Context Shapes Quality Of Democracy

Politics is the art of governance for the greater good of the people. However, politics, of late, seems to have lost its original vigour and virtue. Politics is no longer a virtuous vocation and instead it has degenerated into a ‘vulgar game of deceit and opportunism’. As a result, public trust in politicians and political parties has sunk to record low worldwide. However, there is no alternative to political parties in the modern day democracy. Democracy without political parties is beyond imagination. In the absence of political parties, the regime cannot be democratic. 

Election is the soul of democracy. Election alone does not guarantee genuine democracy. Many countries in the world hold elections but not all countries are democratic.  Even some authoritarian rulers and regimes hold elections to legitimise their hold on power. Such elections are doctored to hoodwink the people and international community.

Elections must be free, fair and impartial through which people’s free wills are expressed as to whom voters choose to govern them. Democracy is the system in which the government is chosen by free will, which can be ensured only by free, fair and impartial elections.

Political lingua franca

Democracy has been a universal political lingua franca in the world. However, not all countries are democratic. Still about 40 per cent of the global population is under authoritarian regimes where people are denied of their freedom and fundamental rights. Even in countries where multi-party democracy exists, the system is not fully functional. Despite drawbacks and dwindling public trust in politics and politicians, people always look to politicians and political parties in every crisis. It is the politicians and political parties that alone rescue the country and society from crisis. It is said that people may sometimes hate politicians and political parties for certain reason but politicians and political parties never hate people.

In principle, political parties and politicians should always be friends, companions and guardians of the people. However, this has not always been the case. Sometimes politicians and political parties whom people trust heavily have been the principal factor for crisis and disaster. Adolf Hitler, too, enjoyed overwhelming popular support and came to power constitutionally through democratic means. But he ultimately turned out to be notorious dictator.  Nature of power is coercive. Once one goes to power he or she tends to be coercive as one sometimes may be required to be so. This may alienate politician or party from the people. This is how authoritative tendency slowly rises. 

We have glaring instances in several countries where democratically elected leaders have turned authoritarians manipulating the democratic mechanisms. Such leaders rise to power using populist slogans and ultimately degrade the quality of democracy after getting into power. Fareed Zakaria, thus, says “From Peru to the Palestinian Authority, from Sierra Leone to Slovakia, from Pakistan to the Philippines, we see the rise of a disturbing phenomenon in international life—illiberal democracy”.  He sees greater threat to democracy from this tendency. This happens so because the democratic elected leaders, according to Zakaria, often and repeatedly overstep into the constitutional mechanism of checks and balances. Such leaders use populist slogans to come to power and then turn the table against democracy. 

The quality of democracy depends upon so many factors. The level of education, level of maturity and cultural factors impact the quality of democracy. According to American political scientist Robert Putnam, civil society engagement, trust and social capital have a great bearing on the quality and maturity of democracy. The other factor that strengthens and weakens democracy and its functioning is the state of economy.  The quality of democracy, therefore, differs in different countries depending upon the nature and culture of society, economic status and level of democratic maturity. In the western countries democracy has been in practice for centuries and quality of democracy is relatively better and mature. 

But in most of the developing countries, democracy is young and is gradually maturing. But the problems with democracy is both in the established democracies in the developed world as well as new democracies in the developing countries. The quality and functioning of democracy also depends upon the nature of the leaders, who gets elected. The United States under Joe Biden is different than under Trump. Similarly, Modi’s India is different than India during Congress rule. Individual leaders, too, make a difference, to a large extent. There are several countries in the world which have prospered due to positive and constructive role of individual leader while some countries have been ruined by misrule and ambition of the leaders. 

Popular expectations

Our own country Nepal is the case in point. Nepal is one of the ancient countries of Asia and the oldest in South Asia. In its long and chequered history, Nepal saw different dynastic rules and different forms of government. Since the creation of a modern state more than two and a half century ago, Nepal experienced king’s absolute and iron fist rule, Rana’s family oligarchy, one party type of Panchayat regime, monarchical democracy and now a democratic republic. Although much positive changes have taken place since Nepal’s founding, the country has yet to take a leap in economic development and social transformation for which the successive governments have not lived up to popular expectations. Nepal lags far behind in economic matrix in South Asia. 

Good governance is a foundation for democratic stability and economic development. Although the government seems to be effortful in ensuring good governance and economic development, we still have to go a long way. But we are firmly on the positive path as we have democracy with sufficient checks and balances. We have frequent changes of government which is due to the electoral system because a single political party is less likely to get majority in parliament. It should not be construed as political instability. The key is whether there is policy consistency or not with the change of government. 

(The author is former ambassador and former chief editor of this daily. lamsalyubanath@gmail.com)