Gods Will and The 21st Century Democratic Process by The Advocacy Foundation, Inc.

The e-Advocate Quarterly Essay Romans 13:1-7

God’s Will and The 21st Century Democratic Process

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential” Vol. I, Issue I – Q-1 January| February| March 2015

The Advocacy Foundation, Inc. Helping Individuals, Families and Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

God’s Will and The 21 Century Democratic Process st

“Helping Individuals, Organizations & Communities Achieve Their Full Potential

1735 M arket Street, Suite 3750 | 100 Edgewood Avenue, Suite 1690 Philadelphia, PA 19102 Atlanta, GA 30303 John C Johnson III, Esq. Founder & CEO

(878) 222-0450 Voice | Fax | SMS

www.TheAdvocacyFoundation.org

Page 2 of 51

Page 3 of 51

Biblical Authority ______

Romans 13:1-7 (NLT) Respect for Authority 1

Everyone must submit to governing authorities. For all authority comes from God, 2 and those in positions of authority have been placed there by God. So anyone who rebels against authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and they will be punished. 3 For the authorities do not strike fear in people who are doing right, but in those who are doing wrong. Would you like to live without fear of the authorities? Do what is right, and they will honor you. 4 The authorities are Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s servants, sent for your good. But if you are doing wrong, of course you should be afraid, for they have the power to punish you. They are Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s servants, sent for the very purpose of punishing those who do what is wrong. 5 So you must submit to them, not only to avoid punishment, but also to keep a clear conscience. 6

Pay your taxes, too, for these same reasons. For government workers need to be 7 paid. They are serving God in what they do. Give to everyone what you owe them: Pay your taxes and government fees to those who collect them, and give respect and honor to those who are in authority.

Page 4 of 51

Page 5 of 51

Table of Contents Godâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Will and The 21st Century Democratic Process

______

Biblical Authority I.

Introduction

II.

Types of Democracy

III.

Modern Day Criticisms

IV. Representative Democracy V.

Religious Democracies

VI. Christian Democracy VII. Majority Rule v. Minority Rights

Attachments A. Bible Verses About Democracy B. What Is Democracy? C. Democratic Constitution Making

Page 6 of 51

Page 7 of 51

Introduction Background democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries. The English word dates to the 16th century, from the older M iddle French and M iddle Latin equivalents.

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens are meant to participate equally – either directly or, through elected representatives, indirectly – in the proposal, development and establishment of the laws by which their society is run. The term originates from the Greek δημοκρατία (dēmokratía) "rule of the people", which was found from δῆμος (dêmos) "people" and κράτος (kratos) "power" or "rule" in the 5th century BC to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-states, notably Athens; the term is an antonym to ἀριστοκρατία (aristokratia) "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in practice the distinction has been blurred historically. The political system of Classical Athens, for example, granted democratic citizenship to an elite class of free men and excluded slaves and women from political participation. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history,

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them without the need for a revolution. Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have direct and active participation in the political decision making. In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through elected representatives; this is called a representative democracy or democratic republic.

Page 8 of 51

Characteristics of Representative Democracy No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics since ancient times. These principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible citizens is secured by legitimized rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution. One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: 1) upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, 2) political equality, and 3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political equality. The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of civil society outside the government. Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political freedom unless the institutions of civil society are also present. In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty , while maintaining judicial independence. In the

United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India, the world's largest democracy, parliamentary sovereignty is subject to a constitution which includes judicial review. Other uses of "democracy" include that of direct democracy. Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the principles also are applicable to private organisations. M ajority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are fair both substantively and procedurally. Furthermore, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press are considered to be essential rights that allow eligible citizens to be adequately informed and able to vote according to their own interests. It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society. With its emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of the all voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking. While representative democracy is sometimes equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies and aristocracies. M any democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.

Page 9 of 51

The Twentieth Century Transition to Liberal Democracy 20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and religious and economic circumstances. World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new nation-states from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic. In the 1920s democracy flourished and women's suffrage advanced, but the Great Depression brought disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as nondemocratic regimes in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The democratization of the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a model for the later theory of regime change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of Germany fell into the non-democratic Soviet bloc. The war was followed by decolonization, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so. Countries that were once part of the British Empire often adopted the British Westminster system. By 1960, the vast majority of country -states were nominally democracies, although most

of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in Communist nations and the former colonies.) A subsequent wave of democratization brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s. Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratization and liberalisation of the former Eastern bloc countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union. The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent examples of attempts of liberalization include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia. According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972). According to World Forum on

Page 10 of 51

Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute 58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House

regards as free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.

Page 11 of 51

Page 12 of 51

Types of Democracies Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others. However, if any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from altering the separation of powers in its own favor, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.

The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single system.

Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decisionmaking personally, contrary to relying on intermediaries or representatives. The supporters of direct democracy argue that democracy is more than merely a procedural issue. A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:

______

1. Change constitutional laws, 2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws, 3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise. Direct democracy only exists in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus.

Representative Democracy Representative Democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is called a democratic republic. The most

Basic forms Representative democracy is a form of democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives as opposed to a direct democracy, a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly.

common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Most western countries have representative systems. Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they retain the freedom to exercise their own judgment as how best to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon representative democracy, pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms' with democracy.

Parliamentary Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by, or can be dismissed by, representatives

Page 13 of 51

as opposed to a "presidential rule" wherein the president is both head of state and the head of government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the people.

both the head of state and head of government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. Elections typically have a fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.

Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime M inister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the Prime M inister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal. In some countries, the Prime M inister can also call an election whenever he or she so chooses, and typically the Prime M inister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favor with the public as to get re-elected. In other parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important feature of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "loyal opposition". The essence of the concept is that the second largest political party (or coalition) opposes the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its democratic principles.

The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily. This provides some measure of separation of powers. In consequence however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia.

Presidential Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as

A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the prime minister and president vary by country.

Hybrid or semi-direct Some modern democracies that are predominately representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic. These democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies,

Page 14 of 51

semi-direct democracies or participatory democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U.S., where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives. The Swiss Confederation is a semi-direct democracy. At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament. Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions (during the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums). Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of the initiative rewritten by government. In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums. Examples include the extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters. In New England Town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a local direct democracy and a state government which is representative. For example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in M arch in which town officers are elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political matters.

Variations Republic In contemporary usage, the term democracy refers to a government chosen by the people, whether it is direct or representative. The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime minister. The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticized democracy, which in their time tended to specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a Constitution enshrining basic rights; James M adison argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got larger and combats faction by its very structure. What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted, was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we gotâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republicâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;if you can keep it." Constitutional Monarchy Initially after the American and French revolutions, the question was open whether a democracy, in order to restrain unchecked

Page 15 of 51

majority rule, should have an ĂŠlite upper chamber, the members perhaps appointed meritorious experts or having lifetime tenures, or should have a constitutional monarch with limited but real powers. Some countries (such as the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan) turned powerful monarchs into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. Often the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and Egypt). M any nations had ĂŠlite upper houses of legislatures which often had lifetime tenure, but eventually these lost power (as in Britain) or else became elective and remained powerful.

Liberal democracy A liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decisionmaking power is subject to the rule of law, and moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties). In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words, citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated with formal government elsewhere.

Socialist Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised through Soviet democracy) are some examples. M any democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory democracy and/or workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy . Within M arxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its often centralized nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, M arxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in M arxism.) Democracy cannot consist solely of elections that are nearly always fictitious and managed by rich landowners and professional politicians. â&#x20AC;&#x201D;Che Guevara, Speech, Uruguay, 1961

Anarchist Anarchists are split in this domain, depending on whether they believe that a majority-rule is tyrannic or not. The only form of democracy considered acceptable to many anarchists is direct democracy. PierreJoseph Proudhon argued that the only acceptable form of direct democracy is one in which it is recognised that majority decisions are not binding on the minority, even when unanimous. However, anarchocommunist M urray Bookchin criticised

Page 16 of 51

individualist anarchists for opposing democracy, and says "majority rule" is consistent with anarchism. Some anarcho-communists oppose the majoritarian nature of direct democracy, feeling that it can impede individual liberty and opt in favor of a non-majoritarian form of consensus democracy, similar to Proudhon's position on direct democracy. Henry David Thoreau, who did not selfidentify as an anarchist but argued for "a better government" and is cited as an inspiration by some anarchists, argued that people should not be in the position of ruling others or being ruled when there is no consent. Anarcho-capitalists, voluntaryists and other right-anarchists oppose institutional democracy as they consider it in conflict with widely held moral values and ethical principles and their conception of individual rights. The a priori Rothbardian argument is that the state is a coercive institution which necessarily violates the non-aggression principle (NAP). Some right-anarchists also criticise democracy on a posteriori consequentialist grounds, in terms of inefficiency or disability in bringing about maximisation of individual liberty. They maintain the people who participate in democratic institutions are foremost driven by economic self-interest.

Demarchy Sometimes called "democracy without elections", demarchy uses sortition to choose decision makers via a random process. The intention is that those chosen will be representative of the opinions and interests of the people at large, and be more fair and impartial than an elected official. The technique was in widespread use in

Athenian Democracy and is still used in modern jury selection.

Consociational A consociational democracy allows for simultaneous majority votes in two or more ethno-religious constituencies, and policies are enacted only if they gain majority support from both or all of them.

Consensus democracy A consensus democracy, in contrast, would not be dichotomous. Instead, decisions would be based on a multi-option approach, and policies would be enacted if they gained sufficient support, either in a purely verbal agreement, or via a consensus vote - a multioption preference vote. If the threshold of support were at a sufficiently high level, minorities would be as it were protected automatically. Furthermore, any voting would be ethno-color blind.

Supranational Qualified majority voting is designed by the Treaty of Rome to be the principal method of reaching decisions in the European Council of M inisters. This system allocates votes to member states in part according to their population, but heavily weighted in favor of the smaller states. This might be seen as a form of representative democracy, but representatives to the Council might be appointed rather than directly elected.

Inclusive Inclusive democracy is a political theory and political project that aims for direct democracy in all fields of social life: political democracy in the form of face-toface assemblies which are confederated, economic democracy in a stateless,

Page 17 of 51

moneyless and marketless economy, democracy in the social realm, i.e. selfmanagement in places of work and education, and ecological democracy which aims to reintegrate society and nature. The theoretical project of inclusive democracy emerged from the work of political philosopher Takis Fotopoulos in "Towards An Inclusive Democracy" and was further developed in the journal Democracy & Nature and its successor The International Journal of Inclusive Democracy. The basic unit of decision making in an inclusive democracy is the demotic assembly, i.e. the assembly of demos, the citizen body in a given geographical area which may encompass a town and the surrounding villages, or even neighbourhoods of large cities. An inclusive democracy today can only take the form of a confederal democracy that is based on a network of administrative councils whose members or delegates are elected from popular face-to-face democratic assemblies in the various demoi. Thus, their role is purely administrative and practical, not one of policy-making like that of representatives in representative democracy. The citizen body is advised by experts but it is the citizen body which functions as the ultimate decision-taker . Authority can be delegated to a segment of the citizen body to carry out specific duties, for example to serve as members of popular courts, or of regional and confederal councils. Such delegation is made, in principle, by lot, on a rotation basis, and is always recallable by the citizen body. Delegates to regional and confederal bodies should have specific mandates.

Participatory Politics A Parpolity or Participatory Polity is a theoretical form of democracy that is ruled by a Nested Council structure. The guiding philosophy is that people should have decision making power in proportion to how much they are affected by the decision. Local councils of 25â&#x20AC;&#x201C;50 people are completely autonomous on issues that affect only them, and these councils send delegates to higher level councils who are again autonomous regarding issues that affect only the population affected by that council. A council court of randomly chosen citizens serves as a check on the tyranny of the majority, and rules on which body gets to vote on which issue. Delegates may vote differently from how their sending council might wish, but are mandated to communicate the wishes of their sending council. Delegates are recallable at any time. Referendums are possible at any time via votes of most lower-level councils, however, not everything is a referendum as this is most likely a waste of time. A parpolity is meant to work in tandem with a participatory economy .

Cosmopolitan Cosmopolitan democracy, also known as Global democracy or World Federalism, is a political system in which democracy is implemented on a global scale, either directly or through representatives. An important justification for this kind of system is that the decisions made in national or regional democracies often affect people outside the constituency who, by definition, cannot vote. By contrast, in a cosmopolitan democracy, the people who are affected by decisions also have a say in them.

Page 18 of 51

According to its supporters, any attempt to solve global problems is undemocratic without some form of cosmopolitan democracy. The general principle of cosmopolitan democracy is to expand some or all of the values and norms of democracy, including the rule of law; the non-violent resolution of conflicts; and equality among citizens, beyond the limits of the state. To be fully implemented, this would require reforming existing international organisations, e.g. the United Nations, as well as the creation of new institutions such as a World Parliament, which ideally would enhance public control over, and accountability in, international politics.

George M onbiot, and professors David Held and Daniele Archibugi. The creation of the International Criminal Court in 2003 was seen as a major step forward by many supporters of this type of cosmopolitan democracy.

Non-Governmental Aside from the public sphere, similar democratic principles and mech anisms of voting and representation have been used to govern other kinds of groups. M any nongovernmental organisations decide policy and leadership by voting. M ost trade unions and cooperatives are governed by democratic elections. Corporations are controlled by shareholders on the principle of one share, one vote.

Cosmopolitan Democracy has been promoted, among others, by physicist Albert Einstein, writer Kurt Vonnegut, columnist ______

Page 19 of 51

The Democracy Index of 2012 The following countries or regions are categorised by the Democracy Index 2012, complied by the Economist Intelligence Unit, as a Full democracy: 1. Norway 2. Sweden 3. Iceland 4. Denmark 5. New Zealand 6. Australia 7. Switzerland 8. Canada 9. Finland 10. Netherlands 11. Luxembourg 12. Austria 13. Ireland 14. Germany 15. M alta 16. United Kingdom 17. Czech Republic 18. Uruguay 19. M auritius 20. South Korea 21. United States of America 22. Costa Rica 23. Japan 24. Belgium 25. Spain

The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy index map for 2012, with greener colors repres enting more democratic countries. Full democracies: 9.00-10.00 8.00-8.99 Flawed democracies: 7.00-7.99 6.00-6.99 Hy brid regimes: 5.00-5.99 4.00-4.99 Authoritarian regimes: 3.00-3.99 2.00-2.99 0.00-1.99 Insufficient information, no rating:

The Index assigns 53 countries or regions to the lower category, Flawed democracy: Argentina, Benin, Botswana, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cape Verde, Chile, Colombia, Croatia, Cyprus, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, France, Ghana, Greece, Guyana, Hungary, Indonesia, India, Israel, Italy, Jamaica, Latvia, Lesotho, Lithuania, M acedonia, M alaysia, M ali, M exico, M oldova, M ongolia, M ontenegro, Namibia, Panama, Papua New Guinea, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Indonesia, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Sri Lanka, Suriname, Taiwan, Thailand, Timor-Leste, Trinidad and Tobago, Zambia.

Page 20 of 51

Page 21 of 51

Modern Day Criticisms of Democracy Inefficiencies Economists like M ilton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on their premise of the irrational voter. Their argument is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable.

answer yes to the question: 'Are there too many immigrant arrivals each year?' immigrant numbers continue to rise until a critical set of economic costs appear."

Mob Rule

Popular Rule as A FaĂ§ade The 20th-century Italian thinkers Vilfredo Pareto and Gaetano M osca (independently) argued that democracy was illusory, and served only to mask the reality of elite rule. Indeed, they argued that elite oligarchy is the unbendable law of human nature, due largely to the apathy and division of the masses (as opposed to the drive, initiative and unity of the elites), and that democratic institutions would do no more than shift the exercise of power from oppression to manipulation. As Louis Brandeis once professed, "We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." All political parties in Canada are now cautious about criticism of the high level of immigration, because, as noted by The Globe and Mail, "in the early 1990s, the old Reform Party was branded 'racist' for suggesting that immigration levels be lowered from 250,000 to 150,000." As Professor of Economics Don J. DeVoretz pointed out, "In a liberal democracy such as Canada, the following paradox persists. Even though the majority of respondents

Plato's The Republic presents a critical view of democracy through the narration of Socrates: "Democracy, which is a charming form of government, full of variety and disorder, and dispensing a sort of equality to equals and unequaled alike." In his work, Plato lists 5 forms of government from best to worst. Assuming that the Republic was intended to be a serious critique of the political thought in Athens, Plato argues that only Kallipolis, an aristocracy led by the unwilling philosopher-kings (the wisest men), is a just form of government. James M adison critiqued direct democracy (which he referred to simply as "democracy") in Federalist No. 10, arguing that representative democracy â&#x20AC;&#x201D;which he described using the term "republic"â&#x20AC;&#x201D;is a preferable form of government, saying: "... democracies have ever been spectacles Page 22 of 51

of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths." M adison offered that republics were superior to democracies because republics safeguarded against tyranny of the majority, stating in Federalist No. 10: "the same advantage which a republic has over a democracy, in controlling the effects of faction, is enjoyed by a large over a small republic".

