An absolute must-read: the leading article in the current issue of The Economist
I insist that you read it and shall be very cross if you don’t. It’s an excellent explanation, to unevolved and unsophisticated democracies, electors and politicians like Malta’s, of why democracy is not about majority rule, and how ‘majoritarianism’ leads to a ‘zombie democracy’.
This is what we are experiencing now in Malta, so do read it so as to understand the situation. It might even help you sort out your own views if you have found yourself subsumed into the ‘36,000 majority so they can do what they like’ way of thinking.
So very, very wrong and so…Turkish.
The link to the original is below. Should you wish to link or tweet it on, please do so via the original.
Meanwhile, I suggest that every member of the Nationalist Party hierarchy and every Nationalist MP reads this and assimilates it.
MAJORITARIANISM: ZOMBIE DEMOCRACY
A note to Turkey’s prime minister, among others: winning elections is not enough
“BUT I’ve won three elections!” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s embattled prime minister, growls at his critics. On the face of it, his case is compelling: surely, many people in Turkey and beyond would agree, popularly elected leaders can govern as they please? That’s what democracy means.
Well, no. Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy, even if, on the face of it, the two things look alike. It is worth explaining why.
To begin with, democratic legitimacy isn’t merely a correlative of a ruler’s share of the vote. Few candidates in the West nowadays win more than half of the votes, still less a majority of the electorate. Most are obliged to govern with slim electoral mandates. That doesn’t, of itself, make them illegitimate. Indeed, huge landslides of the kind “won” by, say, Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus are often undemocratic. They tend to be achieved fraudulently; even when they are not, they can be precursors to persecution by the regal “victor” of opponents or to triumphal overreach, as in the case of Viktor Orban, Hungary’s authoritarian prime minister. Mr Erdogan’s party took almost 50% of the vote at Turkey’s 2011 election: impressive, but not absolute proof of democratic virtue.
If broad support does not automatically qualify a leader as a democrat, nor does strong opposition disqualify him. Margaret Thatcher’s reforms were contentious, to say the least. The heat and vitriol of politics have intensified in the Fox News, shock-jock, bile-blogging era: Barack Obama is often lambasted as tyrannical or traitorous. Tough decisions, such as spending cuts or tax rises, can provoke widespread anger, as the past few years have demonstrated. Bold reforms, which The Economist applauds, often do the same. That doesn’t make the leaders who impose them undemocratic, either.
The issue is how the relationship between supporters and opponents is managed. In part this is a matter of rules and institutions to constrain a leader’s power and to allow the aggrieved to find redress. These should include a robust account of citizens’ basic rights, independent courts to enforce them and free media to monitor them. From a democratic perspective, these are the areas where Mr Erdogan has most seriously erred: not in introducing controversial or wrong-headed policies (that is his prerogative), but in capturing the courts, silencing media critics and attacking peaceful protesters. His talk of tinkering with the constitution to perpetuate his own rule, as both Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin did, is another warning sign.
Beyond documents and institutions, the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader’s job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters. Turkey’s protesters took to the streets because they believed Mr Erdogan was not just hostile to their interests but deaf to their complaints. By demonising them as terrorists and foreign agents, and pulverising them with tear gas and water cannon, he has vindicated this belief. The contrast with Brazil, where Dilma Rousseff has insisted that demonstrators have a right to protest, is striking (see article).
Heartless
The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.
19 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
http://www.economist.com/news/leaders/21579850-note-turkeys-prime-minister-among-others-winning-elections-not-enough-zombie-democracy
Assimilating it? Fat chance! This is the party that took us through the whole divorce referendum charade and then followed up with a free vote in parliament, where the party leader voted ‘according to his conscience.’
Because his conscience, I presume, is worth more than democratic principles.
Baxxter, been trying to explain this Economist article to some Labour friends of mine. How do I say Zombie Democracy in Maltese – is it Demokrazija ta’ Zombi?
No. You should describe it as “Blind Democracy”
Id-Demokrazija ta’ Xarabank. Min jghajjat l-iktar jirbah. U min jahseb ma jinstemax.
That’ll get their attention.
