Democracy in fashion! - Can clothes, fashion accessories and makeup make a country look democrat...
Can clothes, fashion accessories and makeup make a country look democratic?
Dictators have begun to dress up their autocratic regimes in the manner of democracies with all the mod cons that help to pass off a system of government, which is for all purposes a dictatorship, as a five-star democracy.
This in the manner that a man would like to pass off that he can afford an affluent life style by wearing a Brookes Brothers or Savile Row suit or a Dior tie or a Rolex watch. Or a woman a dress from Armani, jewellery from Tiffany’s or a Louis Vuitton bag or a Stella McCartney handbag and a top-end branded perfume such as Poison.
May be digging deeper would bring out that the Rolex has been bought on the pavements of Bangkok, the suit stitched by a Sikh 12-hour tailor in the back alleys of Hong Kong, the Louis Vuitton and Stella McCartney bags made in the sweat shops of Shanghai and the perfume concocted in the shacks of Mumbai’s Dharavi slum, it’s only the branding that looks top end!
Aping democratic actions
There are three countries, all dictatorships of various hues, which have in the recent past indulged in this fashion of passing off as democracies, by orchestrating processes which attempted to ape democratic actions in liberal democratic countries.
In Russia the musical chairs of Vladimir Putin, being re-elected to the Presidency, after spending a sabbatical as Prime Minister, the presidency for that period being handed to Medyedev, who was the Prime Minister under the former President Putin, took place with all the grand orchestration to pass off as a democratic transition.
The election was won in the first round, conclusively, there was no run-off required. The Russian authorities held out that they had done everything in their power to prevent ballot rigging.
Iran, while being accused of developing a nuclear weapon on the side, staged its first parliamentary election since the allegedly rigged presidential elections of 2009. That election was accompanied by a violent suppression of the opposition green movement.
The Iranian Ayatollahs, whose conservative candidates swept to power over the President’s candidates, trumpet the size of the turnout. Voters were told that voting was a divinely decreed obligation. Iranian election officials boasted of a 65% turnout, sceptical Iranians text messaged each other –‘80% of eligible voters sat on their couches at home and watched 65% voting on TV!’
In China the National People’s Congress, the rubber stamp Parliament of the Communist Party, assembled for its annual meeting. This in a country that will not risk a national election of any sort. A country which has frowned upon even popular television shows which allow viewers to vote online using their 3G mobile phones to choose the most popular performer in musical talent shows.
However, the brave citizens of Wukan in Guangdong Province did something unprecedented. They kicked out their local Communist Party officials who had illegally sold their farmland to a developer, chased the police out of their village and held out in protest against the murder of their protest leader by the police, until the provincial authorities gave in and allowed them to hold their own elections, conducted and monitored by the villagers themselves to elect their village rulers.
This is in stark contrast with the delegates nominated by the Communist Party, who meet in the Great Hall of the People in Beijing, with all the pomp and pageantry of being present in a genuine representative capacity and solemnly and dutifully rubber stamp whatever decisions the party hierarchy proposed to them.
Gold standard for governance
The democracies of the world should take heart at these autocratic dictators trying to dress themselves in a democratic garb to pass off as anything but a non-democratic dictatorship! It shows that democracy is still the gold standard for governance.
Take India’s example. In the rambunctious, stormy, caste and poverty-ridden democracy, the independent Elections Commission conducted a number of State polls, including in the hugely-populated Uttar Pradesh, peacefully and in orderly manner.
Electronic voting was used, there was a mandated delay between the close of the poll and the release of the result, a cooling off period and a number of politicians including ministers were hauled over the coals for violating the electoral Model Code.
Incumbent state governments and the Union government at the centre were constrained from abusing power and making last minute offers of job quotas for the so-called schedule castes, other backward castes, religious minorities, etc.
In all it was an orderly election, conducted according to the letter and spirit of the law by an independent group of mandarins conscious of the higher duty they owe to the citizens of India generally and the law and the Constitution of the Indian Union. It helps of course that India has an independent judiciary and a Supreme Court which does not kowtow to politicians. What a contrast from China, Russia and Iran? What a contrast also from other so-called democracies?
The conduct of the Indian Election Commission is clearly the gold standard. However, scheming politicians in India are upset that the Election Commission constraints their attempts to ‘win the election by any means whatever’ and are openly talking of shifting the power of acting against violations of the Model Code for elections away from the Election Commission to the courts.
This will result in delays, as the Indian court system, however independent, is clogged up and jammed and delay is endemic. The members of the Election Commission have come out strongly against this proposal.
Democracy is not perfect
Of course one has to concede that democracy is not perfect. Populist democratic politics tempt politicians to make unaffordable promises and dissuade them from attempting controversial, unpopular but essential reforms. Indeed in Greece and Italy, elected politicians were performing so irresponsibly in the economic crisis that they have been temporarily replaced by unelected technocrats to see the essential reform process through.
In the USA, widespread disillusionment with the democratic process is also visible where opinion polls regularly show respect for the political class at record lows. Last year’s political bickering in Congress, which almost led to an accidental debt default by the US, really upset discerning voters.
There is little evidence of America summoning the courage to deal with its mounting and unsustainable debt burden, largely because the politicians know that they will be severely punished by the voters if they impose the essential hardships which are required to deal with this problem of living beyond their means. So democracy does have its flaws, populism, and the urge to make unaffordable promises and to dodge reforms.
