Governance and Public Policy_Romal Sinaga_Different Types of Democracy

Presented By : Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga

Student ID. 210xxxx

On 16 May 2012

Master of Public Policy

Flinders University, South Australia

Different types of Democracy –Implication on accountable decision making and Good

Governance

Outline of Presentation

Background

Theoretical Approach

Critical Analysis

References

Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga

Democracy

Comes from the Greek language and means ‘rule by the (simple) people’.

U.S. President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracy as: ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’

The former British prime minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) : ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time’

(Source : http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html)

Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga

Background

Contd..

Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy

DEMOCRACYKey Elements

Guarantee Basic of Human

Rights

Religious Liberty

Equal Right to Vote (One person, One

Vote)

Separations of Power: Executive,

Legislative, Judicative

Freedom of Opinion

There are three basic models of democracy : (1) Direct Democracy, (2) Representative Democracy, (3) Marxism and One Party Democracy (Held, 1995).

Pierre & Peter (2000) argued the challenges of governance by using scenario 3 such as Communitarianism, Deliberation, and Direct Democracy.

So, the question is related to how the implications of the different faces of democracy on accountable decision / policy making and good governance?

Equal before the Law

Representative Democracy


Jeremy Bentham (1843 , cited in Held 1995) : Representative democracy ‘has for its characteristic object and effect … securing its member against oppression and depredation at the hands of those fuctionaries which it employs for its defence’.

James Madison (1966, cited in Held 1995) : Representative as a chief mechanism to aggregate individuals’ interests and to protect their rights. Government as a means for the enhancement of these interests.

Liberal or representative democracy means that ‘decisions affecting a community are taken not by its members as a whole, but by sub-group of ‘representatives’ who have been elected by the ‘people’ to govern within the framework of the rule of the law (Held, 1995).

Representative democracy, based on voting (general election) in a representative to act on behalf of the people. This is applied by most countries in the world including Indonesia.

STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES

• Creating the key institutional innovation to overcome the problem of balancing coercive power and liberty.(Held, 1995)

• Recognising the political equality of all mature individuals, ensuring a secure social environment and a state would do what was best in public interest (political representatives accountable to an electrorate) (Held, 1995).

• Covering the big size of nation or state area (geographical and social spce) (Pierre & Peters, 2000, pp. 141).

• Overall impact on policy influence is small (Hyden et al, 2004). It does not permit average citizens to exert adequate influence over policy decisions (Pierre & Peters, 2000, pp. 139).

• Short-Term Focus : Regular elections encourage short-term thinking by elected officials and discourage the development of long-term public policy solutions to existing problems. Further, the frequent elections (national, state,local levels) may cause voter fatigue (Hall, eHow.com)

•Accountability is low, people are difficult to exercise control over representatives (Hyden et al, 2004)




The findings of the lowest accountability score in countries which applied representative democracy (such as Indonesia, India, Chile, Peru and Argentina) are associated with the difficulties of voters to control their representatives and general lack of trust in elected representatives (Hyden et all, 2004).

Liberals and neo liberals argued that representative democracy provides a way to enhance governance. But they do not agree on how democracy should be organised. They debate whether liberal representative democracy is adequate, because voting for politicians does not lead to active engagement in civil society and the scale of large liberal democracies can be such that diverse subgroups or specific interest groups can become alienated (McIntryre, 2011)

Representative model is no longer a proper approach to achieve the accountability in policy or decision making and good governance.

Communitarianism


The governance status quo is represented by communitarianism which emerges as political philosophy and a set of more practical recommendation about how to manage public problems (Etzioni 1995, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000)

The basic tenet of communitarianism is that large-scale society and government have outlined much of their utility and they need to be replaced by smaller units of governing. The more appropriate basis for governing is considered to be the ‘community’, although this term itself is open to some interpretation. In this view some of the basic mechanisms of governance by political means are not incorrect; the difficulty is with the scale on which those devices are being implemented. Large-scale decision making, it is argued, forces the same sort of individualism associated with economic models of policy; individuals need to have their self-interested modulated by less selfish commitments to community (Pierre & Peters 2000, pp.139).

