In the aftermath of the controversial Zimbabwean elections held on 31 March 2005, questions abound about what constitutes a free and fair election. The South African government delegation said the election was free but not necessarily fair. The Southern African Development Community (SADC) took a similar view with media and other observers saying the election was neither free nor fair. The African Union has reserved judgment pending further investigation into allegations raised by the opposition Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) of problems with voters rolls and more wide-scale vote rigging.
It is worth reflecting not only on what constitutes a free and fair election but on what constitutes democracy more broadly. It is important that we liberate ourselves from the idea that elections equal democracy. This debate must also take account of the growing and deepening lack of faith in national political institutions among citizens across the globe. While each national context has its own distinctive features, the declining passion for electoral politics is troubling for the future of democracy. The reality is that democracy at the local and national level is in trouble, even in many long-established democracies.
Several surveys reveal declining levels of citizen trust in political institutions. In many democratic systems 'form' has largely overtaken the 'substance' of democracy: elections may be held, but fewer and fewer people are choosing to vote and the meaningful interface between citizens and the elected is minimal between election periods. Elections run the risk of becoming pre-ordained, elite-legitimating processes and are, in several cases, not delivering genuine democracy, as defined by the will of the citizens of a particular country.
Affiliation with traditional political parties is on the decline as the parties themselves are increasingly characterised by a lack of internal democracy, or fail to address issues that citizens believe are important. It is therefore not surprising that a vast majority of citizens across the world do not consider membership of a political party an enterprise worth the investment of time and energy.
The influence of moneyed interests in many political systems also makes it prohibitively expensive to run for political office. In the United States for example, running for national political office successfully is effectively monopolised by those who are rich, very rich or extremely rich.
Also, despite the optimism presented by the internet for greater transparency and alternative sources of analysis and information, broadcast and print media independence and critique are diminishing and, in an age of aggressive spin doctoring, citizens are often separated from the full story about public concerns.
Last and certainly not the least, is the lack of gender parity in national governments worldwide. While there has been some movement in the positive direction, the rules of the formal political game are largely framed by a distinctively masculine approach to dealing with conflict and compromise. Similarly, citizens such as those living with HIV/AIDS, young people, older persons or members of particular ethnic, racial and religious communities also face exclusion in many societies around the world.
The single most important domestic act in which a national political entity engages is the adoption of the national budget. The lack of transparency and involvement in the budget-making exercises of some parliaments, together with the reasons cited above, is causing citizens to turn away from traditional engagement in favour of new forms of participation. We run the risk today of having democracy diminished to little more than a liberal oligarchy (rule by the few in the form of elections without the substance of the will of the people being secured), including in countries who see themselves as promoters of democracy.
It is in this context that the role of civil society is critically important at several levels: in breathing new life into participatory democracy, in undertaking non-partisan voter education efforts and in undertaking voter registration itself. More importantly, civil society serves an important role in monitoring whether electoral promises are broken, whether social development outcomes are equitable and effective, and much more.
To compound matters, in the current global context where many of the most crucial and pressing issues such as the environment, trade, debt (and other fundamental economic issues), terrorism and security are unable to be addressed solely at the national level, more attention needs to be given to the democratisation of global institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank and the IMF.
Given the shift of power from national to global levels, it has become a critical priority for southern governments and socially excluded groups to engage at a trans-national level. Yet it is here that the 'democracy deficit' is felt most strongly. Supranational governance structures wield great power over the lives of ordinary people around the world and should, in some way, meaningfully involve those people as participants and be accountable to them. Decisions about trade rules, intellectual property rights, macro-economic restructuring policies, privatisation of vital services and debt relief are too often made behind closed doors in ways that are largely perceived to be, and may often be in truth, undemocratic.
Democracy suggests, among other things, a system wherein a community of people exercises collective self-determination. Members of a given public - a demos - make decisions that shape their destiny jointly, with equal rights and opportunities of participation, and without arbitrarily imposed constraints on debate. Democratic governance should strive to be participatory, consultative, transparent and publicly accountable. By one mechanism or another, democratic governance rests on the consent of the governed. Given the present configuration of global governance, how are we to ensure the consent of the affected publics?
Given the above, we can easily see why the Zimbabwean elections were deeply flawed even before the first ballot was cast. However, it is critically important for all of us today to ask the following questions: How democratic is our democracy? What do we need to do to democratise democracy? And here a special word is required to those governments who see themselves as promoters of democracy and who might believe that they do not have to deal with their own deepening democratic deficits. For example, the contestation of the latest US elections, the fact that certain communities faced greater difficulty in casting their votes, the suspicions about the accuracy of the voting equipment and the power of incumbency (those in elected office are returned to office nearly 95% of the time) all suggest that the challenge of saving democracy is one that affects more countries in the world than many in power wish to admit.
Warmest regards,
Kumi Naidoo
Please send your comments and suggestions to e-mail kumi@civicus.org.
