Ouch, that Politics ......... Part 2/2
Danijela Jerkovi?
Ba.Sci., CA Certified Accountant, CIA Certified Internal Auditor | Managing Director at Danijela Jerkovic's Services
The chapter on DEMOCRACY considers and argues the meaning of democracy and examines critically some of the formal and informal institutions of liberal democracy.
These include elections, constitutions, and the three branches of government: executive, legislative and judicial.
Informal institutions focus on the system of communication between government and people through interest groups, political parties, and the instruments of mass communication.
We ask what values such governments may be thought to serve and the extent to which existing democratic institutions realize them.
Lincoln's memorable definition may suggest three key elements of democracy. First, that it is ‘of’ the people not only in the sense of being ‘over’ all the people but that it derives its legitimacy from their commitment to it (government by consent). Second, that it is ‘by’ the people in the sense that they participate extensively in governmental processes. Third, that it is ‘for’ the people in that it seeks to realize the common welfare and safeguard the rights of individuals.
Liberal democracies stress the safeguarding of individual rights and the idea of the rule of law.
Communist regimes stress popular participation and the pursuit of the interests of the common man.
Populist nationalist leaders stress their legitimacy as the leaders by consent of the people and as interpreters of the national destiny (MacPherson, 1966).?
The oldest recorded form of democracy is that of the Greek city-states, notably Athens.
Important decisions were taken by all the citizens (although excluding foreigners, women, and slaves – most of the population) in a popular assembly by majority vote. Government officials (‘magistrates’) were chosen temporarily by lot. It is worth stressing that the taking of decisions on behalf of the population by elected representatives was regarded by the Greeks as an ‘aristocratic’ or ‘tyrannical’ form of rule depending on the quality and behavior of those elected.
The lynching of even an obviously guilty person by the majority of the population in a small community can properly be regarded as ‘democratic’.
In other words, majority rule and popular participation may conflict with the ideas of justice, individual rights, and efficiency and effectiveness.
In Athens, because the majority of citizens had to be convinced if the community were to act, it seems a very high standard of information and debate was often obtained alongside great commitment and loyalty to the state. In such a system individual citizens are encouraged to inform themselves, treated as moral beings with self-determination, and are likely to identify with the community and its political life.
Today the size of modern democracies is no longer a barrier to the exercise of Athenian democracy. The existence of mass communication, the Internet, and the possibility of electronic polling through the telephone or other networks means that ‘teledemocracy’ is now a possibility (Arterton, 1987; Saward, 1993; Budge, 1996; Arblaster, 2002).
The idea of involving as many citizens as possible in the governmental process remains an important element in the concept of democracy, helping to support the maintenance of the local government system and the jury in Anglo-American democracies.
CHOOSING RULERS
In modern liberal democracies, however, democracy is often thought of primarily in terms of the opportunity for citizens to freely choose their rulers at periodic intervals, rather than to make governmental decisions for themselves.?
Many discussions of liberal democracy place great emphasis on the range of electoral systems used and the assessment of the merits of each.
?In particular, the merits of ‘proportional representation’ versus 'first-past-the-post’ systems have often been debated at length
A simple long-established system, which is widely accepted, should only be sacrificed for an overwhelming advantage. An incomprehensible and complicated system, seen as unnecessarily favoring the political forces that recently initiated it, would be a poor exchange for such a system even if it were technically superior in the sense of being more proportional.
The electoral system is at the heart of the credibility (legitimacy) of modern democracies so that it is important to try to establish as broad a consensus as possible about the system employed.
THE EXECUTIVE
The executive, in the broad sense, includes the head of state, the political members of the government, and the civil servants who staff the offices of the state.
Less formally the executive must often act to symbolize the unity of the country and provide leadership within the political system.
Different systems differ greatly in how roles are distributed amongst the executive, and indeed how large the executive is and, therefore, how many people control the levers of power.
As well as sponsoring a legislative program, the executive often has a veto through a requirement that the head of state must sign each law for it to be valid.
Legislatures in virtually all systems not only have a large formal role in making laws, but also have powers to investigate and, to some degree, control or influence the executive.
Historically the Anglo-American principle of ‘no taxation without representation has been of great importance in establishing legislative power over the executive.?
Legislative oversight and investigation of the activities of the executive vary in extent, depth, and form.
Most legislatures are ‘bicameral’, that is they have two ‘Houses’. In almost all, the ‘lower’ house (popularly elected by universal suffrage in geographical constituencies) is the one that has ultimate power and is the house to which (in parliamentary systems) the government is responsible
The effectiveness of legislative representation is affected by many other social and constitutional factors.
One of the key questions asked about elected representatives is ‘Who do they represent?’ One school of thought suggests that elected representatives are ‘mandated’ to vote in line with their party’s electoral pledges to the majority of their constituency
‘Democratic’ elements of the British system include the jury system, the presumption of the innocence of the accused, and the principle that only activity formally proscribed by law can be illegal.
Legal education is often much more concerned with public law and the training of public administrators in continental European universities than is the case in Britain and America where syllabuses are preoccupied with the law of business contracts and crime.
K. C. Wheare (1951) makes it clear that there are two main senses of ‘constitution’: first, the fundamental political institutions of a country; second, a written document which usually defines these and the rights of the citizens of the state.
As Wheare (1951) and others (e.g. Bogdanor, 1988) have shown, liberal democratic constitutions usually have a variety of political functions to perform. First, a symbolic and legitimizing role in asserting and demonstrating the democratic credentials of the political system concerned. Second, they are usually intended to protect and conserve the fundamental political institutions they define and to establish how they may be legitimately changed. Third, they are intended to protect the fundamental rights of individual citizens.