Political Instability M ore recently, democracy is criticized for not offering enough political stability. As governments are frequently elected on and off there tends to be frequent changes in the policies of democratic countries both domestically and internationally. Even if a political party maintains power, vociferous, headline grabbing protests and harsh criticism from the mass media are often enough to force sudden, unexpected political change. Frequent policy changes with regard to business and immigration are likely to deter investment and so hinder economic growth. For this reason, many people have put forward the idea that democracy is undesirable for a developing country in which economic growth and the reduction of poverty are top priorities. This opportunist alliance not only has the handicap of having to cater to too many ideologically opposing factions, but it is usually short lived since any perceived or actual imbalance in the treatment of coalition partners, or changes to leadership in the coalition partners themselves, can very easily result in the coalition partner withdrawing its support from the government.

Fraudulent Elections In representative democracies, it may not benefit incumbents to conduct fair elections. A study showed that incumbents who rig elections stay in office 2.5 times as long as those who permit fair elections. In countries with income above per capita, democracies have been found to be less prone to violence, but below that threshold, more prone violence. Election misconduct is more likely in countries with low per capita incomes, small populations, rich in natural resources, and a lack of institutional checks and balances. Sub-Saharan countries, as well as Afghanistan, all tend to fall into that category. Governments that have frequent elections tend to have significantly more stable economic policies than those governments who have infrequent elections. However, this trend does not apply to governments that hold fraudulent elections.

Opposition Democracy in modern times has almost always faced opposition from the previously existing government, and many times it has faced opposition from social elites. The implementation of a democratic government within a non-democratic state is typically brought about by democratic revolution. M onarchy had traditionally been opposed to democracy, and to this day remains opposed to the abolition of its privileges, although often political compromise has been reached in the form of shared government. PostEnlightenment ideologies such as fascism, Nazism and neo-fundamentalism oppose democracy on different grounds, generally citing that the concept of democracy as a constant process is flawed and detrimental to a preferable course of development.

Page 23 of 51

Page 24 of 51

Representative Democracy and

Its Challenges

A representative democracy is an indirect democracy where sovereignty is held by the people's representatives. A liberal democracy is a representative democracy with protection for individual liberty and property by rule of law. An illiberal democracy has weak or no limits on the power of the elected representatives to rule as they please. Types of representative democracy include: Electoral democracy – type of representative democracy based on election, on electoral vote, as modern occidental or liberal democracies. o Dominant-party system – democratic party system where only one political party can realistically become the government, by itself or in a coalition government. o Parliamentary democracy – democratic system of government where the executive branch of a parliamentary government is typically a cabinet, and headed by a prime minister who is considered the head of government.  Westminster democracy – parliamentary system of government modeled after that of the United Kingdom sy stem. o

Page 25 of 51

Jacksonian democracy – form of democracy popularized by President Andrew Jackson promoted the strength of the executive branch and the Presidency at the expense of Congressional power. o Soviet democracy or Council democracy – form of democracy where the workers of a locality elect recallable representatives into organs of power called soviets (councils.) The local soviets elect the members of regional soviets who go on to elect higher soviets. o Totalitarian democracy – system of government in which lawfully elected representatives maintain the integrity of a nation state whose citizens, while granted the right to vote, have little or no participation in the decision-making process of the government. 

A demarchy has people randomly selected from the citizenry through sortition to either act as general governmental representatives or to make decisions in specific areas of governance (defense, environment, etc.). A non-partisan democracy is system of representative government or organization such that universal and periodic elections (by secret ballot) take place without reference to political parties. An organic or authoritarian democracy is a democracy where the ruler holds a considerable amount of power, but their rule benefits the people. The term was first used by supporters of Bonapartism.

Page 26 of 51

Page 27 of 51

Religious Democracies

A religious democracy is a form of government where the values of a particular religion have an effect on the laws and rules, often when most of the population is a member of the religion, such as: I.

A Jewish and Democratic State: "A Jewish and Democratic S tate" is the Israeli legal definition of the nature and character of the State of Israel. The "Jewish" nature was first defined within the Declaration of Independence of 1948 (see Jewish state and Jewish homeland). The "Democratic" character was first officially added in the amendment to the Basic Law: the Knesset that was

passed in 1985 (amendment 9, clause 7A). Numerous scholars and political observers have debated the definition, particularly whether the terms are contradictory or complementary. According to the Israel Democracy Institute, three quarters of Israeli Jews "believe that the State of Israel can be both Jewish and democratic", whereas two thirds of Israeli Arabs do not believe that such a combination is possible. II.

Christian Democracy: is a political ideology which emerged in

Page 28 of 51

nineteenth-century Europe under the influence of conservatism and Catholic social teaching. It was originally conceived as a combination of traditional Catholic beliefs and modern democratic ideas, but over time it grew to incorporate a variety of views from different Christian denominations and from different political thinkers. Christian democracy continues to be influential in Europe and Latin America, though in a number of countries its Christian ethos has been challenged by secularization. -

III.

only source of law, such as Pakistan 3. Theocracies; that endeavor to institute Sharia, in full force, and offers more comprehensive inclusion of Islam into the affairs of the state. Presently, Iran is the only example of an Islamic state in the form of Islamic republics. Not all of these states are recognized internationally as democratic under concepts of liberal democracy. The concepts of liberalism and democratic participation were already present in the medieval Islamic world. The Rashidun Caliphate is perceived by its proponents as an early example of a democratic state and it is claimed that the development of democracy in the Islamic world eventually came to a halt following to the Sunniâ&#x20AC;&#x201C;Shia split.

see Chapter VI. below for more...

Islamic Democracy: refers to a political ideology that seeks to apply Islamic principles to public policy within a democratic framework. In practice, there are three kinds of political systems in the M uslimmajority countries today; the basis of the distinction between them has to do with how comprehensively Islam is incorporated into the affairs of the state: 1. Secular Democracies, in secular states such as Azerbaijan and Turkey, that do not recognize any religion as its state religion and, therefore, does not incorporate religious principles into its public policy and other state affairs. 2. Religious Democracies; that recognize Islam as its state religion and a source of legislation, such as M alaysia and M aldives. The application of religious principles into public policy varies from country to country, since Islam is not the

IV.

Theodemocracy: was a theocratic political system that included elements of democracy. It was theorized by Joseph Smith, Jr., founder of the Latter Day Saint movement (M ormonism). According to Smith, theodemocracy was meant to be a fusion of traditional republican democratic rights under the United States Constitution with theocratic principles. Smith described it as a system under which God and the people held the power to rule in righteousness. Smith believed that this would be the form of government that would rule the world upon the Second Coming of Christ, which he believed was imminent. This polity would constitute the "Kingdom of God"

Page 29 of 51

which was foretold by the prophet Daniel in the Old Testament. Theodemocracy was an influence for

the short lived State of Deseret in the American Old West.

Page 30 of 51

Page 31 of 51

Christian Democracy Christian Democracy is a political ideology which emerged in nineteenthcentury Europe under the influence of conservatism and Catholic social teaching. It was originally conceived as a combination of traditional Catholic beliefs and modern democratic ideas, but over time it grew to incorporate a variety of views from different Christian denominations and from different political thinkers. Christian democracy continues to be influential in Europe and Latin America, though in a number of countries its Christian ethos has been challenged by secularization.

democrats defined their views as an alternative to the more leftist ideology of social democracy, Christian democratic parties are moderately conservative and center-right overall, whereas in the very different cultural and political environment of South America they tend to lean to the left in economical issues, and to the extreme right in social issues. Examples of Christian democratic parties include Germany's Christian Democratic Union (CDU), Chile's Christian Democratic Party, Switzerland's Christian Democratic People's Party, the Netherlands' Christian Democratic Appeal (CDA), Italy's Union of Christian and Centre Democrats (UDC), and some factions of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB).

In practice, Christian democracy is often considered conservative on cultural, social, and moral issues (and is thus a supporter of social conservatism), while advocating a social market economy. In Europe, where Christian ______ Political Viewpoints As with any political ideology, Christian democracy has had different manifestations over time and between countries; there are several types of ideology that are called Christian democracy. As a generalization, it can be said that Christian democratic parties in Europe tend to be moderately conservative, and in several cases form the main conservative party in their respective countries (e.g. in Germany, Spain, and Belgium). In Latin America, by contrast, Christian democratic

______

parties tend to be progressive and to some degree influenced by liberation theology. These generalizations, however, must be nuanced by the consideration that Christian democracy does not fit precisely into the usual categories of political thought, but rather includes elements common to several other political ideologies: ď&#x201A;ˇ

In common with conservatism, traditional moral values (on marriage, abortion, etc.), opposition to secularization, a view of the evolutionary (as opposed to revolutionary) development of

Page 32 of 51



society, an emphasis on law and order, and a rejection of communism. In contrast to conservatism, open to change (for example, in the structure of society) and not necessarily supportive of the social status quo. In common with liberalism, an emphasis on human rights and individual initiative. In contrast to liberalism, a rejection of secularism, and an emphasis on the fact that the individual is part of a community and has duties towards it. In common with socialism, an emphasis on the community, social justice and solidarity, support for a welfare state and support for regulation of market forces. In contrast to socialism, most European Christian Democrats support a market economy and do not adhere to the concept of class struggle. This has not always carried over to some Latin American Christian Democratic Parties, which have been influenced by liberation theology.

Geoffrey K. Roberts and Patricia Hogwood have noted that "Christian democracy has incorporated many of the views held by liberals, conservatives and socialists within a wider framework of moral and Christian principles."

World View The international organization of Christian democratic parties, the Centrist Democrat International (CDI), formerly known as the Christian Democratic International, is the second largest international political organization in the world (second only to the Socialist International). European Christian democratic parties have their own regional organization called the European People's

Christian democrats are usually socially conservative, and, as such, generally have a relatively skeptical stance towards abortion and same-sex marriage, though some Christian democratic parties have accepted the limited legalization of both. Christian democratic parties are often likely to assert the Christian heritage of their country, and to affirm explicitly Christian ethics, rather than adopting a more liberal or secular stance. On economic issues, Christian democrats normally do not completely oppose capitalism as an economic system, unlike their repudiation of atheistic communism and similar ideologies, though they do see the economy as being at the service of humanity. The duty of the state towards society is of real importance for Christian democrats, though some would see this duty as being mostly to create the conditions for civil society to flourish, while others would see it as a more direct duty of the state towards citizens. In recent decades, some right-leaning Christian democratic parties in Europe have adopted policies consistent with an economically liberal point of view but still support a regulated economy with a welfare state, while by contrast other Christian democrats at times seem to hold views similar to Christian socialism.

Party, which form the largest group in the European Parliament, the EPP Group. Christian Democracy in Europe Christian democracy has been especially important in the politics of Italy (inspired by Luigi Sturzo; see Christian Democracy (Italy)), Norway (see Christian Democratic Party of Norway), and Germany (see Christian Democratic Union (Germany) and

Page 33 of 51

Christian Social Union in Bavaria). M ajor Christian democratic influence can also be seen in the politics of Austria (see Austrian People's Party), Belgium (see Christian Democratic and Flemish (CD&V), Humanist Democratic Centre (CDH) and Christian Social Party (CSP)), Finland (see Christian Democrats (Finland)), France, Ireland (see Fine Gael), Luxembourg, M alta, the Netherlands (see Christian Democratic Appeal), Portugal (see Democratic and Social Centre – People's Party), Poland (see Civic Platform and Polish Peasants' Party), Romania (see Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party), Spain (see, Partido Popular, Democratic Union of Catalonia), Sweden (see Christian Democrats (Sweden)) and Ukraine (see Christian Democratic Union (Ukraine)). Christian democracy is not very strong in the United Kingdom where the Conservative Party dominates conservative politics and does not advocate Christian democratic platforms, but Christian democratic parties do exist. The Christian Peoples Alliance (CPA), The Common Good, the Christian Party and the Christian Democratic Party are the four Christian democratic parties currently in the UK. The Nationalist Party of M alta is a Christian democratic party and has won seven out of eleven general elections since M alta's independence in 1964. It advocates staunch Christian values including bans on abortion and, until recently, divorce. It is currently in opposition after a landslide victory by its rival the Labour Party in 2013.

Christian Democracy in Latin America Christian democracy has been especially important in Chile (see Christian Democrat Party of Chile) and Venezuela (see COPEI Christian Democratic Party of Venezuela),

among others, and partly also in M exico, starting with the ascendancy of President Vicente Fox in 2000, followed by Felipe Calderón (see National Action Party (Mexico)). Cuba counts with several Christian democratic political associations, both on the island and in exile. The most significant is perhaps the Movimiento Cristiano de Liberación (M CL) (www.oswaldopaya.org), led by Cuban dissident Oswaldo Payá, who was killed in a tragic automobile accident in the summer of 2012 and has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize.

Christian democracy in Australia Christian democratic parties in Australia are said to include not only the party called 'The Christian Democratic Party", but also the Democratic Labor Party (which is a social democratic party) and Family First Party (which is regarded by some as a liberal democratic party). In Victoria, and N SW Australian Labor Party (ALP) state executive members, parliamentarians and branch members associated (rightly or wrongly) with the Industrial Groups or B. A. Santamaria and The M ovement, were expelled from the party (against that party's rules). They formed a new party, soon to be known as the Democratic Labor Party (DLP). Later in 1957, a similar split occurred in Queensland, with the resulting group subsequently joining the DLP. The party also had sitting members from Tasmania and New South Wales at various times, though it was much stronger in the former mentioned states. The party was in agreement with the ruling conservative Liberal and Country parties on many issues, which resulted in their preferencing of these parties over the ALP. However, it was more morally conservative,

Page 34 of 51

militantly anti-communist and socially compassionate than the Liberals. The DLP was defeated by the federal election of 1974 that saw its primary vote cut by nearly two thirds, and the entry of an ALP government. The DLP never regained its previous support in subsequent elections and formally disbanded in 1978, but a small group within the party refused to accept this decision and created a small, reformed successor party. Though his party was effectively gone, Santamaria and his National Civic Council took a strong diametrically opposed stance to dominant neoliberal/New Right tendencies within both the ALP and Liberal parties throughout the eighties and early nineties. A new Christian party that found its first strength in 1981 was the Christian Democratic Party (initially known as the "Call to Australia" party). It gained 9.1% of the vote in the New South Wales (NSW) state election of 1981, but its vote rapidly declined thereafter. This Protestant party had some very similar social policies to the DLP. Its support base has generally been restricted to NSW and Western Australia, where it usually gains between 2â&#x20AC;&#x201C;4% of votes, with its support being minuscule in other states. It has had two members of the NSW state parliament for most of its existence. Another Australian Christian democratic party of note is the Family First Party. It has had one or two members in the SA parliament since 2002, and in 2004 also managed to elect a Victorian senator. Its

electoral support is small, with the largest constituencies being South Australia (4â&#x20AC;&#x201C; 6%), and Victoria (around 4%). Family First generally receives lower support in national elections than in state elections. In 2006, the new DLP experienced a resurgence. The successor party struggled through decades of Victorian elections before finally gaining a parliamentary seat when the Victorian upper house was redesigned. Nevertheless, its electoral support is still very small in Victoria (around 2%). It has recently reformed state parties in Queensland and New South Wales. In the Australian federal election, 2010, the DLP won the sixth senate seat in Victoria, giving it representation in the Australian Senate.

Christian democracy in the United States In the United States there have been various attempts to create Christian democratic parties, similar to their European and Latin American counterparts, but efforts have generally run against the formidable strength of the existing bipartisan Republican/Democratic party system. One such party, the Christian Democratic Party USA, recently changed its name to the American Solidarity Party. The name is based on the Polish Solidarity M ovement, whose first chairman was Lech Walesa. The Party has incorporated the Consistent Life Ethic into its platform. Its emblem is the Pelican, a traditional Christian symbol of charity.

Page 35 of 51

Page 36 of 51

Majority Rule v. Minority Rights Majority Rule

rules, for example - which cater for multioption preferential voting. Indeed, if the M odified Borda Count, M BC, were to be used, the outcome would be not the more preferred option of the majority, but the most preferred option of everyone (who votes). Dublin City Council recently used just such a Borda Count and thus became the first democratically elected chamber in the world to use a non-majoritarian voting procedure in decision-making.

