In our second reading, Challenges to Democratization and Constitutional Institutions, it tackled about what are democracy and the relationships of democracy, the civil society and the government in the realm of politics and some issues and functions.
But first what is democracy?
There is a conceptual democratic definition as to what I have understood in the readings. The readings stated that democracy is defined by the government in the sense that the government is made by the people, in this sense, I take it that the people is the one that holds the government and that is through their right to vote; in that it would mean representation and the people would vote for the persons they want to represent them. The process of Competition and Representation should be considered also in breaking down democracy to better understand its definition, the former ensures that there is democracy through the electorates which I think, in Philippines, is defined by the ethno linguistic lines – race and lineage - at least at the national level and only evident in elections, the latter, in principle, the electorate should concern themselves in securing the representation by them for the people – an idea that of which is to some extent questionable for some politicians might renege from their promise thus not representing the people and fulfilling only their own interests. Inclusion and Responsive, democracy being inclusive would promote equality and this would go to the extent that even if the voter is illiterate, he/she could still vote because this concept guarantees that there is no one that is discriminated and excluded. Responsive would mean that there is a good government and a representation through the “political party” this term promotes good governance because it promotes formal role of representation for other aggregate interests because it tends to filter all demands or interests and articulates the demand that is much needed. It also helps in recruitment and leadership in elections; this is important for one could imagine when there is no body that filters different demands and interests, it would mean trouble for the government and democracy if it should be required to respond to virtually every demand that is presented, especially when the greater concern of the government is economic reforms where in the developed countries they aspire for greater competitiveness and the newly developed countries in redistributive efforts for a greater efficiency.
There is also a need to have participation, rule of law, civilian authority, accountability, transparency and fundamental rights. The first one, participation, the government to be able to be democratic should let the people participate in all of the political processes, not just in representation but also through the use of information. The government should also concern itself towards how and when the information should be distributed. Like in other places and forms of government, there should be a concept of the rule of law, which is a very problematic area because it is where people are exercising their rights in any way possible, in any interest there is, whether it is bad or good because it is the ascendancy of all legal forms and that even if it is attributed to authoritarianism, it is essential because without it, the government is unpredictable and it could be a basis for checks and balances. Civilian authority is fundamental in that it ensures that the civilians are properly accounted for because the government realizes them as an integral part or the core of democracy, accountability and transparency are almost the same in that, for me, being accountable is not just secured by means of being elected by the people, it should be reinforced by a set of information shown to the public and that the latter is integral in that it is the means that the public would know what is happening to the government and the essence of information is shown here. Fundamental rights simply means that the laws established should be able to protect everyone and there should be no one that is above the law, it should be projected, respected and fulfilled by all means.
There is always democratization and its processes; there could be transitions from other forms of governance towards democracy. First, there should be movements from non-democratic to democratic reform, second is that there should be instances of pacts, mass mobilization and or collapse of regimes after which there is replacement, transformation, transplacement and or a pacted transition; that of which the process of transition should include bridge or break in that the former, the leaders or essential principle of the former regime is taken again and the change is merely of actors or a break that of which would radically change everything in a constitution or make up of a government, as is the case in the Philippines of Marcos and Aquino presidency, it was merely a bridge of political regime that happened. It was discussed in class that replacement may also mean the change of leadership in favor of the opposition.
There are also other generalizations about democracy such as high levels of economic development guarantee democratic continuity. It is in the sense that such occurrence was seen to promote high levels of education, mobility and that of the standards of the middle class is favorable, this would ensure that there is democratic continuity. Moreover, since it is economic in perspective, the role of the elites or upperclass would determine the sustenance or collapse of democracy.
There is also a type of linkage and that it is the citizen – leader linkage:
There is charismatic that of which the popularity of the person is vital (take for example the ascendancy of the deposed President Estrada of the Philippines), clientelistic, in that the there are some forces that would provide resources for political actors that when these actors are in power, they would favor these forces more; it is good in a rich resource but low voting population and vice versa. While the ideal type of linkage is the programmatic, this type would not prevail if there is no presence of programmatic political parties.
The papers as to what I have read are in favor of a parliamentary form of democracy in that it is far better to provide the concept that the presidential form of government. In that the former tries to reach for a consensus, that of which there is the same goal and the interests are varied but then they would still meet at what interest should be agreed to effectively attain a common goal; in the latter, it is more of a majoritarian form where everybody could take part in a discourse of actually implementing a major reform or not and then they have the power to veto it differently according to their own interests. Moreover, in the parliamentary form, power and actor is concentrated unlike that of the presidential that is dispersed. The former also seeks out policy formulation decisively unlike that of the latter that tends to be resolute because of the other factors and that these actions have an impact in governance and democratization. Political power is not defined with political role and that in the parliamentary system it is fused making the distribution of power and the actual role of those in power are defined unlike that of the presidential which has different departments and power making their role and power indistinguishable.
There is also an impact of the civil society, that of which in some instances are laudable and in other ambiguous in a process of transition to democracy. Civil societies, in essence are the people and their interest groups. Its impact in democratization is great in the sense that they are the ones that would react and serve as democracy’s inner strength when undetermined factors occur, take for instance the occurrence of EDSA revolts, in some other times however, these very organizations are the ones that are detrimental to democratic continuity, for example, the election of leaders that are incapable of leading the country, I would not name anybody but this could be an instance of political ignorance if there is such a term in exercising their rights to suffrage. These very civil society are too central that their roles are uncertain in that their actions could sometimes determine the very foundation of democratic continuity.
Comparative Democratization - Big and Bounded Generalizations.pdf
Heroes or Villians - Images of Citizens and Civil Society in the Literature of Democracy.pdf
Linkages Between Citizens and Politicians in Democratic Polities.pdf
Direct Democracy and Institutional Change.pdf
The Size of Government in Majoritarian and Consensus Democracies.pdf
Civil Society cannot replace Parties.pdf
Value Change and Democratic Reform in Japan and Korea.pdf
No comments:
Post a Comment