Baxxie – you’re getting your boxers into a twist over this, unnecessarily. Dr Gonzi made his private feelings, regarding divorce, clear to all but then, as a genuine democrat, bowed to the electoral will and introduced the laws that most people, rightly or wrongly, wanted. He didn’t want to do it but accepted that he was under a democratic constraint to do do it nonetheless. That is a true democrat.
That is a terrible democrat. If he meant to allow a free vote in parliament, then why did he agree to hold a referendum at all?
And if he thought divorce was inherently wrong, then why put the question to a referendum? Wrong and right are not decided by a majority vote. If he thought divorce was a right then, again, why put it to a vote?
Rights are not decided by a majority vote. His reasoning was incredibly muddled. He looked painfully like a village politician from Europe’s Deep South caught up in 21st century European politics, and refusing to rise to the occasion.
Lawrence Gonzi never struck me as an especially bright man, and the divorce debacle just proved it.
Now you’re being naive – certain parts of the Constitution require a referendum (and an abrogative one, at that, not a consultative one, although the practical difference is moot) + a parliamentary vote (which may also require a 2/3 majority, not merely a simple one) in order for change to be enacted.
Your second point is more interesting – is a democratically elected representative supposed to do what he sincerely believes is best or is he obliged to follow the dictates of the people who chose him to represent them in the first place?
This has exercised quite a few worthy minds in its time. Think about it a bit, then think a little more and you might conclude that Gonzi wasn’t such a bad democrat after all.
@Baxxter: Dr Gonzi might not have struck you as especially bright, but I don’t consider him undemocratic in his handling of the divorce referendum, basically for the same reasons mentioned by James Galea.
I suppose he knew that, with his single-seat majority, allowing a free vote on the issue in parliament would have ensured the passing of the private Bill – something he did not like or agree with.
With hindsight it seems Gonzi calculated that the majority of Maltese would vote against the issue. That he made a wrong calculation is/was a sign that he was out of touch with the mood and reality of the electorate.
Right and wrong may not be decided by majority vote but governments (who draw up policies and enact laws) are. Moral issues impinging on sexual and emotional behaviour are often relative. They change with time, place and awareness.
As an extreme example, I believe abortion will eventually be on the political agenda, despite the current (political) agreement to the contrary. Most of the arguments discussed during the divorce debate will be applied again to the new issue:
x % of the world practises it, a civil right, permissible under certain conditions, a woman’s right over her own body, etc.
Don’t get me started on abortion. Killing an unborn baby may not be pleasant, but it is a necessary evil.
Summed up by the Monty Python’s ‘Holy Grail’ phrase “I didn’t vote for you!”
A superb. hard hitting article that, not only should the Nats take to heart, but also the present ‘rulers’.
Used to consult with the ECU, Economist Intelligence Unit, and think I know who wrote this.
It’s fascinating that we have my friends from the Economist write about ‘Zombie Democracy’ as Brad Pitt’s ‘WWZ’ is about to be unveiled this week
Yepp, and it is also fascinating how Frankie Tabone was attracted to both Brad Pitt (and Angelina Jolie) and to the current ‘Zombie Democracy’ rulers in Malta.
http://www.timesofmalta.com/articles/view/20130623/opinion/Pistols-at-dawn-for-Joseph-and-gremxula.474951
“His talk of tinkering with the constitution to perpetuate his own rule, as both Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and Russia’s Vladimir Putin did, is another warning sign”.
Everyone please note.
[Daphne – Yes, that struck me particularly.]
Hear hear
PL did not win; it scavenged on a weakened PN that had been in office for far too long and had been poisoned by some corrupt figures. It’s easy to win but maintaining office is a different ball game.
The situation in the country is dramatic and, although I never trusted Muscat, I never expected him to be such a faker.
Muscat has a Human Rights whizz in a top position to lend semblance to that angle being formally covered, whilst the reality of his own operations in Government meanwhile shows otherwise. Rather similar positioning to Anglu as Speaker, when all is counted.
The joke’s on us.
When I read the Leader in the Economist I found myself saying to myself: Jghodd ghal Joseph dan l-artiklu.