May's Theorem

Majority Rule is a decision rule that selects alternatives which have a majority, that is, more than half the votes. It is the binary decision rule used most often in influential decision-making bodies, including the legislatures of democratic nations. Some scholars have recommended against the use of majority rule, at least under certain circumstances, due to an ostensible trade-off between the benefits of majority rule and other values important to a democratic society. Most famously, it has been argued that majority rule might lead to a "tyranny of the majority," so the use of supermajoritarian rules and constitutional limits on government power has been recommended to mitigate these effects. Recently some voting theorists have argued that majority rule is the rule that best protects minorities. Others disagree, not least because there are, of course, the more sophisticated decision-making voting methodologies - the Borda and Condorcet

According to M ay, majority rule is the only reasonable decision rule that is "fair", that is, that does not privilege voters by letting some votes count for more or privilege an alternative by requiring fewer votes for its passing. Stated more formally, majority rule is the only binary decision rule that has the following properties: ď&#x201A;ˇ

ď&#x201A;ˇ ď&#x201A;ˇ

Fairness: This can be further separated into two properties: o Anonymity: The decision rule treats each voter identically. When using majority rule, it makes no difference who casts a vote; indeed the voter's identity need not even be known. o Neutrality: The decision rule treats each alternative equally. This is unlike supermajoritarian rules, which can allow an alternative that has received fewer votes to win. Decisiveness: The decision rule selects a unique winner. Monotonicity: The decision rule would always, if a voter were to

Page 37 of 51

change a preference, select the alternative that the voter preferred, if that alternative would have won before the change in preference. Similarly, the decision rule would never, if a voter were to change a preference, select a candidate the voter did not prefer, if that alternative would not have won before the change in preference. Strictly speaking, it has been shown that majority rule meets these criteria only if the number of voters is odd or infinite. If the number of voters is even, there is the chance that there will be a tie, and so the criterion of neutrality is not met. M any deliberative bodies reduce one participant's voting capacityâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;namely, they allow the chair to vote only to break ties. This substitutes a loss of total anonymity for the loss of neutrality.

Monority Rights Because a majority can win a vote under majority rule, it has been commonly argued that majority rule can lead to a "tyranny of the majority". Supermajoritarian rules, such as the three-fifths supermajority rule required to end a filibuster in the United

States Senate, have been proposed as preventative measures of this problem. Other experts argue that this solution is questionable. Supermajority rules do not guarantee that it is a minority that will be protected by the supermajority rule; they only establish that one of two alternatives is the status quo, and privilege it against being overturned by a mere majority. To use the example of the US Senate, if a majority votes against cloture, then the filibuster will continue, even though a minority supports it. Anthony M cGann argues that when there are multiple minorities and one is protected (or privileged) by the supermajority rule, there is no guarantee that the protected minority won't be one that is already privileged, and if nothing else it will be the one that has the privilege of being aligned with the status quo. Another way to safeguard against tyranny of the majority, it is argued, is to guarantee certain rights. Inalienable rights, including who can vote, which cannot be transgressed by a majority, can be decided beforehand as a separate act, by charter or constitution. Thereafter, any decision that unfairly targets a minority's right could be said to be majoritarian, but would not be a legitimate example of a majority decision because it would violate the requirement for equal rights. In response, advocates of unfettered majority rule argue that because the procedure that privileges constitutional rights is generally some sort of supermajoritarian rule, this solution inherits whatever problems this rule would have. They also add the following: First, constitutional rights, being words on paper, cannot by themselves offer protection. Second, under some circumstances, the rights of one person cannot be guaranteed without making an imposition on someone else; as Anthony M cGann wrote, "one manâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s right to property in the antebellum South

Page 38 of 51

was another man's slavery". Finally, as Amartya Sen stated when presenting the liberal paradox, a proliferation of rights may make everyone worse off.

Erroneous priorities The Erroneous Priorities Effect (EPE) states that groups acting upon what they initially consider important are almost always misplacing their effort. When groups do this they have not yet determined which factors are most influential in their potential to achieve desired change. Only after identifying those factors are they ready to take effective action. EPE was discovered by Kevin Dye after extensive research at the Food and Drug Administration. The discovery of EPE led to the recognition that even with good intentions for participatory democracy, people cannot collectively take effective actions unless they change the paradigm for languaging and voting. EPE is a negative consequence of phenomena such as Spreadthink and Groupthink. Effective priorities for actions that are dependent on recognizing the influence patterns of global interdependencies, are defeated by the EPE, when priorities are chosen on the basis of aggregating individual stakeholder subjective voting that is largely blind to those interdependencies. Dye's work resulted in the discovery of the 6th law of the science of structured dialogic design, namely: â&#x20AC;&#x2022;Learning occurs in a dialogue as the observers search for influence relationships among the members of a set of observations.â&#x20AC;&#x2013;

Arguments Against Limitations Minority Rights M cGann argues that majority rule helps to protect minority rights, at least in settings in

Other Arguments for Limitations Some argue that majority rule can lead to poor deliberation practice or even to "an aggressive culture and conflict". Along these lines, some have asserted that majority rule fails to measure the intensity of preferences. For example, the authors of An Anarchist Critique of Democracy argue that "two voters who are casually interested in doing something" can defeat one voter who has "dire opposition" to the proposal of the two. Voting theorists have often claimed that cycling leads to debilitating instability. Buchanan and Tullock argue that unanimity is the only decision rule that guarantees economic efficiency. Supermajority rules are often used in binary decisions where a positive decision is weightier than a negative one. Under the standard definition of special majority voting, a positive decision is made if and only if a substantial portion of the votes support that decisionâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;for example, two thirds or three fourths. For example, US jury decisions require the support of at least 10 of 12 jurors, or even unanimous support. This supermajoritarian concept follows directly from the presumption of innocence on which the US legal system is based. Rousseau advocated the use of supermajority voting on important decisions when he said, "The more the deliberations are important and serious, the more the opinion that carries should approach unanimity." which deliberation occurs. The argument is that cycling ensures that parties that lose to a majority have an interest to remain part of the group's process, because the decision can easily be overturned by another majority. Furthermore, if a minority wishes to overturn a decision, it needs to form a coalition with only enough of the group

Page 39 of 51

members to ensure that more than half approves of the new proposal. (Under supermajority rules, a minority might need a coalition consisting of something greater than a majority to overturn a decision.)

proponents argue that cycling gives participants an interest to compromise, rather than strive to pass resolutions that only have the bare minimum required to "win".

To support the view that majority rule protects minority rights better than supermajority rules M cGann points to the cloture rule in the US Senate, which was used to prevent the extension of civil liberties to racial minorities. Ben Saunders, while agreeing that majority rule may offer better protection than supermajority rules, argues that majority rule may nonetheless be of little help to the most despised minorities in a group.

Another argument for majority rule is that within this atmosphere of compromise, there will be times when a minority faction will want to support the proposal of another faction in exchange for support of a proposal it believes to be vital. Because it would be in the best interest of such a faction to report the true intensity of its preference, so the argument goes, majority rule differentiates weak and strong preferences. M cGann argues that situations such as these give minorities incentive to participate, because there are few permanent losers under majority rule, and so majority rule leads to systemic stability. He points to governments that use majority rule which largely goes uncheckedâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;the governments of the Netherlands, Austria, and Sweden, for exampleâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;as empirical evidence of majority rule's stability.

Other Arguments Against Limitations Some argue that deliberative democracy flourishes under majority rule. They argue that under majority rule, participants always have to convince more than half the group at the very least, while under supermajoritarian rules participants might only need to persuade a minority. Furthermore,

Page 40 of 51

Page 41 of 51

References 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy 2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state 3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_and_democratic_state 4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_democracy 5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_democracy 6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodemocracy 7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M ajority_rule 8. http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/madagaskar/05860.pdf 9. http://www.peacemaker.un.org/sites/peacemaker.un.org/files/DemocraticConstitutionM a king_U SIP2003.pdf 10. http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Democracy/

Page 42 of 51

Page 43 of 51

Page 44 of 51

Attachment A

Bible Verses About Democracy

Page 45 of 51

Bible Verses About Democracy Bible verses related to Democracy from the King James Version (KJV) by Relevance Romans 13:1-7 - Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but of God: the powers that be are ordained of God. (Read More...) Judges 21:25 - In those days [there was] no king in Israel: every man did [that which was] right in his own eyes. Titus 3:1 - Put them in mind to be subject to principalities and powers, to obey magistrates, to be ready to every good work, 1 Timothy 2:1-2 - I exhort therefore, that, first of all, supplications, prayers, intercessions, [and] giving of thanks, be made for all men; (Read More...) Matthew 22:21 - They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's. Matthew 20:13-15 - But he answered one of them, and said, Friend, I do thee no wrong: didst not thou agree with me for a penny? (Read More...) Numbers 16:1-50 - Now Korah, the son of Izhar, the son of Kohath, the son of Levi, and Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab, and On, the son of Peleth, sons of Reuben, took [men]: (Read More...) Genesis 15:14-16 - And also that nation, whom they shall serve, will I judge: and afterward shall they come out with great substance. (Read More...) Micah 6:8 - He hath shewed thee, O man, what [is] good; and what doth the LORD require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? Psalms 8:1-9 - (To the chief M usician upon Gittith, A Psalm of David.) O LORD our Lord, how excellent [is] thy name in all the earth! who hast set thy glory above the heavens. (Read More...) Numbers 12:3-8 - (Now the man M oses [was] very meek, above all the men which [were] upon the face of the earth.) (Read More...) Leviticus 17:11 - For the life of the flesh [is] in the blood: and I have given it to you upon the altar to make an atonement for your souls: for it [is] the blood [that] maketh an atonement for the soul. Exodus 19:5 - Now therefore, if ye will obey my voice indeed, and keep my covenant, then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all people: for all the earth [is] mine:

Exodus 18:11 - Now I know that the LORD [is] greater than all gods: for in the thing wherein they dealt proudly [he was] above them. Exodus 15:1-19 - Then sang M oses and the children of Israel this song unto the LORD, and spake, saying, I will sing unto the LORD, for he hath triumphed gloriously: the horse and his rider hath he thrown into the sea. (Read More...) Exodus 9:15-19 - For now I will stretch out my hand, that I may smite thee and thy people with pestilence; and thou shalt be cut off from the earth. (Read More...) Exodus 7:1-2 - And the LORD said unto Moses, See, I have made thee a god to Pharaoh: and Aaron thy brother shall be thy prophet. (Read More...) Exodus 5:1-3 - And afterward M oses and Aaron went in, and told Pharaoh, Thus saith the LORD God of Israel, Let my people go, that they may hold a feast unto me in the wilderness. (Read More...) Exodus 3:18 - And they shall hearken to thy voice: and thou shalt come, thou and the elders of Israel, unto the king of Egypt, and ye shall say unto him, The LORD God of the Hebrews hath met with us: and now let us go, we beseech thee, three days' journey into the wilderness, that we may sacrifice to the LORD our God. Exodus 2:1-25 - And there went a man of the house of Levi, and took [to wife] a daughter of Levi. (Read More...) Genesis 25:1-34 - Then again Abraham took a wife, and her name [was] Keturah. (Read More...) Genesis 20:9-11 - Then Abimelech called Abraham, and said unto him, What hast thou done unto us? and what have I offended thee, that thou hast brought on me and on my kingdom a great sin? thou hast done deeds unto me that ought not to be done. (Read More...) Genesis 19:1-38 - And there came two angels to Sodom at even; and Lot sat in the gate of Sodom: and Lot seeing [them] rose up to meet them; and he bowed himself with his face toward the ground; (Read More...) Genesis 18:19-33 - For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the LORD, to do justice and judgment; that the LORD may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him. (Read More...) Genesis 18:18 - Seeing that Abraham shall surely become a great and mighty nation, and all the nations of the earth shall be blessed in him? Genesis 14:23 - That I will not [take] from a thread even to a shoelatchet, and that I will not take any thing that [is] thine, lest thou shouldest say, I have made Abram rich:

Genesis 12:3 - And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed. Genesis 12:2-3 - And I will make of thee a great nation, and I will bless thee, and make thy name great; and thou shalt be a blessing: (Read More...) Genesis 11:1-8 - And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech. (Read More...) Genesis 8:21 - And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man's sake; for the imagination of man's heart [is] evil from his youth; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. Genesis 8:20 - And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar. Genesis 6:12-13 - And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. (Read More...) Genesis 6:5 - And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually. Genesis 4:23-24 - And Lamech said unto his wives, Adah and Zillah, Hear my voice; ye wives of Lamech, hearken unto my speech: for I have slain a man to my wounding, and a young man to my hurt. (Read More...) Genesis 4:19-22 - And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one [was] Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. (Read More...) Genesis 4:1-17 - And Adam knew Eve his wife; and she conceived, and bare Cain, and said, I have gotten a man from the LORD. (Read More...) Genesis 3:7 - And the eyes of them both were opened, and they knew that they [were] naked; and they sewed fig leaves together, and made themselves aprons. Genesis 1:1-31 - In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. (Read More...) John 17:17 - Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth. John 8:32 - And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. Mark 9:2 - And after six days Jesus taketh [with him] Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them. Matthew 5:40 - And if any man will sue thee at the law, and take away thy coat, let him have [thy] cloke also.

Matthew 5:17-18 - Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. (Read More...) Jeremiah 1:5 - Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, [and] I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations. Judges 19:1-30 - And it came to pass in those days, when [there was] no king in Israel, that there was a certain Levite sojourning on the side of mount Ephraim, who took to him a concubine out of Bethlehemjudah. (Read More...) Deuteronomy 6:5 - And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Deuteronomy 4:8 - And what nation [is there so] great, that hath statutes and judgments [so] righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day? Deuteronomy 4:7 - For what nation [is there so] great, who [hath] God [so] nigh unto them, as the LORD our God [is] in all [things that] we call upon him [for]?

http://www.kingjamesbibleonline.org/Bible-Verses-About-Democracy/

Attachment B

What Is Democracy?

Page 46 of 51

KMF

CNOE

EN EN

E NE N A M PIR RO FIR IJO

OL O M -

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY ?

A VAN O

FANABEAZANA OLOM-PIRENENA

WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?

Authors (original text in German): Paula Becker (Bachelor of Arts, Political Science, University of Hamburg) and Dr. Jean-Aimé A. Raveloson

Realized by KMF-CNOE & NOVA STELLA with the assistance of the Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung (FES) and with the collaboration of Friedel Daiber (University of Trier) English Translation from French: Andriakamelo Rarivoarisoa Alice Coordination: Jean-Aimé A. Raveloson Antananarivo, in September 2008

Summary Introduction............................................................................................................................4 1.

What is Democracy? .......................................................................................................4

Key elements of States organized under democratic principles ........................................4 2.1

Fundamental freedom and fundamental rights .......................................................4

2.2 Elections ................................................................................................................6

2.3

Rule of law............................................................................................................9

2.4

Separation of powers...........................................................................................10

2.5

The Parliament....................................................................................................11

2.6

Democratic Pluralism..........................................................................................12

2.7

The Government and the Opposition ...................................................................14

2.8

Public opinion and freedom of the media ...........................................................15

Democracy does not keep up all alone!..........................................................................17 3.1 Decentralisation ..................................................................................................17 3.2 Democratic governance.......................................................................................18 3.3 Political education...............................................................................................20

Does the future belong to democracy? ...........................................................................21

Books, articles and web links................................................................................................23

Introduction Among the 193 countries worldwide that are recognized by the United Nations, 123 are said to be democratic (www.freedomhouse.org). Thus, more than half of those States have set up a form of government that is characterized by the participation of its people, under whatever form that may be. But what do we mean, anyway, when we talk about democracy? Each individual surely has his/her own perception of what democracy means; however what is the real explanation to give? What is democracy composed of? What are the required elements that would enable its establishment? And what are the required activities that would help to consolidate such a form of government? What are the advantages, where are the weaknesses? This brochure addresses these issues in depth and deals with other questions. It tries to bring light into this relatively blurry jungle of information that is turning around the theme of “democracy“. This handbook is particularly targeting ‘neophytes’ who are ready to absorb a basic notion of a broad democracy. Following a primary explanation of the term under study, as an introduction, key elements known as specific characteristics of democracy, will be defined in a more accurate way: Another paragraph will deal with how to keep up and strengthen an already effective democracy. This cannot be done without the participation of the population and that is exactly why it is important that you, as a young active member of the society in which you are living, be well informed. To conclude, we will come to a point in which you are certainly interested in: The outlook of democracy. If you found our introduction quite interesting, all we need to do is to wish you a good reading for what comes next!

What is Democracy?

The word ‘democracy» is a term that comes from Greek and it is made up with two other words demos= People and kratein= to govern, to rule. “Democracy” can then be literally translated by the following terms: Government of the People or Government of the Majority. Democracy, as a State form, is to be distinguished from monarchy, aristocracy and dictatorship. You may have already heard about the most common definition of democracy: ‘the government of the people, by the people and for the people’ (Abraham Lincoln)? To put it another way we can say that a government comes from the people; it is exercised by the people, and for the purpose of the people’s own interests. This description is only a very broad one, to start with, but the pages that follow will explain to you in a more concise way the different facets of democracy.

