Gaps in Democratic Theory

Gaps in Democratic Theory

In contemporary discussions, Dahl (1971) has identified five main criteria by which a country can ideally be classified as a democracy or what he calls a polyarchy: equality in voting, enlightened understanding by citizens, effective political participation, and access to the agenda of the issues available for decision- making and inclusion of all adult citizens. However, Dahl (1989, 1998) has asserted that, given that the ideal form is virtually non-existent, among others, the main elements of a liberal democratic society include political participation, freedom of expression, access to alternative sources of information, the right to association, free and fair as well as competitive elections and the existence of fundamental human rights.

In addition, there is the need for an institutional and structural arrangement that has at its core the separation of powers between the various branches of government, namely the judiciary, legislature and executive. This is not only to ensure that one branch does not wield an inordinate power and influence but also to ensure a system of checks and balances (Sachikonye, 1995). Given the characteristics of an ideal liberal democracy, it is unsurprising that the processes involved in consolidating democracy remain an issue for political theorists. It is imperative to note that no one set of theory or particular variables can thoroughly capture what is fully entailed in democratic consolidation

 According to Schedler (1998: 91–107), originally democratic consolidation was meant to describe the challenge of making new democracies secure, extending their life expectancy beyond the short term, making them immune against the threat of authoritarian regression, building dams against eventual ‘reverse waves’. He, however, notes that democratic consolidation has been extended to include such divergent items as popular legitimacy, diffusion of democratic values, civilian supremacy over the military, the elimination of authoritarian enclaves, party building, the organization of functional interests, the stabilisation of electoral rules, the introduction of mechanisms for direct democracy, judicial reform, the decentralization of state power, economic stabilization and poverty alleviation. Therefore, Schedler’s (1998) critique of the concept of democratic consolidation is that it has become so broad that it is no longer useful.

Conversely, Linz and Stepan (1996a, 1996b: 14–33) state that a country can lay claim to have transitioned and consolidated its democratic process when ‘democracy is the only game in town’. Besides being able to hold relatively free and fair elections, which are not only competitive but also involve broad participation from citizens from all walks of life, Linz and Stepan (1996a, 1996b) argue that behaviorally, democracy is consolidated when no significant national, social, economic, political or institutional actors spend significant resources attempting to achieve their objectives by creating a non- democratic regime or by seceding from the state. Furthermore, they argue that attitudinally, a democracy is consolidated when a strong majority of public opinion, even in the midst of major economic problems and deep dissatisfaction with incumbents, holds the belief that democratic procedures and institutions are the most appropriate way to govern, and that political change must emerge from within the parameters of democratic formulas. Only under these conditions can it be asserted that the transition to civilian rule and liberal democracy has been completed and consolidated.

Similarly, O’Donnell (1992, 1996) contends that a democracy is consolidated when power is alternated between rivals; support for the system is continued during times of economic hardship, the regime remains stable in the face of restructuring of the party system and there exists no significant political anti-system. In addition, he argues that besides the institutionalization of electoral rules, consolidation occurs when the actors in a system have informally institutionalized the formal rules of the democratic institution.

Lindberg (2006) adds that in themselves repeated elections in newly democratizing countries in Africa tend to foster political liberalization and possess self-reinforcing power to promote increased democracy. Besides having the potential of institutionalizing and deepening the promotion of fundamental human rights in society, elections also indirectly improve the quality of democracy. This position is shared by

Bratton (2004) who has argued that elections are more than mere formalities; their regular conduct infuses government with new blood and may contribute to the maturation of nascent democratic cultures. However, while elections are essential to any democracy, their importance should not be overestimated since doing so would amount to society falling into the trap of what Karl (1986: 9–36) calls the ‘fallacy of electoral-ism’. Given these conceptual quandaries, it is not surprising that it is impossible clearly to specify when a democracy has become ‘consolidated’. Therefore democratic consolidation will be conceptually defined as a situation where free and fair elections and the peaceful transfer of power occur from one political party to another.

Besides free and fair elections and civilian-to-civilian transition, the credibility, independence and trust that citizens have in democratic institutions and structures such as the judiciary and electoral bodies also go a long way in determining the extent to which the democratic process can be perceived as consolidated in a country. As Linz and Stepan (1996a) argue, unless public officials  are constrained by a network of laws, courts, independent review as well as civil society norms of transparency and accountability, democracy will be diminished by political abuse and cynicism and political actors will fail to commit themselves to the rules of the game.

Democratic consolidation is also conceptually defined as the process of ensuring that all politically significant groups regard the established and agreed political arrangements and institutions as the only legitimate paradigm and mechanism through which political contest can take place. Without such an arrangement, it is unlikely that the gains of the democratic process can be sustained. Such a theoretical approach will not only be useful in serving as an explanatory tool, but will also help assess whether Ghana’s transition towards liberal democratic rule has actually been consolidated.