The unethical behaviour of the political class, putting self interest foremost, crossing sides across the political divide forgetting the mandate the voters gave them, unending corruption also breeds contempt for the politicians among voters. The only safety valve is free and fair elections at which incumbents are thrown out, in the well-established ‘throw the rascals out’ tradition.
Witness the fate of the Congress party, BJP and Mayawathi’s Bahujan Samaj Party in India’s Uttar Pradesh courtesy of the ordinary voter with the support of India’s exemplary independent Electoral Commission. But remember authoritarianism produces its own morbid litany of dysfunctional abuses, corruption, injustice, police abuse, torture, denial fundamental rights and freedoms, etc.
Transparency, accountability and participation
For democracy to be a model system of government, there are many factors which have to be present. A few, not in any particular hierarchy are: a multi party system, an effective opposition, the rule of law, an independent judiciary, an autonomous civil service, a free media, effective checks and balances on executive and legislative power, an autonomous elections commission and free and fair elections, an educated electorate, strong civil society institutions.
But over and above all this there are three issues which are fundamental: transparency, accountability and participation.
Transparency refers to openness of the government system. The process needs to be both visible and understandable. It must assure the people that it is trustworthy, worthy of their support and cooperation, rather than risking their alienation.
Transparency implies the acceptance of criticism and dissidence as a check and balance which ultimately contributes to the sustainability of the state by making it more legitimate and two way dialogues between the government and the governed, which is essential for governments’ ability to self reform and recover from a misstep. One of the greatest fears of the voting public is corruption within the government, transparency and open government makes corruption more difficult.
Accountability refers to the answerability of government to the law and the voters. As long as the government remains, in real terms, answerable to the voters, a self regulatory process is set in motion. Accountability figures most clearly at elections, if the voters do not like the government’s performance, they vote it out of office.
For accountability it is possible to put in place watchdog institutions which monitor a government’s progress. These institutions need a substantial degree of independence in order to function. Accountability is inherent in the separation of power.
An independent judiciary, which has the right and the capacity not only to criticise the government, but also where necessary to restrain it and block attempts to over extend its sphere of influence and to rule on the legality or illegality of the governments behaviour. In a democratic system no one should be above the law, including the members of the government, the protector of the rule of law, the judiciary, must be seen to be free from the influence of the other organs of government.
Participation, at a very basic level, is symbolised by the electoral process. Voting is a fundamental part of being involved in governance, by having your say in choosing the policies and the people by whom you wish to be governed. When people feel they are included, they take a share of the responsibility in making it work.
Civil society, the conglomeration of voluntary organisations and associations, independent of government and reflective of the interests of citizens, which spring up in any society, including any grouping that comes into existence voluntarily in autonomous form, from among the people, is a key agent of participation.
Civil society organisations are a powerful means for people to participate in, comment upon and if necessary criticise the government. Civil society’s great strength is its autonomy; it becomes simply what the individuals involved in it wants it to become.
It acts both as a channel for participation and to provide useful checks and balances on government action, ensuring accountability and transparency, especially in cases where political parties are weak and fail to provide an effective opposition.
Tyranny of the majority
A populist democracy becomes a destroyer when transparency, accountability and participation are weak. The one man one vote system will result in a tyranny of the majority, such as we have seen in many states in which there are large minorities, who are constantly out voted by the majority group.
A long time ago, Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew was heard to suggest that those in Singapore who are not government servants, not pensioners and not living in government subsidised apartments, in other words the wealth creators, should be given an extra vote, as otherwise if the opposition offers to increase government servants salaries, increase pensions and waive outstanding loan payments for those occupying government subsidised apartments, ignoring the consequences to the economy, they might be able to mislead those categories of voters who are mere consumers of wealth, produced by others, to vote for the opposition!
Unchecked democracies are prone to such short term-ism, like countries running high deficits, which is a tax on the unborn, and those having high inflation, which is a tax on the poor.
India and the USA are examples of constitutional regimes which have built in checks and balances to prevent abuse of democracy – through an independent judiciary, strong political parties, a free press, power shared between the centre, the states and local government institutions, and in India by constitutional amendment even to Village Panchayats.
Democracy does not mean the supremacy of the voter – Winston Churchill once remarked: “The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter!”
But, he also said: “No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all wise. Indeed it has been said democracy is the worst form of government – except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.” Nothing is perfect, not even democracy, especially if transparency, accountability and participation are absent or have been subverted.
When dictators attempt to pass off their system of government, as in Iran, Russia and China as democratic by a sham demonstration of selected attributes of democracy, like a man or women who dress up and decorates themselves in falsely branded imitation high fashion branded clothes, jewellery and other accessories, genuine democrats should take heart – it is an implied compliment to the supremacy of democratic governance over all other systems.
But this imposes on democrats also a very high standard of vigilance, to protect the values and core of democratic governance. ‘Eternal vigilance’ is in reality ‘the price of liberty’. All responsible citizens should take a long hard look at their systems of governance, turn the searchlight inwards and evaluate how they are governed.
(The writer is a lawyer, who has over 30 years experience as a CEO in both government and private sectors. He retired from the office of Secretary, Ministry of Finance and currently is the Managing Director of the Sri Lanka Business Development Centre.)