Key elements of States organized under democratic principles

2.1

Fundamental freedom and fundamental rights

Human rights are much more than a mere component of democracy. They represent sine qua non requirements for the well performing of a democratic system. The development and

evolution of human rights are only possible when humans live in a democracy, given the fact that it is only within this system that the population itself can draw up the laws that will rule and publicly control the three powers: the legislative power (power to propose and vote for laws: in Madagascar, this is the role of the Parliament), the executive power (power to enforce laws: in Madagascar, this is the role of the President of the Republic and the Government) and the judiciary power (power to make and to promulgate laws: in addition to, for example, the High Constitutional Court). Moreover, human rights are only efficient when the State power is linked to an autonomy and independence right, and when all the individuals are treated on equal terms in front of this justice. In the same way, it is essential, in any democracy, to establish a clear separation of powers, so that the judiciary can be autonomous and independent. The result will be a triangular relation between Democracy, Human Rights and Separation of Powers, which thus represent interdependent elements. But with this, would you now be able to explain what ‘Human Rights’ really mean? A strict definition would describe them as rights that are inherent to the individuality of each person, in terms of protection against any inclination of the State to harm an individual; a human being is endowed with these rights the moment he/she is born and the State cannot withdraw them from him/her. They form the very foundations of the human relations that rule life in society, be it at international, national, local or family level. What follows is a brief explanation of the different fields that they cover: The Individual Personality Rights constitute the core of human rights, given the fact that they include, for example, the right to life and the right to free personality development. Thanks to these rights, a human being can, for instance, be protected against attacks and manifestations of violence aimed at his/her person, and preserve his/her integrity and human dignity. Political and Civil Rights are there to make sure that each citizen can participate without any restriction to the political life of his/her community. This means that he or she should not fear any non justified sanction. The most important rights, in this matter, concern not only freedom of speech and freedom of the press but also freedom to hold meetings and to set up associations. Thanks to Social and Economic Rights, minimum living wage for the survival of a human being must be guaranteed for him/her. This includes, among others, the right to education, because it is necessary to start from the principle that everybody has to benefit from a training so as not to be left starving and deprived of resources, later on. Some relatively new rights have been added to this list: they are the Third generation Rights. They are there to demonstrate that human rights can evolve and that they are not fixed, stuck at their starting point. One can include in these rights, for example, the Rights to Development, which aim at reducing the gap that separates the rich and the poor. The Rights to Environment have also been added, in order to make sure that species that are vital to human are not damaged or even destroyed. Those are formulas that all sound very attractive, but you must be wondering what to do to make sure that all these rights are effectively enforced; since empty formulas would not be of great help for you. You are totally right and some regulations have been made for that purpose: in 1945, upon some States’ instigation, the ‘United Nations’ were created; nowadays, almost all the States across the world are members of this institution. In 1948, it published the ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights “, which, since then, have always evolved. In order to be able to see to its actual effectiveness, some commissions, subcommissions as well as committees have been put in place, like for instance, the “Children’s Rights Committee “. In a situation where one State commits infringement of human rights, 5

there is, at The Hague- Netherland, an International Court of Justice that is entitled to deliver sanctions to any offender. The United Nations are supported by a large number of non-governmental organizations which, through the contribution of active militants in the protection of human rights, can establish and publish reports on diverse infringements of these rights: thus, they can get governments not to continue accepting such exactions. There are for that matter several regional treaties aiming at protecting human rights: for instance, the “African Charter of Human Rights and People’s Rights “(http://www.africaunion.org/About_AU/au_in_a_nutshell.htm). It was adopted in 1981 among the African Union Organisation, which was renamed “African Union“, later on. It is supposed to take into consideration the African cultural values. To make sure that this treaty is effective, a committee and a court of justice for human rights and people’s rights were instituted within this organisation. Upon a unanimous decision of its members, this court of justice was merged with the “African Court of Justice “in 2004. In Madagascar, there are several NGOs and associations that fight for the human rights’ watch and respect.

2.2

Elections

Elections constitute one of the most important pillars of democracy. Those are the texts of Electoral Law that rule and clearly define both the organisation of these elections, and how to undertake the deduction of the votes in order to assign them to the corresponding seats. There is an active electoral law and a passive electoral law. Citizens who can use active electoral law have the right to vote whereas those who can use passive electoral law have the right to be elected. In most cases, the whole electorate can use both types of right. This does not mean, however, that any State which opts to carry out elections can be qualified as democratic right away: there are similarly other forms of government in which elections are practised. Democratic elections, as such, must meet some requirements that you may already know a little: Democratic elections are free when citizens have the right to choose from several candidates or parties that can run for the election without any restriction. They must also be free to decide whether they want to use their right to vote or to abstain from doing so, if they prefer. Democratic elections are equitable when each citizen who can use his/her right to vote has at his/her disposal a vote and when neither his/her origin nor his/her sex, language, incomes or possessions, job or social stratus/class, sexual identity, training, religion or political convictions have an influence of whatever kind on the assessment of the value of his/her vote. In democratic elections, there must be no way of knowing for which political party or for which particular candidate a citizen has voted. They are then secrete, when each citizen can put his ballot in an envelope, without having been either watched over or influenced, in the secrecy of the polling booth, and when he/she is also able, in the same way, to put his/her envelope inside the ballot box afterwards. Democratic elections are, therefore, public and transparent. Which means on the one hand, that each citizen has the right to attend the counting of the votes when the ballot box is opened; this also means on the other hand, that it is possible to completely follow the whole process of the passage of the constituents’ votes: starting from the

ballots inserted into the ballot box till the final counting undertaken to establish the calculation that will eventually share out. In addition to the requirements mentioned above, it is also important to institute elections on regular basis. Everybody, in that case, has the possibility to know the date of the coming elections, and to get ready for that ahead of time. It is a way to make sure that the current government is defined within a time frame and that its people have the right to remove it from office. The electorate should represent the whole population, which is to mean that apart from the underage population, no group should be excluded. And finally, the electorate’s votes should be final, meaning that the election results should be enforced effectively, which implies that they must be accepted as legitimate. Regarding election process, there are in fact two separate systems: the absolute majority votes and the proportional ones. Both have crucial importance, given the fact that they influence not only the political structure but also the formation process of the political will. To settle the choice on which polling system to adopt, one has to take into account not only the political traditions and historical situations but also social conditions, because those, eventually, may authorize solely one of the two possibilities. Several parameters may be subject to some variations: the internal regulations of the party, the relations between the parties, as well as the relations between the government and the Parliament, according to the enforcement of either the absolute majority election system or the proportional one. An election loses its primary function if it is manipulated through the choice of a polling system; it will then have negative impact on the so-called “elected” organs which will then lose their legitimacy. In the absolute majority system, the polling area is divided into as many constituencies as necessary, depending on the number of seats to be assigned (at the Parliament, for example). Those candidates or lists of candidates that can gather the majority of votes from their constituents will be assigned the seats to be filled. This polling system brings about some advantages: With their program, the candidates are dealing with a large proportion of the population with the purpose of trying to win the majority. Therefore, the contents of their program are generally more rational, trying to avoid extreme points of views in this way. The government must effectively take into account the presence of the other political parties, thanks to the clearly established evidence from the majorities. In this system, the voters have a significant influence on the government. Its functioning is closely linked to the bipartite system. In the case where there is a private candidate or a candidate who does not belong to any list, there is a very close relationship between the Parliament and the constituency. The distance between the voters and their representatives remains small. But there are nonetheless some difficulties that go with this absolute majority system: Overall, it is only the candidates from an important political party that can manage to gather the majority of the constituents’ votes. This majority principle often prevents the representation of minorities within an organ with seats to fill (at the Parliament, for example). Not to mention the fact that some groups of voters who represent a relatively important number of constituents, but who are ranked at the second place in their constituency, cannot be represented either, as only one candidate must win at the level of each constituency. 7

Elections results can be rigged (by the group in power) with the purposeful manipulation of the constituencies’ size, because it is within the constituencies that the majorities are formed. In the proportional system, the Parliament seats are assigned according to the percentage obtained by the political parties over the total number of votes from the whole constituency. The assignment of seats (at the Parliament, for example) thus reflects, much more than what happens in the absolute majority system, the effective choice of the population. The candidates are elected through the lists in their constituency. Like the absolute majority system, this second polling system is characterized by some advantages: The proportional system allows the representation of all political trends, even that of the minorities. Thanks to this system, it is easy to create new political parties because all it takes is to have the capacity to obtain some percentage of votes in different constituencies to guarantee one’s entry in the organ to be filled. At new elections, it is possible to avoid extreme political inversions, as the government is usually composed of coalitions, particularly in the case of parliamentary political systems, in which it is the parliamentary majority which determines the making up of the government. Likewise, the proportional system is characterized by some difficulties: If one has to take into consideration all the existing political trends, a large number of political parties will indeed be represented at the Parliament. In general, none of these political parties can gather a majority and, consequently, it is in fact coalitions that are set up. Very often, small political parties are used as means to get the majority and, once included within the government, they benefit from a superior influence over the percentage effectively acquired during the elections. For the population, it is difficult to perceive which political party is exactly responsible for which policy; and thus, it will find it difficult to clearly target the decision to be made for the next poll. In some countries like Germany, for example, proportional election right is submitted to a “restriction clause”. The latter stipulate that a political party must obtain a certain number of votes (translated in percentages), in order to be allowed representations at the Parliament. This clause is used to avoid a profusion of small political parties at the Parliament. In Madagascar, until now, both election systems have been combined regarding lists and candidates, during legislative elections. During the 2002 legislative election, for example, the absolute majority system was used for candidates to be elected in constituencies that presented seats to be filled; whereas in constituencies where two seats were to be filled, it was preferred to adopt the proportional system with lists of candidates. During the legislative election in September 2007, the absolute majority system was used with lists of candidates in the constituencies that had two seats available; on the other hand, in constituencies that had only one seat to be filled, the absolute majority system was used with candidates without lists. The proportional system was also used in Madagascar during the 1993 legislative election, to promote the creation of parties in the framework of the political liberalization. As you can see, there are different forms to be considered when you set up and implement democracy. There is no fixed recipe, valid as a rule, concerning elections and the two polling systems. Each country must take into consideration specific circumstances that define, with regards to the existing cultural, political and social fields, the best way to carry out elections.

2.3

Rule of law

In a Rule of Law, there are fundamental principles and procedures that guarantee the freedom of each individual and which allow participation in political life. There is, first of all, the right to a free blossoming of individual personality. To sum it up, the power of the State is linked to the laws that rule it. Thus, the notion of Rule of Law is directly opposed to that of “Police State “or “Despotic State “. In a democratic State, all the citizens are equal in front of the law, even State employees and administration. The latter can only take action when it has been vested with the accruing responsibility by law or by the Constitution. Seen this way, a Rule of Law is then always founded on the respect of law and Constitution. This is a system that holds the State accountable for its acts in front of the citizens and it also gives the latter the opportunity to take a stand and to react according to its acts. In this State ruled order, citizens are completely free to take part in political life as well. State of Law procedures are subject to some fundamental principles. What follows will be a brief explanation of these. In the Constitution of a Democratic State of Law, the notion of “independence of the judiciary” is well rooted. This means that the judiciary is strictly distinguished from the executive and the legislative powers. As we have already explained above, the executive power is the power that enforces laws while the legislative assigns the power to put forward bills and to turn them into laws. It is only through the separation of powers that magistrates can carry out their job, free from either pressure or influence of any kind and in an independent way. They must only use rights and laws and cannot be destitute of their function without their agreement, as long as they have not, themselves, infringed laws. Moreover, it is necessary to make sure that the judiciary keeps the monopoly of the verdict. Indeed, what would be the use of an accused being declared not guilty by a judge, and the police still arresting him/her anyway? In a Rule of Law that works well, any intervention of the police, military or ‘gendarmes’ in the private life of a citizen implies that a judge has been entitled to give the order to do so. Security Right constitutes as well another fundamental principle of Rule of Law, which means that each action of the State must be measurable and foreseeable. Citizens must be informed of what the State has the right to do, what they themselves can do and what is forbidden for them to do. Nobody must be sanctioned without legal ground and in general, laws must not be retroactive. In addition to the principle of right security, there is the fact that the administration is subject to laws. The latter has only the right to take action within a framework assigned by the parliament majority. Each action initiated by the State must then be backed by a law which, in turn, is made legitimate on the basis of democratic principle. This regulation is linked to the notion of the justifiable condition of the administration. The control initiated by the judiciary must guarantee that the administration stays within what is stipulated by laws. Any citizen who deems an administration act to be unfair has the right to call on the judiciary to protest and to demand in this way a verification of the incriminated act. Because administration subjection to law would only be a vain formula if a judge could not freely take action, it is argued that the precedence of the Constitution in front of the law can avoid some bad will of distorting facts. Thus, a Rule of Law ties politics to law and right, submits any expression of the power under judiciary control and guarantees in this way the citizens’ freedom.

2.4

Separation of powers

There are three State powers within a State: -

The legislative power draws up and adopts laws;

The executive power enforces laws and government policies;

The judiciary power represents the legal framework for exercising the power.

You might already know that the term “separation of powers” actually means “division” of the State power into three parts: the ones that have just been cited above. In a democratic State, the power of the State can be controlled and influenced efficiently, first and foremost, by itself. The State power must then be distributed among several organs. In general, it is the Constitution of a country that settles how the State power is to be distributed among different organs and what attributions are to be assigned to them respectively. As a general rule, there are two government systems that need to be distinguished: the “parliamentary regime” and the “presidential regime“. In some countries, they are sometimes intermingled into mixed forms but the objective of this brochure is not to bring confusion to your mind, but on the contrary, to clarify notions! That is why we are going to take each system separately, to show you to what extent relations between the legislative and the executive powers can be different, according to the case. In parliamentary regimes, the government stems from the parliament that is elected by the people. Ministers within the Government can also be vested with a double mandate. The government is put in place by the Parliament and can be destitute in the same way at any time by the latter. The Government attributions and that of the parliament interlock. In general, it is the government that deals with documents for the drawing up and proposals of law. However, it cannot decide anything on the way those bills are passed. Each bill is subject to a vote at the parliament; consequently, the government depends on the parliament for passing the bills that it puts forward. Political parties play a very important role as the majority at the parliament constitutes the necessary requirement for accession to government seats. At the parliament, the opposition plays an important role as an additional control instance of the power. To sum up, a parliamentary regime conveys the idea that the government and the parliament must act together. The government system of a parliamentary regime is put into practice in some countries such as Great Britain and Germany. The government system of a presidential regime, on the other hand, is constituted in a different way: the United States of America represent the best known example. There, legislative and executive powers are separated, either at institutional level or in the concrete and technical exercise of the power. The President, representing the executive power, and the Congress, representing the legislative power, are vested with their office through well distinguished elections. Members of the government have no right to have a seat at the American Congress. Unlike a parliamentary regime, the Congress has no power to destitute a President, even if the latter is held guilty of an illegal action and is juridically liable to a sanction. The President, for his part, has neither the power to dissolve the Congress, nor the right to propose laws. Political parties, in this government system, play a relatively unimportant role. This model conveys the idea that reciprocal control can be better carried out when the two powers, the legislative and the executive, are strictly separated.

There is no infallible and immutable recipe that can be directly extended to all cases, as far as the organisation of the separation of powers in a modern democracy is concerned. But the most important thing is that the State power is not in the hands of only one person or a small group of persons, because in most cases, that ends up in an abuse of power. In Madagascar, the presidents who succeeded each other in power have each laid down in the Constitution and put into practice â&#x20AC;&#x153;their presidential regimeâ&#x20AC;&#x153;, according to their personal profile and their interests to be protected. From 1993 to 1996, an attempt to enforce some elements of the parliamentary regime failed. The result was the destitution of the former President by the Parliament.

2.5

The Parliament

Even if relationship between the Parliament and the Government can be very different in democracies, parliaments fundamentally always have the same functions. They are vested with the office of proposing laws. They hold the right to put forward proposals of laws. In the systems of parliamentary governments, this right is often assigned to the government, as it represents the majority in the parliament, and the likeliness of having a bill passed is greater in this case. In a general rule, the relative majority is enough to pass a bill. On the other hand, laws that deal with essential themes such as the Constitution, for example, often need a majority of two third or a referendum, to be validated. As it has been mentioned in the last chapter, the parliament is vested, in front of the government, with the office of controlling. In case of doubt concerning the work of the government, the parliament can create inquiry commissions or order the judiciary power to carry out investigations. In the parliamentary system, the National Assembly has also the possibility to destitute the government. In this system, control is rather between the government and the opposition, and much less between the legislative power and the judiciary power. Parliaments are then mostly characterized by their function of articulation and expression of political will. This means that: -

Members of Parliament articulate or express population will, because it is the population that they represent.

