already begun using this concept in their management practices. For example, at Semco, the CEO's position changes regularly, four people rotate through the job every year. At GE, two managers share certain leadership positions. A third change signaling evolution in the use of power by humanity pertains to the site of power. As the 21st century dawns, successful organizations are increasingly decentralized in managing their affairs. Today, many multinational organizations are to a large extent managed locally and not by a central headquarters. The political systems in the Anglo-American nations are also heading towards horizontal management methods involving several local power centers. Moreover, international trade treaties and other agreements between organizations are going to promote the growth of networks and partnership institutions with flexible boundaries, where the site of power changes according to relatively local variables and not according to a formula predetermined by a central authority (Paquet, 1998). Moreover, as argued by the Centre for Creative leadership (2001), in a world that is globally connected and increasingly complex, leadership from a leader or a centre is much less workable now than it was in a world where people stuck more or less in like-minded groups. Innovation News September 24 2006 Ricardo's Model of Workplace Democracy (A Case Study) Ricardo Semler, 'The World's Most Successful Maverick', is leader of Latin America's fastest growing company, Semco, the Brazilian machinery manufacturer and service provider, with a turnover of well over US$200 million in 2005. Throwing out conventional business management theory, he has turned most of the cherished notions about an effective workplace upside down. Semler's premise is that if you give people the freedom to find their talent, control over their jobs and let them take reasonable share of the money they make for themselves, you will create a committed and stable workforce making it the kind of organization that people clamor to work for. 'Semco has no official structure. It has no organizational chart. There's no business plan or company strategy, no two-year or five-year plan, no goal or mission statement, no long-term budget. The company often does not have a fixed CEO. There are no vice presidents or chief officers for information technology or operations. There are no standards or practices. There's no human resources department. There are no career plans, no job descriptions or employee contracts. Supervision or monitoring of workers is rare indeed. There are no time clocks, dress codes, privileged office spaces or perks for top executives. According to Semler, giving up control also means relinquishing exclusive rights to information. This openness happens at all levels and with all information including salaries available to all. Everyone in Semco takes part in a monthly meeting that analyses the company numbers - they learn what the revenues and payroll are, why profit is rising or falling etc. Open communication and trust are not only factors when dealing with employees at Semco - they are equally important with clients and, at Semco, repeat customers represent 80% of annual turnover. Ricardo Semler - Leaders In London Summit 2006 - Ricardo Semler, September 26 2006, In some lines of work, democratic or at least quasi-democratic, de facto democratic forms of decision making tend to arise spontaneously, whether people involved in those workplaces think about workplace democracy as an ideal or not. Look at the professions, at a field that most of us are in-teaching in universities-and at the academic self-governance within the university. Look at relations among research and development personnel in high-tech organizations or how sales forces are motivated and trained and controlled in many kinds of organizations. There tends to be a lot of democracy incorporated into the way organizations make decisions and are managed because of something in the work that's done in those organizations and the way people communicate with each other about that work. An interest in workplace democracy has spanned the generations. But the contemporary scenario of business economy narrates a different tale. Globalization has increased economic competition and there is a concern over economic performance among industrialized economies. This has resulted in developments, which make the realization of greater employee participation in management more difficult to achieve. The globalization process creates forms of integration, but also, forms of exclusion. Globalization has created new opportunities of enrichment for significant sectors and groups of society, but it has also negatively affected or even completely marginalized numerous other sectors. This however does not mean that workplace democracy is a rare phenomenon. This is because workplace and organizational management is complex for while increasing emphasis on labor market flexibility and the desirability of increased managerial prerogative would seem to militate against some forms of worker participation (and notably those based on 'rights' to participate), there has also been increasing awareness of the role that 'human resources' can play in underpinning and improving firm performance. The basic thing to understand in this context is that human nature is such that it cannot only cause problems in the social and political context, but also in the workplace. So dealing and negotiation at this level also becomes very significant. Providing a platform to the employees, where they are not only vocal but also responsible for the state of affairs is a participation-enhancing step. If participation is invited, democracy automatically becomes the foundation. A democratic workplace follows the cardinal principle of 'information is power.' It allows people to make most use of their capabilities and skills. While increasing emphasis on labor market flexibility and the desirability of increased managerial prerogative would seem to militate against some forms of worker participation (and notably those based on 'rights' to participate), there has also been increasing awareness of the role that 'human resources' can play in underpinning and improving firm performance. An improved image of unions combined with people's yearning for workplace democracy should be fertile ground for those looking to fundamentally transform society. Co-operation, collaboration and coaching find place in a democratic workplace. In fact, the concept of synergistic power mushrooms from here. It is this approach, which entails the democratic parameters of equality and justice, with regulation from the network of power relationships. For instance, without mutual respect for everyone in the organization, regardless of their position or designation, the organization would not succeed either in leveraging knowledge to innovate or make economic gains. The notion of 'empowerment' that is given to the employees also reflects an operative democratic framework. Though democracy in workplace seems an ideal formula for harmony and success, yet there are lots of cautions to be taken. Democracy devoid a control mechanism can translate into anarchy. Therefore even democracy needs to be regulated. This implies freedom with the right dose of responsibility. Though the combination might appear as far more pragmatic, it is not unattainable. The path of democratic management has to imbibe the tenets of equality, justice and participation. If workplaces want to use democratic principles in the practical sense of the word, they would have to go far beyond the rhetoric and polemic. The challenge is to give practical shape to concepts by creating institutional context for ensuring democratic management, equality and justice. The real test is to realize these objectives in power-relations paradigm. To create and sustain a democratic organization, people must move to higher levels of personal development. Read More