Communitarianism based on building social capital, using localized decision making. Robert Putnam (2000) defines social capital as ‘connections among individuals – social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’. He emphasised that norms, trust, and networks could enhance the efficiency in society.

Communitarism can be understood as a movement in opposition to the ‘neoliberalism of greed’ (Beck, 1998)

Communitarianism


(Source : http://www.culturemagic.org/Images/Communitarianism.gif)

http://www.culturemagic.org/Images/Communitarianism.gif


• Decentralizing government as far as possible and making smaller communities for more aspect of public policy.

• Public policy making based on community values. A shift from individualism to a more collective sense of governing.

•Creating mechanism that would enhance participation and facilitate the development of meaning in government.

• Human nature is not sustainable (Assumption of people participation and investing a great deal of time and efforts in governing).

• The heteregenous / multicultural society and big size area of a state make it more difficult to deliver public policies accros communities.

• In reality, the important problems may not be solvable in a very small unit, due to some external indicators such as economic, social, and environmental.

Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)

Communitarianism

Direct Democracy


It is a system of decision-making about public affairs in which citizens are directly involved. This was the original type of democracy found in ancient Athens (Held, 1995)

Direct Democracy based on people voting on issues , in other words the people decide, rather than representatives making decision on their behalf

Direct voting, initiatives or referendum by the people, who vote on specific issues.

For example, East Timor Referendum in 1999 (public choices of nationality, whether still be a part of Indonesia or freedom as a new country).


• It is very democratic. People decide themselves on significant issues that will affect them.

•The people is at least as capable as their elected representatives of making difficult decisions.

•The high degree of accountability of policy decision making.

• Costly, every policies need to campaign to attract the people attention.

• The emphasis tends to be a single –issue politics with the majority. This will ignore the interest of minority people .

• Limited information and discussion that tend to characterize the campaign of the referendum.

• The heteregenous / multicultural society and big size area of a state make it more difficult to deliver public policies accros communities.

Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)

Direct Democracy

Deliberative Democracy


The most fundamental practice of deliberative democracy is a process of involving the public in making decision through open debate and dialogue (Pierre & Peters, 2000)

Deliberative democracy based on public discussion on issues. According to Dryzek (1999, 2000), this enables people to think through ―if then ―scenarios and they are less likely to vote selfishly, because they make connections with other people and because they see the implications for others (McIntyre, 2011)

Some critics argue that traditional, liberal representative democracy needs to be more participatory. Representatives in government are too remote from the people and that they do not necessarily reflect diversity. The problem is compounded if we are to attempt global governance solutions across national boundaries as this will increase diversity and the size of the populations being represented. Others argue that participatory forms of democracy can lead to some voices dominating others and that the data obtained is too complex to manage. Participatory democracy proponents advocate and research ways to use socio-cybernetics and informatics to manage policy networks and complex data sets, to ensure better matching of perceptions, services and resources. (McIntyre-Mills 2006).

• Stronger emphasis on the immediate reform of decision making institution – as the answer of the weakness of representative democracy. Greater public involvement in policy making is essential to enhance democracy. This contributes to create more numerous opportunities for the public to discuss issues and develop more complete understanding (“wicked” problems).The lower level of government (local level) is the locus for developing ‘genuine’ deliberative democracy (Pierre & Peters 2000)


• Creating more numerous opportunities for the public to discuss issues and develop more complete understanding

• Deliberative democracy is associated with participation and construct discussion among the people (experts and ordinary people with experiences, considering the interest of the life of this generation and the next, with social, economic, and environmental accountability.

• More selective of participants. This will prevent the full range of opinion from being heard and tends to bias outcomes.