Members of Parliament try to inform the population on their job, through public sessions, reports of those sessions in the media, as well as specifically targeted demonstrations; they try at the same time to support the population in expressing their political will.

A forth function, that of election office, concerns only the National Assemblies of parliamentary government systems. In this case, it is the members of parliament who elect or destitute the Head of Government, and sometimes, all the members of government. In some countries, it is also the members of parliament who elect the members of the High Court of Justice. We have clarified in a very general way the parliament offices; but now we need to know what effectively the tasks of each of these parliamentarians are, or, in the case of a second Chamber, the tasks assigned to senators. Members of Parliament are elected to the parliament as representatives of the people by abiding to the principle: one citizen, one vote. That is why the number of Members of Parliament in the constituencies is set proportionally to the number of population.

You must have already wondered what deputies do all along the day. As a general rule, they are subject to a double pressure as they must demonstrate their attendance at the parliament, on the one hand, and at their constituency on the other hand. In their constituency, they arrange appointments with some organizations or other institutions, grant audiences and talk directly to the citizens to try to understand issues about their place of work. Work within the parliament is not limited to meetings in which all the deputies participate. There are, in addition to that, several circles and working groups, special committees and commissions that make up an important part of the daily job of a deputy. In general, it is experts that are invited in the special committees, to exhibit their knowledge on a specific theme. Then follows some discussion on the different points of view and joint work is done in order to find out some common grounds. There are also talks about bills/drafts, prior to bringing them to the Assembly. In most countries, deputies are vested with parliamentary immunity to protect them against the arbitrariness of the executive. Immunity implies that deputies are not exposed to lawsuits and judicial sanctions all along the duration of their parliamentary mandate. Two political principles emerge within a democracy and play a crucial role in the way a deputy works; those are: the majority principle or the competition principle and the consensus principle. The majority principle or competition principle is founded on the principle of majority, which means that decisions are made on the majority basis. As a general rule, there is in this system, a great number of political parties which compete with each other. In this case, the advantage is that decisions can be made rapidly, and that the government can work in an efficient way. Normally, in this case, the parliament benefits from the mechanisms and structures that are willing to express and take into consideration the interests of the minority groups in their decision making process at the parliamentary level. According to the consensus principle, maximum actors are included in the political process. There is an attempt to make decisions through consensus. (http://www.hsl.ethz.ch/pdfs/2003_4_S17_Papadopoulos.pdf). This brings the advantage that nobody has to feel excluded in the expression of his/her point of view. But at the same time, this type of decision making involves long discussions beforehand, and gives to minorities the opportunity to integrate their interests in the process of discussing the points of view.

2.6

Democratic Pluralism

In a democracy, pluralism is considered and applied as a form of social order and policy. In the field of politics, pluralism implies that a large number of interest groupings and associations that get together freely are reciprocally in a situation of competition to win influence on social and political life. These groupings can be of political, economic, religious, ethnic or of any other nature. A plural society is characterized by respect, acceptation and recognition of all points of view; no matter how different or diverging they can be; and their dissemination, as well as their enforcement should not be faced with any obstacle. Pluralism is based on controversial discussions whose results are often built on compromises which eventually satisfy all the involved groups, or at the very least, are acceptable as a whole. In pluralism, either dialogues, points of view exchanges or discussions, as well as ideas and opinions that are debated there have a constructive feature within the framework of social processes of expression of ideas and political will of citizens, even if they are either contrary to or opposed to the regime in place or even closer to the opposition.

You may have already noticed that, even in a plural society, some interest groupings are more influential and stronger than others, and that in reality, the competition principle does not apply in the simple, fluid and easy way we have just described it. But it is exactly for this reason that the State has the important role of detecting possible flaws in the competition system, and to find out the necessary palliative measures. There is, for example, the possibility to provide additional aid to the weakest interest associations, to make them more competitive. These state regulation measures are necessary to maintain pluralism in action. In pluralist societies, in parallel to these interest associations that solicit socio-political or economic influence; there are groupings that directly covet posts: those are the political parties. Like many other citizens, you must already have raved at political parties, because they have, for example, promised to take some measures, and they have not done anything about it afterward. In spite of these criticisms that one can direct to political parties regarding the results of their work, it is necessary to recognize that they constitute nevertheless a necessary and indispensable element to any democracy. People can exercise their sovereignty through these political parties; it is really thanks to them that they can react in an effective way. The alternative would be to elect a representative, as a population, and to take on all the tasks that are the duties of political leaders. But this is just not possible, given their large number and the complexity of the themes. Instead of that, it is necessary to have groupings and political parties, to put people forward as candidates for different government offices, to discuss solutions to problems that come up and to represent the interests of their voters. In this way, they constitute, on the one hand, spokesmen/-women for ideals and political objectives of the population. On the other hand, these political parties take part in a decisive way in the construction of population political will, as they know how to grasp the positions of this population in order to articulate and shape them in the midst of the discussions. It is not enough to consider the parties as mere messengers that convey information on the people to the leaders. They must also be considered as active groupings that contribute to the construction of political will, because they take as well the role of mediators for instance, when there is a conflict between the point of view of the people and that of the parliament, or between the governmentâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s opinion and that of the president. In general, it is the people who share the same ideals and the same points of view who get together to create a political party and to integrate their program proposal in the policy. In a plural society, the creation of political parties is free, which means that every body has the right to create a party. In a general rule, political parties have also a core program that reflects its values and its long term objectives, as well as an electoral program, which is rather a short term oriented one. Because political parties within pluralist societies must face important tasks, it is important that they be organized in a transparent and democratic way. This implies, on the one hand that each citizen can freely and openly integrate a political party; and on the other hand, it must be stipulated that each member has the right and the possibility to participate in the definition of the party line, at the election of the leader of the party and the appointment of candidates to political and state functions. In addition to their role in the articulation of the populationâ&#x20AC;&#x2DC;s interests, and the building up of its political will, it is also the political parties that put in place the required personnel to the government offices. As they link the people to their representatives, or the representatives of the people to the leaders, parties are as indispensable in the political scenery of a plural society as the interest groups and associations described earlier.

2.7

The Government and the Opposition

The leadership of a community will fare better if taken on by only one person or a small group, as long as this community is expected to be able to act. You must already have noticed this in your daily life, in a more reduced framework. When one class or working group has to discuss something, the first thing to do is to elect a leader; to put in place and maintain a structure. Without this leader, the debate takes place in a disorderly manner and coming up with results is difficult. If we transpose this image to the case of the State, we can see clearly why it is necessary to have a government. The government, which is always supported by the parliament or presidential majority party (with or without coalition with the other parties), can only function with an intact and efficient state administration, which enforce the decisions. The administration helps not only in the drawing up of the new laws but also in their enforcement. It is then possible to say that the state power is not taken on by the government alone, but it also calls for the concrete adhesion of the administration to manage a country in a reasonable way. In democracies, the administration is institutional, centred on its personnel and is ideologically non identical to the majority party. It stays permanent, to serve the State, and not the party of the majority, no matter which party holds the majority and supports the regime in power. In a democratic State, there is always an opposition that exists parallel with the government. During the elections and at the level of the different state organs, (Parliament, Senate, regional and communal councils, etc.), in most cases, there is one or several opposition parties that confront the party of the power in place. The opposition controls the government. It constitutes a beacon for the government. Its presence is necessary to guarantee an exchange of points of view that are characterized by useful controversies. Democracy in fact feeds its dynamic on such permanent conflicts between points of views, and on the discussions that result from them. But you must be wondering since when conflicts are positive or are of some use? Anyway it is with help of a discussion without either taboo or restriction, during which all opinions are freely expressed that all the perspectives can be addressed and the best solution can then be found. This idea is conveyed in a Malagasy proverb saying that by gathering and synthesizing many peopleâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s ideas, it is possible to reach the highest levels of reasoning sphere (â&#x20AC;&#x153;Ny hevitry ny maro mahataka-davitraâ&#x20AC;&#x153;). In the best cases, the opposition party is for that matter always the potential substitute of the majority party and already exercises, for that reason, a pressure on the government. It criticises the measures taken by the government party and tries at the same time to put forward its own program. In the daily life of the parliament, the opposition can directly influence the drawing up of the laws. In general, it is not possible to initiate some amendments of the Constitution without its agreement; by negotiating skilfully, or by imposing in a tactful way; it can also change other bills drawn up by the government. Besides, the opposition plays the role of expressing interests that are not taken into consideration by the government, as well as that of ensuring that all relevant issues have been discussed openly and in depth. To meet all those expectations, the opposition must be vested with parliamentary rights. The majority party must not have the right to change the rules of the game in such a way that it could give rise to some disadvantage for the opposition. The latter must have the possibility of challenging the government and of putting forward its criticisms. It is important anyway that, during election campaigns, the opposition have the same advantages as the party in power. This means, to go into some details, that it must have the same access to the press, the radio and television and that its program can be presented freely in the streets. Despite all these rules, a fair game between the government and the opposition is only possible if the two

parties respect the fundamental principles of democracy and if they are ready to willingly take action according to these principles. We have just described the general framework that defines the working context of the opposition, but you surely have the impression that at a particular point or another, things do not happen in such a simple way and without any problem in practice. This impression is totally justified because the job of the opposition is not as easy as that, even in modern democracies. It may happen that a party stays in the opposition for years and, over time, loses its motivation to continue leading hot discussions, or to put forward its own program. Meanwhile, the opposition is always obliged, through the different interest groups, to work with the government party. During this cooperation, it can easily go beyond its role of control instance. That is why, nowadays, law texts are so complex and so complicated that it is necessary to have a correct global grasp of reality, of first class information, to be able to draw up correctly. The government is vested, in this field, with a huge advantage, because it can depend on the work of the administration. For an opposition that often does not have a large number of experts at its disposal, it is far more difficult to put forward law texts The most efficient support for an opposition to be functional is the public opinion that is well aware of itself, which knows how to make constructive criticisms. In a society that considers parliamentary conflicts as something productive; the opposition can integrate its ideas and contributes in a decisive way to the establishment of democracy. The people also play an important role as referee, as it is the citizens who vote their government at regular period of time. In democracies, each citizen can adhere and freely belong, and without any fear of reprisals, to a chosen opposition party according to his/her interests and convictions. This makes part of the fundamental right of a citizen and will make sure that the opposition does have the freedom and the possibility to present its ideas, opinions and society projects to the citizens. This allows the latter to have and to know alternatives to government proposals. That is why citizens can vote freely in democracies: they have at their disposal several options and can choose the best suited. In several African countries that have chosen to set out for democratic transformation toward the end of 80s, the “Opposition Charter” or the “Opposition Statute” constitutes the judicial foundation for the opposition work. There is an attempt to protect the opposition from the arbitrariness of the executive power and the party in power, and to give to all parties – be they in power or in the opposition, the same chance to win in the democratic race. Some specific regulations have been included regarding the funding of the parties, the rights and obligations of the parties on power and the opposition parties, as well as access of the opposition parties to state media. In Madagascar, in 2002, in the framework of the ‘States General of political parties “, the law on parties that had existed since 1990, was deemed obsolete by all the parties; but it has not been changed yet until now. Reforms on election law have been debated since 2000. Madagascar does not have any opposition charter.

2.8

Public opinion and freedom of the media

Public opinion is of a decisive importance for democracy. Are you wondering why? Public opinion is made up with citizens or specific groups that reflect on their community and express their criticisms, their proposals or their agreement to influence the construction of political will. It is not possible to talk about only one, but of several public opinions because in a plural society, there are always several stands. Public opinion is then a tool to control the politicians that lead the country. On the one hand, this is important for the opposition as the 15

latter is only potentially active in front of the government through this public opinion. Indeed, what important changes would an opposition bring if it was only able to express criticisms in closed rooms? It is when the opposition represents its stands and opinions, finds itself obliged to react, otherwise it is running the risks of disaffection or destitution, from its citizens. Moreover, public opinion serves the whole population in its effort to display criticisms and its incitements to well defined actions. Each citizen has the right to gather information and to contribute somehow to the expression of public opinion when he/she organises, for instance, a meeting in order to exchange information. In this context, political and social human rights play an important role: the freedom of opinion, as well as freedom to hold meetings and to set up associations which allow citizens to participate in the expression of public opinion, without having to put up with any pressure. Public opinion then constitutes a controlling tool, which is very important in a democracy and which implies that it is only politicians who confront this public opinion who can display true interest for citizens’ desiderata. What articulates public opinion, or more accurately, public opinions? How can you, for example, know what happens every day in politics? And what are the instances that inform you on the current controversies concerning society? As far as the dissemination of positions and opinions are concerned, it is the media, that is to say television, radio and newspapers, but also more and more, internet, that play a decisive role. In the current mass societies, communication can only be carried out through mass media. Interchanges of information can only be done through the direct contacts of dialogues, because over time our societies have become too populated. Political parties, particularly, must call on the media to lay their projects and their stands in front of the population. Democracies are not any more basically characterized by direct communication, but rather by media communication. It is by the way for this reason that the media are considered as the “forth power” coming after the judiciary, the executive and the legislative powers, because they constitute in fact the most important controlling tools of the public opinion. However, the media can only play this role outside any form of state influence. The freedom of the press, another fundamental freedom, also plays an important role in this context. There are several organizations of public utility all over the world which are devoted to the observation of the press freedom in each country, as well as the protection of journalists who feel threatened due to the researches that they carry out for their profession. You may have already heard about the “Freedom House” organisation? It publishes many times a year a report entitled “Freedom of the Press“, in which the press of different countries are put into categories for being free, partially free or not free (www.freedomhouse.org). In addition to possible state restrictions, there is also an internal evolution within the media that represents a danger for plural expression in the publication of information intended for public opinion. One can notice a recrudescence of monopolies, in fields as diverse as the press, radio and television: several newspapers or several television broadcasting stations are under the management of the same company. This is mostly due to the fact that, nowadays, a large quantity of capital assets and technical knowledge is necessary to create a television station or a newspaper. Consequence: it is not everybody that can participate in the expression of public opinion. The main worry lies mostly in the fact that monopolies of opinion are set up through such concentration, which no longer allows any expression of opinion, any construction of personal idea or global political will, any publication of information respecting pluralism. And when we say that the media constitute a ‘forth power“, we can only question this evolution. It is particularly a danger for the establishment of plural democracy in countries undertaking transformation.

Officially, the press is not censored in Madagascar. Nevertheless, the access for the opposition and the citizens «that think otherwise» to state media is quite difficult or even impossible. Some politicians who have success have sometimes their own modern media enterprises at their disposal.

Democracy does not keep up all alone!

You might have had a feeling through the preceding part that a democracy endowed with all the key elements mentioned above is firmly established and will function as well for ever! Democracy unfortunately is not considered as a permanent building, like a stable and well constructed house for instance, that will stay unchanged beyond the centuries. Democracy is rather a process that must be maintained and consolidated permanently. It is not just a type of State, with simple procedures and simple mechanisms. It is not enough then to have three separate State powers, to have citizens ready to run for the legislative elections, that a head of State or a mayor be elected every four or five years and that there are several political parties, etc. Democracy must be taken on by the whole population and all the aggregate of political elite. It can only be established and consolidated when it put forward a conviction that is shared by all the members of society: thus, ways of thinking and behaving, e.g., the political culture, must be based on and directed to democratic values. The following paragraphs will give you some information on important elements that have been chosen to feature the process of democratic consolidation: decentralisation, fundamental democratic values, government leaders and political education.

3.1

Decentralisation

In your country, who makes the decisions when a new road, for instance, or a new market has to be built or renovated? Is it the local, communal or regional authority, or the central State, that is the minister or the Head of State? Decentralisation means that the administration of a country is not based on the central instances, but to a certain point, decision making processes are entrusted to the basic community (“grass root“). It is then more reasonable to directly make decisions at regional levels where the inhabitants are directly concerned by their impacts. When the government system is organized with the purpose of staying close to the population, the identification of the inhabitants with the instances of their region, which means political participation, can increase. For many people, it is more logical to get committed in politics when they effectively have the possibility to make themselves the decisions that directly concern them. Thus, in the framework of decentralisation, the central government transposes its power and authority to the local and regional structures set up outside the central State: those structures will then be able to plan, decide and manage themselves their own business. These local and regional structures are called regional bodies. At the top of the regional bodies, there are the representatives, elected within the population that live there. Administrative structures exist, parallel to the regional bodies, to represent the central State at local level: they are then managed by State civil servants. The latter represent the central State, control and support the representatives elected locally. Regional bodies are organized according to the following principles:

Affaires are dealt with at the level that corresponds to the body which is the closest to the issues to be addressed. In other words: the solution to a problem is entrusted to subordinate levels, as long as the latter can and are willing to take care of those issues to be addressed. This is the principle of subsidiarity.

Regional bodies are neither administratively subordinated to the central State, nor to its local representatives.

Regional bodies are managed by themselves.

Regional bodies live on population contributions, their decision competence and responsibilities have been transposed.

When a State is decentralized in its structure, this means that the regional bodies take on the decision competence and responsibilities of the population. It is then necessary that they have at their disposal their own financial resources. Decentralization is very useful for the consolidation of democratic structures. It makes the access of the inhabitants to political decisions much easier. It increases the inhabitantsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; motivation to get involved in politics; and this political commitment is probably greater than in countries with centralized organization. In some great countries, like in Madagascar by the way, those who live far from the headquarter of the government and it political structures have no possibility to take part in political life, apart from elections, when there is no regional structure. Nevertheless, decentralization does not mean that the central government is not important. It is exactly the opposite that is true as the government must show enough political will and commitment to be able to establish such a change. Decentralization is not only an administration restructuring, but also a political process of transformation. Apart from the administration, these changes affect all the levels and all the sectors of society. Here are some examples of States with a decentralized organisation: the Federal Republic of Germany, Switzerland, Great Britain and the USA. Madagascar belongs to the group of countries in which centralized organizational structures are part of the tradition, like France and other former French colonies. In these countries, the decentralization process is always torn between centralism and the participation of regional bodies, in a context democracy consolidation. In those countries, the decentralization process is highly politicised, to the detriment of the fact a democratic mode of government is being established.

3.2

Democratic governance

Governance is the exercise of a power or of an authority with the objective of managing the affairs of a State, an organization or a society. Democratic governance, or â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;good governanceâ&#x20AC;&#x153;, is based on the enforcement of the fundamental values of democracy in the power exercise. But what are in fact these fundamental values of democracy? Given the fact that democracy constitutes a conviction, its orientation concerns fundamental values that help human beings to apply democratic transformations and to try to live this democracy. Those fundamental values, among others: justice, equality, solidarity, tolerance, pluralism, the taking into account of the minorities, non-violence, dialogue and negotiations, free community life. Democracy then respects and takes into consideration, as much as possible, the interests of the minorities in the framework of the adoption of majority decisions.

The most important principles of good governance that can be drawn from the fundamental values of democracy are: participation, efficiency, efficacy, sense of responsibility and responsibility, the act of reporting, adaptation capacity, transparency, rule of law and participation. Good governance is always composed of two aspects: -

A socio-political and human dimension that defines, among others, the role and functions, as well as the political participation of the different actors, including the way of thinking, behaviour and leadership style of the leaders;

A technical dimension that defines, among others, norms, administrative and financial procedures, accounting, evaluation indicators etc.

The more the government neglects the socio-political dimension, the more pronounced technocratic tendencies there will be, or even an authoritarian style of government and leadership, which will get citizens, mostly in newborn democracies, to have negative considerations toward their leaders and toward the policies that latter implement. You surely have already understood that good governance is not only based on the State or its leaders, but also on all the actors and all the groups of actors that take part in the democratization and development of the country. The main actors of the system of good governance is then composed of, apart from the (central) State, the regional decentralized bodies, the political parties, the civil society and the private sector as well as the citizens, of course. In a good governance system: -

The roles are clearly defined, well distinguished and balanced among different actors and groups of actors, in the law texts as well as in practice.

The interests of the different actor groups are articulated in decision making.

Leaders are characterized in the exercise of their power by a democratic behaviour and a democratic type of leadership, like the taking into consideration of the fundamental values of democracy, the respect of contrary opinions of others, the taking into consideration of laws and rules in force, tolerance, capacity and good frame of mind for dialogue, discussions, non-violence.

In front of this, citizens and groups of actors are encouraged to express themselves, to take part in the processes of decision making and to control the exercise of power by the leaders in place.

Between the two camps (the State authorities and the other groups of actors), the controlling mechanisms always function well and in a transparent way; the channels of information and communication are fluid and efficient.

There are informal and formal participation structures that function well for consultations, concertations, dialogues and negotiations, in which all citizens and social groups, man and woman, young and old, minorities or majorities can and have the right to participate freely and without any fear.

Political education represents an efficient means fort the institutionalization and interiorization of the fundamental values and other democratic cultural elements.

3.3 Political education Nowadays, commitment can become a crucial problem in our democracies if it is present in the least measure. People also talk about â&#x20AC;&#x153;aversion for politicsâ&#x20AC;?. This means that the majority of the population does not want to take part in politics, to participate in elections or to get committed in anything. We can also talk about a globally negative opinion vis-Ă -vis the political activities and structures. What is this political aversion due to generally? There are several factors that may contribute to it. First of all, the relationship between the voters and the elect can deteriorate when the elect, for example, do not respect laws and conventions, and that as a result, confidence disappears among voters. Moreover, the expectations of the voters can be deceived when the elect do not react at all, or react in an unsatisfactory way to existing issues. Evidence of the deteriorating relationship between the voters and the elect can be noticed with the decreasing number of the political party members, and also a decrease in turnout rate. The latter is particularly problematic because at the same time, the legitimacy of the politicians goes down as well. Secondly, aversion for politics comes up when political education is insufficient whereas political processes are becoming more complex. As we have already described above, the end result is that the population cannot develop personal judgment of its own and is not therefore able to get involved in politics. Thirdly, people get the feeling that the diverse parties do not differ much from each other because of lack of ideas, and so they are not motivated to go to vote. Fourthly, the mass media have a tendency to talk about political events in a negative way, rather than a positive manner. There are always more pleasant reports to read but they are so superficial, at the place of important information. This image is transmitted to the population and blocks the motivation to participate in politics. Fifthly, as they are, rules and institutions have been created in such a way as to complicate population participation. In countries like Madagascar and other African countries that have experienced population movements in the framework of democratic transition, certain parts of the population tend to have bad opinion of leaders because the reforms and transitions requested by those voters and promised during election period have not been realized. Apart from social and economic reforms, there are often fundamental institutional reforms (among others the Constitution, election law, laws ruling the parties, independence of the judiciary, governance, decentralisation, etc.), as well as the change of behaviours in favour of democratic fundamental values and types of leadership. It is mostly those countries that are currently undergoing a democratic transformation process and which can neither take the liberty of having aversion for politics, nor commit civil disobedience; indeed, who would do otherwise than establish democracy and bring social development? In order to strengthen social commitment and awareness of the democratic values, particularly among young democracies, political education is indispensable. Political education can make political culture move toward democracy. But what can you really learn in political education? In addition to the training and the consolidation of awareness regarding democratic values, this is about learning to better know the fundamental structure of politics. Indeed, how would you get committed in politics if you have no information about either the functioning, or about how to get committed? Basic knowledge on the most important questions is transmitted so that people will be able to have a personal idea on the subject. And the same problems come up each time: how would the population draw up and represent their own point of views on some questions if there is no information accessible publicly? It is at this point that you realize very clearly that political education is not yet well valorized. Besides, knowledge on information and the media are transmitted as well.

Political education is, on the one hand, mostly conveyed by the state, by proposing for instance a ‚course on politics at school; but prior to that there is a course on the exercise of power and the leadership style of the members of the State. The latter always represent as many models as regards the application of democratic fundamental values. Secondly, some organizations in the civil society are equally engaged in political education. As a whole, political education transmits basic knowledge on politics. It is used to train people by giving them a basic understanding of politics and some political process. Thanks to this knowledge, they should be able afterwards to develop personal judgment and to get involved in politics. In democracies, political education does not concern only the population as a whole or the youth: it also concerns the whole society, that is to say, the intelligentsia and the elite of the political leaders. In Germany for example, there are “popular universities” and political foundations for that. The Friedrich Ebert Foundation (FES), one of the German political foundations, for example, is devoted to political education in order to convey the spirit of democracy to the ordinary citizens, the leading elite and the future generations, in all the different fields of our existence. Among other things, this foundation organizes, through training seminars, discussion forums and meetings. But a brochure like this one equally contributes to that by informing you and helping you to better understand democracy.

Does the future belong to democracy?

Does all this mean that it is only in democracy that peace, welfare and liberty reign? To answer this question is not that easy. Anyway, it is clear that democracy can bring an important contribution in making citizens feel that it is good to live in a State, to express themselves freely, to know that the economy is thriving and security guaranteed. In this context, it is becoming more and more important that even different States cooperate and make efforts to develop models that are common to their States or to the continent. It is only in this way that wars can be avoided and that anarchy and chaos would not reign. With the help of modern means of communication, no State in the world should leave its citizens in ignorance or in doubt regarding their rights and the freedom that take place in other countries. If it wants to avoid that its citizens try to claim these same rights by means of revolution or coups, it must be ready to allot those to them in advance. There is still a long way to go for all the States in the world to be democratically ruled and for “all authorities to stem from the people“. Many countries, including Madagascar and other African States, undertook important steps as “transition” along the democratization path, toward the end of 80s and the beginning of 90s. The goals of democratization consist in: -

Changing the authority structures of the power and the government;

Creating new procedures, new mechanisms and new forms of social participation, and finally,

In creating the socio-political conditions necessary to social development.

We must not forget that democracy represents a path to development. The democratization process then leads to development, through democracy. The newly created procedures, mechanisms, structures of power and development conditions must evidently be consolidated. The key words in this field are:

The taking into consideration of and the promotion of fundamental freedoms and fundamental rights ;

The democratization of elections;

The promotion of plural media, as well as multipartite systems that function;

The emergence of political cultures and a governance that is based on the democratic values;

Furthering of democracy, and finally,

The promotion of a rapid and sustainable economic growth that takes at the same time into account the social interest ranges of society.

This is the reason why democracy consolidation concerns all interest groups, all population parties as well as all social fields and actors. Democracy requires a permanent participation of the citizens because contrary to autocratic State forms that require the subordination of submitted people, it is only strong, thanks to the strength of responsible citizens. Research outcomes have shown that the young in particular do not feel concerned about politics. It is supposed to be due to, among others, the fact that young people below the age of 18 often have no right to speak/take the floor; consequently, they are not of any interest to politicians, given that they do not represent any vote at the elections. When one has no right to speak, there is obviously a decrease in the motivation to want to get committed at all. However, this is very important because, indeed, it is those young people who can help print their values in society. Furthermore, there are other paths and means to express or materialize oneâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s engagement. Have you ever tried to become a member of an organization? To participate does not necessarily mean that you want to become a politician. In addition to State institutions, a healthy democracy needs a basic structure made up with organizations such as parties, associations and clubs, or initiatives of citizens who support democracy. It is necessary to freely take responsibilities and get involved. If you want to do something, you could for example go to a club or Fokontany meeting, to see what is decided there, and maybe even bring your personal opinion. Or else, you can meet with friends in order to exchange information on political events and discuss these. Participation consists in willingly exercise influence on decision making processes, on whatever field and whatever level that is. It is only in this way that democracy can be built, interiorized and kept alive! You too, and you indeed, are an actor of democracy!

Books, articles and web links -

www.freedomhouse.org

http://www.africa-union.org/About_AU/au_in_a_nutshell.htm

D@dalos: www.dadalos.org

http://www.hsl.ethz.ch/pdfs/2003_4_S17_Papadopoulos.pdf

United Nations Development Programme : Le rôle de la gouvernance et de la décentralisation dans la réduction de la pauvreté. Rapport national sur le développement humain, Madagascar 2000

United Nations Development Programme : Approfondir la démocratie dans un monde fragmenté. Rapport mondial sur le développement humain, Bruxelles 2002.

Merkel, Wolfgang (Hrg.): Systemwechsel 1, Theorien, Ansätze und Konzepten der Transitionsforschung, Opladen 1996

Merkel, Wolfgang / Sandschneider, Eberhard / Segert, Dieter (Hrg.): Systemwechsel 2. Die Institutionalisierung der Demokratie, Opladen 1996

Meyer, Thomas / Breyer, Nicole (Hrg.): The future of social democracy, SAMSKRITI + FES, Bonn 2007

Attachment C

Democratic Constitution Making

Page 47 of 51

UNITED STATES INSTITUTE OF PEACE www.usip.org

SPECIAL REPORT

1200 17th Street NW • Washington, DC 20036 • 202.457.1700 • fax 202.429.6063

ABOUT THE REPORT This report examines the role of constitution making as part of peacemaking, particularly in divided societies, where the process of participatory constitution making may sometimes provide a forum for reconciling divisions, negotiating conflict, and redressing grievances. The report analyzes recent practices of constitution making across the globe and documents the emergence of international human rights norms that recognize the right to public participation in changing or creating a constitution. The author concludes with a reflection on lessons learned and stresses the importance of process as well as outcome in evaluating the final product.

Vivien Hart

Vivien Hart is a professor at the University of Sussex, where she has served since 1991 as the director of the University's Cunliffe Centre for the Study of Constitutionalism and National Identity, an international research network involving scholars and activists from the United Kingdom, Europe, United States, Canada, South Africa, Sri Lanka, and Fiji. Her most recent book, Women Making Constitutions, edited with Alexandra Dobrowolsky, is due out this fall from Palgrave Macmillan. Hart was a senior fellow in the U.S. Institute of Peace's Jennings Randolph Program for International Peace in 2002–2003.

Briefly . . .

The views expressed in this report do not necessarily reflect views of the United States Institute of Peace, which does not advocate specific policies.

SPECIAL REPORT 107

JULY 2003

CONTENTS Constitution Making: Tradition and Innovation Constitution Making for the 21st Century The Importance of Process Participation by Right Practicing Participatory Constitutionalism Women Making Constitutions Lessons for the Constitution-Making Process

2 2 4 5 7 10 11

Democratic Constitution Making • We live in an era of constitution making. Writing a constitution is part of many peace processes. New nations and radically new regimes that seek democratic credentials make writing a constitution a priority. In a changing world, constitutional practice is also changing. Twenty-first century constitutionalism is redefining the long tradition of expert constitution making and bringing it into the sphere of democratic participation. • How the constitution is made, as well as what it says, matters. Process has become equally as important as the content of the final document for the legitimacy of a new constitution. • A right to public participation in democratic governance exists in international law. This right packs a moral punch but it lacks legal teeth and effective enforcement. Does this right extend from everyday governance to the process of constitution making? The United Nations Committee on Human Rights has recognized a specific right to participate in constitution making. • Public participation is often taken to mean voting—for example, electing a constitutional convention or ratifying a constitutional text by referendum. Especially in developing nations in Africa and elsewhere, however, experiments with new forms of participation are attempting to place initiative in the hands of citizens and to create an open constitutional conversation in which the public shares in agenda-setting, content, and ratification. • Genuine public participation requires social inclusion, personal security, and freedom of speech and assembly. A strong civil society, civic education, and good channels of communication between all levels of society facilitate this process. Only a considerable commitment of time and resources will make genuine public participation possible. • A democratic constitution cannot be written for a nation, nor can one be written in haste. “Interim” or “transitional” constitutions that include guarantees for a continuing, open, and inclusive process for the longer term offer one solution to urgent needs for a framework of governance in new, divided, or war-torn nations.

• Participatory constitution making is today a fact of constitutional life as well as a good in itself. Despite challenging difficulties of definition and implementation, a democratic constitution-making process is, in the words of African observer Julius Ivonhbere, “critical to the strength, acceptability, and legitimacy of the final product.”

ABOUT THE INSTITUTE The United States Institute of Peace is an independent, nonpartisan federal institution created by Congress to promote the prevention, management, and peaceful resolution of international conflicts. Established in 1984, the Institute meets its congressional mandate through an array of programs, including research grants, fellowships, professional training, education programs from high school through graduate school, conferences and workshops, library services, and publications. The Institute’s Board of Directors is appointed by the President of the United States and confirmed by the Senate.

BOARD OF DIRECTORS Chester A. Crocker (Chairman), James R. Schlesinger Professor of Strategic Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University • Seymour Martin Lipset (Vice Chairman), Hazel Professor of Public Policy, George Mason University • Betty F. Bumpers, Founder and former President, Peace Links, Washington, D.C. • Holly J. Burkhalter, Advocacy Director, Physicians for Human Rights, Washington, D.C. • Marc E. Leland, Esq., President, Marc E. Leland & Associates, Arlington, Va. • Mora L. McLean, Esq., President, Africa-America Institute, New York, N.Y. • María Otero, President, ACCION International, Boston, Mass. • Barbara W. Snelling, former State Senator and former Lieutenant Governor, Shelburne, Vt. • Harriet Zimmerman, Vice President, American Israel Public Affairs Committee, Washington, D.C.