• The ideal deliberative process is difficult to achieve in a real world. It requires much time and other resources

•The more heterogenous community makes it more difficult to effective dialogue

• How final decision can be reached in deliberative process if there is no consensus.

Deliberative Democracy

(McIntyre-Mills &de Vries, 2011 ; Pierre & Peters 2000)

Governance Framework – Six Indicators per Arena based on Principles (adapted from Hyden et al, 2004, p.188)


Economic Society / Market

State

Civil Society

1. Participation : Freedom of Association

2. Fairness : Society free from Discrimination

3. Decency : Freedom of Expression

4. Accountability : Respect for Governing Rules

5. Transparency : Freedom of the Media

6. Efficiency : Input in Policy Making

2. Fairness : Adequate Standard of Living for Citizen

3. Decency : Personal Security of Citizens

4. Accountability : Accountable for their actions

5. Transparency : Provides Accurate Information

6. Efficiency : Best use of available Resources

1. Participation : Intragovernmental Consultation

1. Participation : Consultation with Private Sector

2. Fairness : Equal Regulations applied to all Firms

3. Decency : Respects Property Rights

4. Accountability : Regulating Public Sector in public interest

5. Transparency : Formulating Economic Policy

6. Efficiency : Free from Corruption

Democracy & Governance

Governance and democracy have to deal with three options pertaining to truth (McIntyre-Mills, 2006): a) One truth (monist) responses defended by grand narratives or conflict, b) No truth (postmodernist) approached defended by relativism, c) Mediated (harmonized) responses based on stewardship.

Democracy is currently increasingly criticized for not representing the interests of citizens (Institute of Governance 2005) or not taking into account the social justice and environmental concerns that span national boundaries(McIntyre-Mills et al 2006)

Systemic approach to governance and democracy should ensure the engagement of the people in decision making process with respectful and transparent manner (McIntyre Mills & de Vries, 2011, pp. 65)


Conclusion Governance provides a broader and more diversified approach than democracy does.

Civil society appears to be the potential engine for improvement in governance (Hyden et al, 2004).

Different types of democracy results on different result of policy making accountability and good governance. Deliberative democracy tends to be the best approach because it is associated with participation and discussion of the people (experts and ordinary people with experiences, considering the interest of the life of this generation and the next, with social, economic, and environmental accountability.

Good governance lays the foundation for a liberal form of democracy. This is a prerequisite for progress toward democracy and a sustainable form of development (Hyden et al, 2004)

Democratic governance : To govern appropriately, a democratic political system must be capable of linking the demands and wishes of the citizens directly to policies (Rose 1976, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000)


References

Beck, U 1998, Democracy without Enemies, Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK.

Fung, A & Wright, EO 2001, ‘Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered Participatory Governance’, Politics & Society, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2001, pp. 5-41

Held, D 1995, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to Cosmopolitan Governance, Polity Press, Blackwell Publisher, UK.

Hyden, G, Court, J & Mease, K 2004, Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16 Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado, Covent Garden, London.

McIntyre-Mills, J & de Vries, D 2011, Identity, Democracy and Sustainability: Facing up to Convergent Social, Economic, and Environmental Challenges, Emergence Publications, USA.

McIntyre-Mills, J 2006, Systemic Governance and Accountability. Working and Re-Working the Conceptual and Spatial Boundaries, Springer, New York.

McIntyre-Mills, J. 2003. Critical Systemic Praxis for Social and Environmental Justice: Participatory Policy Design for a Global Age. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher, Spring Street, New York.

Pierre, J & Peters, BG, 2000, Governance, Politics and the State, Macmillan, Chpt 7. Scenario 3: Communitarianism, Deliberation, Direct Democracy and Governane, pp. 137-159

Putnam, RD 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon & Schuster, New York, 2000.


Thank YouMauliate (in Batak Language)

By : Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga

Student ID. 210xxxx

Government & Nonprofit

Governance and Public Policy_Romal Sinaga_Different Types of Democracy