MEMBERS EX OFFICIO Lorne W. Craner, Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor • Douglas J. Feith, Under Secretary of Defense for Policy • Paul G. Gaffney II, Vice Admiral, U.S. Navy; President, National Defense University • Richard H. Solomon, President, United States Institute of Peace (nonvoting)

Constitution Making: Tradition and Innovation We live in an era of constitution making. Of close to 200 national constitutions in existence today, more than half have been written or re-written in the last quarter century. Constitution making has become a part of many peace processes. New nations and radically new regimes, seeking the democratic credentials that are often a condition for recognition by other nations and by international political, financial, aid, and trade organizations, make writing a constitution a priority. In many cases, both the ways in which constitutions are written and the ideas of sovereignty, citizenship, and rights that are embodied in these foundational documents depart radically from the tradition epitomized by the United States Constitution. In 1787, the new United States of America was the originator and model of traditional constitution making by a hand-picked elite group, and of the constitution as marking a settlement of conflict and inaugurating a new regime of powers and rights. Mainstream scholarship has generally presented the American Constitution as the fixed outcome of a period of nation building and constitution making. Admirers, offering this as an example for others, tend to want to duplicate its perceived virtues: constitution making as an “act of completion,” the constitution as a final settlement or social contract in which basic political definitions, principles, and processes are agreed, as is a commitment to abide by them. Constitution makers today still confront the problem posed by Alexander Hamilton in 1787, of whether “societies . . . are really capable or not of establishing good government from reflection or choice, or whether they are forever destined to depend for their political constitutions on accident and force.” The makers of “new” constitutions do not seek to throw the entire tradition onto the scrap heap. Constitutions remain higher law, specify the institutions of governance, define the rights, duties, and relationships of state and citizens, and set the tone or establish the identity of the nation-state. Onto this traditional foundation, however, today’s framers seek to build new practices. Recent constitution-making processes have been accompanied by massive efforts to involve the public before, during, and after the text is finalized. Examples of new practice include: prior agreement on broad principles as a first phase of constitution making; an interim constitution to create space for longer term democratic deliberation; civic education and media campaigns; the creation and guarantee of channels of communication, right down to local discussion forums; elections for constitution-making assemblies; open drafting committees aspiring to transparency of decision making; and approval by various combinations of representative legislatures, courts, and referendums. There is no simple transition to a new constitutionalism. Control of the process and of the ultimate distribution of power is at stake and participatory constitution making remains highly controversial. Constitution making has not been made easier, and by no means all of these innovations, nor of the constitutions that result, have been successful. But the process does move incrementally closer to the needs of the present day.

Constitution Making for the 21st Century Alexander Hamilton’s still-open question remains central to prospects for a peaceful and democratic world. In the 21st century, proof of our capacity for living together and sharing in good government is not only ever more urgently needed but also requires—and 2

is generating—creative thinking about the making and content of present-day “political constitutions.” Constitutional experimentation in many new and newly democratic nations challenges older constitutional democracies to rethink their own practice and to engage in a process of mutual learning about the contribution of constitution making to conflict transformation and sustainable peace. A nation confident in a stable future of internal harmony and agreed purpose is not (if it ever was) the typical site of constitution making today. A changed world calls the utility of the traditional model of the constitution into question. Consider how high a bar that traditional model of an act of completion sets to establishing and legitimating constitutions in situations of conflict. Yet making a traditional constitution is seen by many as essential to the establishment of post-conflict governance by providing a framework to manage diversity and ensure stability. The late 20th century has seen nations, old and young, that are deeply divided, often to the point of violence. Nation-states, defined by established boundaries and the sole possession of sovereignty, have been challenged from inside by claims for selfdetermination or secession, and from without by the proliferation of transnational political or economic treaties and powers with global reach. At the same time, successful economic and social development have been declared, as in the 1993 Vienna Declaration of the United Nations that now frames development and human rights policy, to go hand in hand with democratization. Meanwhile around the world many marginalized groups— indigenous peoples; the poor; racial, ethnic, and language identity groups; and, cutting across all social categories, women—have demanded inclusion, political participation, and power sharing. Conflicts over the identities, powers, and rights of groups seem almost endemic, and, as such conflicts reproduce themselves in the form of new identities and claims, are likely to be a permanent feature of 21st century polities. The nature of many modern conflicts makes a final resolution hard to reach. In such circumstances, finding a way of living together within major disagreement is the more modest goal. Traditional constitution making as a conclusion of conflict and codification of a settlement that intends permanence and stability can seem to threaten rather than reassure. Citizens who actively reject a final act of closure seek instead assurances that constitution making will not freeze the present distribution of power into place for the long term, nor exclude the possibility of new participants and different outcomes. To imagine a constitutional settlement under which diverse and disagreeing groups can live, while continuing to engage in a freely accessible debate about that settlement itself, is a challenging proposition. The tension between the security and stability offered by the traditional ideal of constitutionalism and the flexibility called for by new circumstances is what places process at the heart of the new constitutionalism. A permanently open process must itself satisfy qualitative standards that were previously applied only to the outcome of constitution making. We used to think of a constitution as a contract, negotiated by appropriate representatives, concluded, signed, and observed. The constitution of new constitutionalism is, in contrast, a conversation, conducted by all concerned, open to new entrants and issues, seeking a workable formula that will be sustainable rather than assuredly stable. It is in such an environment of conversational constitutionalism that the issue (startling to some traditionalists) of a right to participate in making a constitution has arisen. The idea is hotly contested by those who argue that only elites in modern societies possess the moderation, technical expertise, negotiating skills, ability to maintain confidentiality, and above all rational incentives to compromise so as to maintain power that make for effective constitution making. But it is hard to argue against democracy. The elite-made constitution, according to the new paradigm, will lack the crucial cultural element of legitimacy. It will do so because the process, not just the final text, is seen as flawed. A democratic constitution is no longer simply one that establishes democratic 3

We live in an era of constitution making. Of close to 200 national constitutions in existence today, more than half have been written or re-written in the last quarter century.

Traditional constitution making as a . . . codification of a settlement that intends permanence and stability can seem to threaten rather than reassure.

There is a moral claim to participation, according to the norms of democracy.

governance. It is also a constitution that is made in a democratic process. There is thus a moral claim to participation, according to the norms of democracy. A claim of necessity for participation is based on the belief that without the general sense of “ownership” that comes from sharing authorship, today’s public will not understand, respect, support, and live within the constraints of constitutional government. Whether there is also a legal right to participate, for whom, and what all of this means in practical terms, are also key issues for modern constitutionalism, whose reputation and effectiveness depend upon democracy in its process as well as its outcome. Experiments with public participation in the process of making constitutions are a striking feature of “new constitutionalism.” It is with such issues of process that this report is concerned.

The Importance of Process Norms of democratic procedure, transparency, and accountability that are applied to daily political decision making are now also demanded for constitutional deliberations.

Canada has taken a significant step towards opening the constitutional settlement to full democratic discussion.

How the constitution is made, as well as what it says, matters. One of the most striking innovations in the constitution-making practice of recent decades is that norms of democratic procedure, transparency, and accountability that are applied to daily political decision making are now also demanded for constitutional deliberations. Is this window dressing with democratic rhetoric, or can new ideas and practices make a difference? A study in contrasts in North American constitutionalism illustrates the radical changes in attitude to constitution making involved. No one would expect an 18th century process to match the standards of the 21st century. Nor would anyone describe the making of the American Constitution in 1787 as a democratic exemplar for today. Yet constitution making in the United States offers an important lesson. Scholars have recently reflected on Article V of the U.S. Constitution, the provision for constitutional amendment, as an admission by the framers of the likely imperfection of the Constitution and a permission to work within its frame to adjust its terms (see especially Sanford Levinson’s edited volume, Responding to Imperfection, published in 1995). Yet the limitations of the amending process are considerable. The fact that the wishes and needs of indigenous peoples and African Americans were originally considered irrelevant, and that those of women were considered to be represented by men, left the American polity with long-term problems. When newly assertive groups eventually demanded recognition, finding solutions was hampered by the necessity of acting within the constitutional framework, drafting amendments and litigation according to a text set apart, a foundational document outside the bounds of regular politics. The Constitution is subject to special and especially difficult procedures for amendment and the language of constitutional law is arcane. Thus even the first step for excluded groups, entry to the constitutional debate, has never been easy. Gaining each amendment or new interpretation has typically involved a decades-long struggle for piecemeal reform. Facing a similar upsurge of claims for constitutional recognition, Canada has taken a significant step towards opening the constitutional settlement to full democratic discussion. No less a body than the Canadian Supreme Court has endorsed democratic process, in its advice on the constitutional position of a potential act of secession by the province of Quebec. The Court’s 1998 decision regarding the Reference re Secession of Quebec defined democracy as a core Canadian constitutional principle. This meant, the court declared, “that a functioning democracy required a continuous process of discussion.” The court noted further that “no one has a monopoly on truth,” a fact implying a duty to listen to “dissenting voices” and to seek “to acknowledge and address those voices,” even when the most basic unity of the nation was at stake. The Canadian Constitution, the court concluded, “gives expression to this principle [of democracy] by conferring a right to initiate constitutional change on each participant” and imposing “a corresponding duty . . . to engage in constitutional discussions in order to acknowledge and address democratic expressions of a desire for change.” The Canadian Supreme Court decision is a summation 4

of new constitutionalism, of constitution making as a process rather than a once-and-forall defining moment, and of democratic re-negotiation as the heart of a politics of recognition and inclusion. The Canadian Constitution is defined as a forum for a historically continuous discussion of the identity of the Canadian nation. In other words, participatory constitution making has become one criterion of a legitimate process. Where the premise of constitutionalism as conversation is taken on board, constitution making can no longer be confined exclusively to the domain of “high politics” and negotiations among elites who draft texts behind closed doors. In the context of a traditional constitution, presumed to stand above and to structure democratic politics, the extension of democratic process to include free, open, and responsive discussion of the constitutional settlement itself represents a radical departure, but one that attempts to overcome the problems of entry of new participants and of an equal voice for all concerned regardless of their expertise.

The extension of democratic process . . . attempts to overcome the problems of entry of new participants and of an equal voice for all concerned regardless of their expertise.

Participation by Right It is easy to say that public participation in constitution making is desirable. But this remains a matter of opinion and matters of opinion are hard to enforce. A right to public participation in constitution making creates a stronger ground on which to stand. Major international rights instruments and national constitutions do grant a general right to democratic participation, although one that is lacking legal teeth and effective enforcement. However, the extension of the right to participate to constitution making, breaching traditional assumptions that the constitution-making process stands outside normal democratic activities, has been contested. For a long time, even general democratic participation has been considered at best to be an “emerging right,” in the words of an influential article on “The Emerging Right to Democratic Governance,” by international law professor Thomas M. Franck (published in the American Journal of International Law for 1992). But the formal endorsement of democracy does pack a moral punch and its diffusion in international conventions and new national constitutions supports expectations that it should be observed in constitution-making processes. And recent developments have given participation in constitution making a textual authority in international law that greatly strengthens its status. These occur in a decision of the United Nations Committee on Human Rights (UNCHR) acting in its judicial capacity, and in a General Comment from the same source, both interpreting the right granted in the United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as extending to constitution making. The right to participate in constitution making might logically be derived from the general meaning of “democratic participation” in the UN Declaration of Human Rights (1948, Article 21) and especially Article 25 of the ICCPR (a covenant agreed in 1966 and entered into force in 1976). Article 25 establishes a right to participate in public affairs, to vote, and to have access to public service: “Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity . . . without unreasonable restrictions: (a) to take part in the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of the will of the electors; (c) to have access, on general terms of equality, to public service in his country.” Later UN conventions and declarations against race and gender discrimination and on the rights of minorities make similar promises. Regional and transnational declarations such as the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (1981, Article 13.1), the Asian Charter of Rights (1998, Article 5.2), and the Inter-American Democratic Charter (2001) all declare a general right to political participation to be a fundamental principle. As international lawyer Gregory H. Fox noted in a volume edited with Brad R. Roth, Democratic Governance and International Law (2000), at the start this “modest approach 5

Recent developments have given participation in constitution making a textual authority in international law that greatly strengthens its status.

“Citizens also participate directly in the conduct of public affairs when they choose or change their constitution.”

to democratization” generally “focused on electoral processes.” But successive documents and judicial interpretations have gradually expanded the content of participation itself, the arenas of participation, and the accompanying penumbra of rights (including political equality, freedom of speech and association, and rights to inclusion and equality) that genuine participation presupposes. Along the way, the meaning of the ICCPR phrase, “to take part in the conduct of public affairs,” has increasingly been explored to discover what those open-ended terms, “take part” and “public affairs,” might mean. In the course of this process of definition, two documentary sources have joined the record and now ground the international right to participate in constitution making. Remarkably well-hidden in the body of UN political rights doctrine, these can be described as both under-used to date, and also ripe for development. The first is a ruling in 1991 from the UNCHR, acting in its judicial capacity to hear individual complaints under Optional Protocol I to the ICCPR. Marshall v. Canada (Human Rights Committee, CCPR/C/43/D/205/1986, 3 December 1991), a case brought in 1986 and decided five years later, first authorized a specific right to participate in constitution making as an undoubted part of public affairs. Leaders of the Mikmaq tribal society made the claim against the Canadian government that exclusion from direct participation in a series of constitutional conferences “infringed their right to take part in the conduct of public affairs, in violation of article 25(a) of the covenant [the ICCPR].” The UNCHR ruled that: “At issue in the present case is whether the constitutional conferences constituted a “conduct of public affairs. . . [and] the committee cannot but conclude that they do indeed constitute a conduct of public affairs”(italics added). Winning only a pyrrhic victory, the Mikmaq people learned that while there was indeed such a right to participate in constitution making there had been no infringement in their case. Thus the Mikmaq people’s efforts, while gaining legal standing for the right to participate in constitution making, also succeeded in establishing a major limitation to the practical value of the legal right. The UNCHR also ruled that: “It is for the legal and constitutional system of the state party to provide for the modalities of such participation,” and “Article 25(a) of the covenant cannot be understood as meaning that any directly affected group, large or small, has the unconditional right to choose the modalities of participation in public affairs. That, in fact, would be an extrapolation of the right to direct participation by the citizens, far beyond the scope of Article 25(a).” Although the Mikmaq leaders stated that their submissions through an intermediary body had never even been laid on the table, the UNCHR found the Canadian provisions for the representation of “approximately 600 aboriginal groups” by “four national associations,” and later by “a ‘panel’ of up to 10 aboriginal leaders,” adequate to meet the requirements of Article 25. The second UNCHR textual authority is found in its General Comment on Article 25 of the ICCPR, the right to participation, issued on July 12, 1996. First, the key importance of Article 25’s general right to participation is underlined: “Whatever form of constitution or government is in force, the covenant requires states . . . to ensure that citizens have an effective opportunity to enjoy the rights it protects. Article 25 lies at the core of democratic government.” The General Comment then declares decisively: “Citizens also participate directly in the conduct of public affairs when they choose or change their constitution” (italics added). Although the prevailing opinion is that a General Comment is authoritative but not binding in law, this unequivocal statement, coupled with the earlier judicial precedent, undoubtedly does place participatory constitutionalism on a newly secure footing. Like Marshall v. Canada, the General Comment lacks any specification of what a participatory constitution-making process would look like. But unlike most of the international conventions that preceded it, as well as the very limited notion of representation in Marshall v. Canada, the General Comment does explicitly expand the scope of democratic participation beyond the act of voting. Assemblies and accountable representation, referenda and electoral decision making, “public debate and dialogue,” and citizens’ 6

“capacity to organize themselves” are all identified as modes of participation. Thus the support in international law for a right to participate in constitution making is, inch by inch, gaining footing and expanding in scope. In the meantime, the practice of participatory constitution making in many parts of the world is running ahead of the international rulebook.

The practice of participatory constitution making in many parts of the world is running ahead of the international rulebook.

Practicing Participatory Constitutionalism Public participation is often taken to mean voting, as for example electing a constitutional convention or ratifying a constitutional text by a referendum. As we saw earlier, Canada provided one early example of groups from outside the closed circle demanding to join the constitution making process. But especially in developing nations in Africa and elsewhere, experiments with new structures and forms of participation are attempting to develop an open process that places initiative in the hands of citizens and creates a constitutional conversation. In many cases, rather than working within the framework of an existing body of procedures and precedents, these nations are starting with a clean slate. Canada’s clean slate was the process of writing a new Charter of Rights and Freedoms, ratified in 1982. Canadian constitutionalism since the 18th century had been shaped by conflict, especially the search for reconciliation of francophone and anglophone interests and for a status for Quebec that would recognize its distinctive identity without giving it special privileges. In the early 1980s, women mobilized to insist that their interests be fully represented. Canadian first nations also seized the moment to claim a special status in Canadian governance. The constitutional conversation had broadened and deepened long before the open-ended discussion of diversity was endorsed as a principle by the Supreme Court. But we do not need to look only to the older western liberal democracies for new standards. The recent record of constitution making elsewhere abounds with experiments in public participation. Just a few examples suffice to illustrate the widespread adoption of new and open processes. In 1986, the Nicaraguan National Assembly invited comment on the draft of a new constitution. Some 100,000 citizens took part in open town meetings, forwarding 4,300 suggestions. In 1988, constitution makers in Uganda and Brazil requested suggestions before, as well as comment after, the drafting process, with equally impressive levels of response. In 1994, the South African Constitutional Assembly encouraged a nation of first-time voters to participate in the constitution-making process with the slogan: “You’ve made your mark, now have your say.” Polls estimated that 73 percent of South Africans were reached by the assembly’s campaign. The public made two million submissions. Between 1994 and 1997, Eritreans engaged in constitutional education and consultation, addressing a nation with markedly low literacy rates through songs, poems, stories, and plays in vernacular languages, and using radio and mobile theatre to reach local communities. In 2002, members of the Rwanda drafting commission and thousands of trained assistants fanned out to spend six months in the provinces, so that constitutional education and discussion could become an integral part of community life. In 2003, the constitution review process in Kenya is operating under a statutory requirement that Kenyans have every opportunity to participate. The goal, as the Kenyan Commission claimed, is “a people-driven review process whose final product will be a people-owned constitution.” The South African Constitution of 1996 is widely regarded as a model constitutional text. Likewise, the process by which it was made has been hailed as a key part of the successful transition from the oppression of apartheid to a democratic society. The following features of the South African process illustrate the context and challenges of democratic constitution making and set the context for evaluating its general potential and problems. In all, it took seven years, from 1989 to 1996, to achieve the final constitution. 7

Especially in developing nations in Africa and elsewhere, experiments with new structures and forms of participation are attempting to develop an open process that places initiative in the hands of citizens.

The South African Constitution of 1996 is widely regarded as a model constitutional text.

The South African process took time. It was phased. It benefited from an interim constitution that allowed the dialogue of transition to continue.

Almost five years elapsed between the first meeting of Nelson Mandela and Prime Minister P. W. Botha in 1989 and agreement on an interim constitution and the first nonracial election in 1994. Throughout these years, outbreaks of violence threatened the process. In a key phase from 1990 to 1994, agreements on process were negotiated in private and public sessions between former adversaries. These included a 1990 agreement to negotiate about constitutional negotiations; prolonged arguments from 1991 through 1992 about the form the constitution-making process should take; agreement in April 1993 on procedures; and in December 1993 agreement on an interim constitution including principles and procedures binding on the final constitution-making process. In April 1994, the first non-racial election for parliament was held with a voter turnout of about 86 percent. The following month, the new parliament met for the first time as the Constitutional Assembly. From 1994 through 1996 the South African process became a full-scale demonstration of participatory constitution making. Until that time, the public had had no direct role in constitution making. Now their elected representatives in the assembly reached out to educate them and invite their views. The educational effort included a media and advertising campaign using newspapers, radio and television, billboards, and the sides of buses; an assembly newspaper with a circulation of 160,000; cartoons; a web site; and public meetings; together these efforts reached an estimated 73 percent of the population. From 1994 through 1996 the Constitutional Assembly received two million submissions, from individuals and many advocacy groups, professional associations, and other interests. In the final phase from 1994 through 1996, in tandem with the participatory campaign, committees of the assembly drafted a new constitution within the parameters attached to the 1994 interim constitution; a first working draft was published in November 1995, leaving aside 68 issues for further work; a revised draft was produced in April 1996; and a final text in May 1996. From July through September 1996 the Constitutional Court reviewed the text; the court then returned the text to the assembly for amendments, which were made in October. In November, the court gave its final certification and in December, President Mandela signed the constitution into law. The South African process took time. It was phased. It benefited from an interim constitution that allowed the dialogue of transition to continue. Participation was invited at a chosen moment rather than throughout and then creativity and resources were committed to facilitating a serious dialogue. Trust that the outcome would be consistent with the 1994 democratic principles was created by the continuation of the conversation between judicial certification and parliamentary confirmation. As in Canada, groups including women and traditional authorities found voice and access and made sure that their interests were taken into account. Also important was the fact that South Africa had a pre-existing civil society that could be drawn in as a counterweight to the entrenched racial and partisan divisions of politics. Other important factors that sustained the formal process include patience, especially in the face of violence; a willingness by all concerned to take some bold steps; and a combination of negotiation in private over some of the most difficult issues and unprecedented public involvement. For comparison, let us look at the recent Rwandan process, promised by the Arusha Peace Accord of 1999, with the main phase of constitution making implemented in 2002 and completed by a referendum in May 2003. The Action Plan of the Constitutional Commission elected by the National Assembly (it can be found in full at www.cjcr.gov.rw) required, in sequence, in its own words: • The training and sensitization of the population about the Constitution; • The consultation of the population on the content of the Constitution; • The writing and validation of the draft text of the Constitution; • The referendum on the text of the Constitution as approved by Parliament. 8

The budget for these activities ran to about US$7 million, the 12 commissioners spent six months participating in local programs and debates, and in the final referendum almost 90 percent of the electorate voted, with 93 percent of those voting approving the new constitution. Notably, public participation was initiated even before a constitutional text was drafted. Again, the process was carefully staged, the commitment of time and resources was considerable, and participation was not simply structured on existing party lines. The Rwandan process, as too the current Kenyan process, also suggests another characteristic of these creatively participatory processes. Constitutional re-visioning comes into play when the alternative is unsustainable or too dire to contemplate, whether that be dictatorial oppression, violence, or genocide. A democratic constitution-making process contributes to making peace because the prerequisite of any livable alternative to the horrors many nations have experienced is that all parties are willing to try to keep talking about their disagreements. Using words that echo Alexander Hamilton’s, quoted above, philosopher Stuart Hampshire concluded in his recent book, Justice Is Conflict (2000): “Because there will always be conflicts between conceptions of the good, . . . there is everywhere a well-recognized need for procedures of conflict resolution, which can replace brute force and domination and tyranny.” The quality of the process as a means of conflict transformation lies in ensuring that all who have views and grievances have an effective voice, that participation is genuine and not a charade. Constitution making is essentially about the distribution of power. Unsurprisingly, the idealism of the innovations described above must be tempered with realism about who is really in charge. In both South Africa and Rwanda, political elites initiated the process of constitutional change, provided the personnel for the key institutions, and framed the educational campaigns. Official ambivalence and continuing attempts to block the process in Kenya reveal how a participatory process initiated from perceived political necessity can threaten an elite with loss of control and incur their resistance. At the most cynical extreme, a determined elite or one that is confident of its continuing control may offer a participatory process as a charade, a democratic hoax intended to mollify unrest by granting the appearance of democracy without its substance. The achievements of participatory constitution making, then, are not to be romanticized. Zimbabwe’s recent experience provides a cautionary tale. In 1997 civil society groups and the political opposition formed an umbrella organization that pressed for a constitution-making process and insisted that this be conducted on participatory lines. In 1999, President Robert Mugabe reluctantly established a commission that was instructed to produce a draft constitution with the fullest public consultation. On paper, the official Observer Mission of the Center for Democracy and Development (CDD, a London- and Lagos- based non-governmental organization) reported a model process: public hearings, an outreach program of town hall meetings and other community activities, a multilingual media campaign, scientific polling, an international conference. Their report (The Zimbabwe Constitutional Referendum, published in 2000) estimates that “the commission received about 7000 written submissions, held more than 4000 meetings nationwide and interacted directly in public meetings with more than half a million people.” But behind the formal facts lay a manipulative process. The appointed commission was controlled by the president’s party; only 13 percent were women. Bitter partisan disputes, intimidation, and violence erupted. The commission’s draft constitution was sent to President Mugabe without any opportunity for further public comment. He quickly forwarded it for a referendum vote without possibility of amendment. In February 2000, the electorate rejected the draft constitution by 54 to 46 percent. Immediately after the vote Lewis Machipisa editorialized in Africa News that this “‘no’ vote is also a ‘no’ vote against the arrogance that we experienced from the government. They didn’t treat us as people who mattered.” A survey reported by Masipula Sithole and Charles Mangongera in the journal Agenda in March 2001 found that 43 percent of “no” voters believed that “most people rejected the draft constitution because it did not fully take into account the expressed wishes of the people.” As the CDD concluded, “a flawed 9

Constitution making is essentially about the distribution of power.

A determined elite or one that is confident of its continuing control may offer a participatory process as a charade, a democratic hoax intended to mollify unrest.

Zimbabwe’s recent experience provides a cautionary tale.

process could only produce a flawed product.” The process, CDD reported, was stacked, lacked transparency, was short on education and on translations from English, was rushed (taking a mere 10 months all told), and ultimately lacked credibility. The only recourse for frustrated Zimbabweans was the negative one of voting down the entire document.

Women Making Constitutions Participatory constitution making . . . has often provided an opportunity for women to gain representation in process and outcome.

Women’s presence across all party lines and demographic categories sometimes enables them to unite, or to resolve disputes across otherwise sharp dividing lines.

One further characteristic of the practice of participatory constitution making is visible in many of these accounts, yet has received little concerted comment. The pressure to resolve conflict through constitutional conversation has often come from long-term disagreements, conflicts, and wars over some combination of racial, ethnic, and territorial boundaries. Where participatory constitution making has offered a forum for reconciling division and redressing grievances, it has often also provided an opportunity for women to gain representation in process and outcome. Indeed, women have at times been instrumental in demanding such a constitutional opening, where governance or social conditions have previously made free entry difficult or silenced their voices. In Nicaragua in 1986 women’s effectiveness was a matter of comment by seasoned observer Andrew Reding. He reported in his article “By the People,” published in Christianity and Crisis: “The women stunned everyone. Hundreds of them took turns denouncing the language of the first constitutional draft. This in spite of the fact that the draft was already strong on women’s rights.” Ugandan women mobilized to participate in the 10-year constitution-making process; the constitution that came into force in 1996 was described by Oliver Furley and James Katalikawe (in African Affairs for 1997) as outstanding in “the degree to which it attempts to promote and protect the rights of women.” In 1992–93, Cambodia, in a constitution-making process assisted by the United Nations as a way forward from a violent past, provided one of many examples of women’s important role in newly open processes. Women comprised 63 percent of the Cambodian population, and, Stephen P. Marks reported in a paper prepared in 2003 for the U.S. Institute of Peace project on Constitution Making, Peacebuilding, and National Reconciliation, a women's movement emerged that demanded a role in making Cambodia’s new constitution: “During a four-day National Women's Summit, . . . 109 women from eight provinces spoke out on this issue. One of the organizers . . . said, ‘We want to participate at all levels of policymaking, including drafting the new constitution.’ ” Thus South African women had precedents to follow when they called for (and won) a presence on the crucial drafting committees there, strong guarantees of gender equality, and protections against discrimination. In Rwanda as in Cambodia, in the wake of destructive civil war, women again comprised a large majority of the population. Three of the twelve commissioners in Rwanda were women, as were seven of twenty-nine Constitution Review commissioners in Kenya. Participatory constitution making is by definition inclusive. Yet in few nations do women, in the words of the ICCPR, “take part in the conduct of public affairs” on an equal basis with men. Women are usually demographically a majority, the more so in some post-conflict nations where the loss of male lives or the flight of males has grossly skewed the ratio. As democratization and development have become linked in international programs, women’s education, social contribution, and political participation have been identified as important to success. The institutionalization of an international women’s movement and opportunities for networking and sharing experience through events such as the United Nations’ World Conferences on Women have provided motivation and support to women to seek out the formative moment of constitution making in order to ensure gender fairness in any new regime. Furthermore, women’s presence across all party lines and demographic categories sometimes enables them to unite, or to resolve disputes across otherwise sharp dividing lines, as the Northern Ireland Women’s Coalition is credited with having done on several occasions in the negotiation for and implementation of the Belfast Agreement of 1998. 10

Women are not primarily responsible for the initiation of participatory practices, whose origins are multiple—in human rights debates, in democratization movements, in anti-colonial movements structured on democratic lines, and other places. Women may, however, both particularly benefit from constitutional change, with its opportunities for inclusion, and support and encourage the expansion of participatory methods. Fiona Mackay and others, in a forthcoming essay (in Women Making Constitutions, edited by Alexandra Dobrowolsky and Vivien Hart, October 2003) offer evidence that women in politics on the whole display “a more outward looking and collective orientation,” and will emphasize “establishing a dialogue based on evidence and prior preparation.” We may learn from such evidence that women bring attitudes and experience highly appropriate to democratic constitution making and that their increasing participation will give impetus and depth to developing practice.

Lessons for the Constitution-Making Process At its best, participatory constitutionalism works and counteracts the arguments in support of elite negotiation as the sole effective mode. At its worst, as in Zimbabwe, it provides only another guise for the exercise of raw power. In Zimbabwe, the public saw through the hoax and responded by negating the process with a “no” vote in the referendum of 2000. For vulnerable citizens to have some recourse other than such a negative response, however, internal contextual factors including a strong civil society or external factors such as an international right and/or an international enforcement mechanism are means of empowerment. Genuine public participation requires social inclusion, personal security, and freedom of speech and assembly. A strong civil society, civic education, and good channels of communication between all levels of society further facilitate the process. Only a considerable commitment of time and resources makes genuine public participation possible. Even if we count South Africa’s starting point as the moment of agreement in 1991 to negotiate the process, constitution making in that highly successful case took at least five years. Many would argue that the process was underway at least two years before that, from the moment leaders began tentative approaches across the racial divide; clearly, part of the process is the building of an adequate level of trust between elites and among the general public to enable a constitutional conversation to take place at all. Modes of participation vary considerably—there is no one model appropriate to all nations. South Africa elected a parliament that acted as the Constitutional Assembly. Rwanda elected a legislative assembly that itself then elected a Constitutional Commission. Both nations sought out public opinion through a variety of channels, used media imaginatively, and devised materials to make constitutional issues accessible in multiple languages to their populations regardless of levels of literacy. The public were not involved equally at all stages of the South African and other processes. While South Africans could follow the progress of public negotiations up to 1994, some absolutely critical deadlocks along the way were resolved in secret meetings. The entire public was first invited to take part in the 1994 election, the most conventional form of participation. But in the South African context, where most of the population had previously been excluded on racial grounds, this was a momentous act. Approximately 86 percent of the population voted. The number of voters, as well as the number of submissions to the Constitutional Assembly, confirm that the public will participate where they see the issues and outcomes as important. Literacy and language are only two of the factors that have operated to exclude groups and individuals from constitution making in the past. Participatory processes have worked to overcome these two factors as well as racial and ethnic exclusions and have been notable in some nations for the new participation of indigenous peoples and in most cases for the very visible inclusion of women. 11

Genuine public participation requires social inclusion, personal security, and freedom of speech and assembly.

For more information on this topic, see our web site (www.usip.org), which has an online edition of this report containing links to related web sites, as well as additional information on the subject.

A democratic constitution cannot be written for a nation, nor can one be written in haste without breaching the requirements of democratic process.

Process has joined outcome as a necessary criterion for legitimating a new constitution.

United States Institute of Peace 1200 17th Street NW Washington, DC 20036

www.usip.org

Participation is now promoted as both a right and a necessity. The right is established in international declarations and conventions adopted by most nations, as well as in many recent national constitutions. The necessity stems in part from the forceful advocacy of democracy as the sole model for legitimate governance in a would-be “new world order.” Ironically, older nations in the western liberal tradition from which such calls have come have not often themselves extended the idea of democratic governance to constitution making. Participatory constitution making is a practice with growing momentum, which has produced some remarkably innovative processes that have helped a “process-driven constitutionalism” to evolve and have changed perspectives on what makes a constitution legitimate. Participatory constitution making is backed by an international norm and an emerging legal right. But we are far from any agreed set of standards that would both satisfy the advocates of “authentic” participation and be enforceable in law. The call for participation as a right will not go away—the effort for constitution makers must be to find ways to clarify, implement, and enforce the most effective processes and those most appropriate for each nation that embarks on this key task of democratic governance. Despite efforts at external intervention, a democratic constitution cannot be written for a nation, nor can one be written in haste without breaching the requirements of democratic process. “Interim” or “transitional” constitutions with guarantees for a continuing, open, and inclusive process for the longer term offer one solution to urgent needs for a framework of governance in new, divided, or war-torn nations. Participatory constitution making is today a fact of constitutional life as well as a good in itself. Despite challenging difficulties of definition and implementation, a democratic constitution-making process is, in the words of African observer Julius Ivonhbere, “critical to the strength, acceptability, and legitimacy of the final product.” Much of the experience outlined here suggests that this is all easy to say but still hard to come by. But the idea of constitution making as an open-ended conversation between all the members of a political community, rather than as the legal and expert drafting of a contract by a technically qualified elite on behalf of the nation, no longer lurks only on the fringes of democratic theory. In many parts of the world, participatory constitution making is more than just an aspiration, it is an emergent international right and an experimental practice. Process has joined outcome as a necessary criterion for legitimating a new constitution: how the constitution is made, as well as what it says, matters.

Page 48 of 51

Notes ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ ______________________________________________________________________________

Page 49 of 51

Page 50 of 51

Page 51 of 51