Conversely, some socialist and radical interpretations would lay greater stress on the idea that constitutions empower democratic governments to change society to achieve more just social order.
Where written constitutions exist, they often mark a revolutionary change in the politically written in circumstances that emphasize a radical interpretation of constitutions.
The first act of each president is to take an oath or affirmation that ‘I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States'. The French Declaration of the Rights of Man has a similar key role in French political culture.
Most written constitutions incorporate some sort of declaration of the rights of citizens of the country concerned.
A declaration may be of some symbolic political usefulness but a Bill of Rights is more likely to be directly useful to ordinary citizens who consider their rights have been taken away or abused by the executive or legislature.
Britain does not have its own detailed Declaration of Rights (the Bill of Rights is a more limited document than its name might suggest), but it is a signatory to both the UN and European Declarations on Human Rights. The European document does have a commission and court to interpret it.
In brief, a Bill of Rights takes power away from elected politicians (and bureaucrats) and transfers it to lawyers and may not always have the positive outcome its (often left-wing) British proponents anticipate.
Various features of the common law have been seen as superior protection for individuals to either US constitutional guarantees or continental systems of special administrative courts. These features include the right to trial by jury, the right to silence in court and under police interrogation, and the writ (now judicial order) of habeas corpus (‘produce the body’).
One Scandinavian institution which has been adopted in Britain to help defend individual rights against administrative error or invasion is a parliamentary Commissioner for Administration (the ‘Ombudsman’) who can independently investigate actions by government departments in cases of apparent ‘maladministration’
In Sweden, where the ombudsman originated, he or she has much stronger powers to insist on remedies and operates within a tradition of open government in which all government documents are open to inspection.
Democratic constitutional arrangements can operate in several different ways in practice depending upon the use the government makes of the constitutional powers it has.
Most democratic systems give numerous opportunities for the government to consult and listen to the electorate – the extent to which the government does so, and with which parts of the electorate, make an enormous difference to the overall nature of the system. Three alternative ways of working such a system can be described as pluralism, corporatism, and centralization.
In a politically pluralist system, the legitimacy of a host of social and political interest groups is recognized. Ideally, all have an equal chance to be involved in an open political process by which social decisions are reached through a process of widespread discussion, negotiation, and compromise. In the last resort, where conflicts cannot be resolved into a consensus, the interests of the groups commanding majority support in the population as a whole will predominate, but strong feelings by groups most affected may count for more than weaker preferences by more numerous less affected groups.
.... different solutions to the same problems!!
... different solutions to the different problems!!!
Where different levels of government exist (e.g. European, British, and local or federal, state and local) the pluralist principle is that of ‘subsidiarity’.
Much policymaking in Brussels is made in closed negotiations between governmental delegations and by obscure discussions between the Commission and those interest groups organized on a European basis.
....'cooptation’
the act or an instance of?co-opting something: a taking over or appropriation of something for a new or different purpose. The co-optation of the raised fist as a patriotic symbol …-
This description of liberal democracy as a corporatist system is, of course, a variety of what we earlier described as elite theory. Corporatism has been criticized for leading to cosy behind-the-scenes decision making, the so-called beer and sandwiches in smoke-filled rooms of the Harold Wilson era. Its proponents suggest that by bringing together the most powerful forces within the economy, long-lasting decisions can be made. Its opponents suggest that too many interests become alienated because their views are not given consideration.
Centralization
What will be the attitude towards the location of power of Gordon Brown and David Cameron in the UK, the Democrat and Republican presidential candidates in the USA, and Nicolas Sarkozy the president of France?
We have considered democratic government in terms of the extent of popular participation in government, the extent to which the people can influence the choice of governors, and the form which democratic institutions might take. Arguably more important than any of these, however, is the responsiveness of government to people’s views and interests and even its capacity to leave well alone (to respect their rights).?
Communication between the government and the electorate and the government’s monitoring of the objective effects of its policies and gathering information about policy alternatives are clearly central to a successful democratic system.
Even a very simple model of communication suggests some important questions. Who are the senders and recipients of the information? What quantity of information flows?
Are the flows one way (simplex) or two way (duplex)? Are messages accurately encoded and decoded? Does ‘noise’ interfere with accurate reception? Does information overload prevent essential information from being distinguished? In the space available only some of these points can be followed up here?
In terms of the three models of how the constitution might work introduced - centralization, corporatism, and pluralism, we can see that they involve different patterns of communication.
The government needs a good knowledge of public opinion if it is to generate a public consensus.
An examination of the activities of some of the political institutions which are usually thought of as playing a key role in political communication – political parties, pressure or interest groups, and the mass media – may suggest which model is most appropriate.
Political parties may be thought of as organized social groups that seek to wholly or partially take over the government of a country, usually by contesting elections.
Political parties seek to take power for their leading members, either for the parties’ own sake (the psychological, social, and economic rewards of office), on behalf of some social group (e.g. labor, farmers, Protestants), or with some ideological objective in mind (e.g. national independence, socialism).
Names of parties are often a bad guide to their objectives; it is also worth stressing that most – probably all – parties are coalitions of people with different objectives in mind.
In most liberal democratic countries, the main obvious function of political parties is to contest elections – selecting candidates in constituencies, canvassing and organizing voters, composing and delivering election addresses in local constituencies, and running local and national media campaigns. By offering voters candidates with commitments to certain policies (especially as identified by the national leadership) they make elections a choice by electors of public policies as well as the selection of councilors, legislators, and (sometimes) mayors and presidents.
European socialist, Christian democratic, and, to some extent, liberal parties may have larger numbers of activists, some of whom may be ideologically committed ‘militants’ with strong policy views.
Whilst useful as enthusiastic canvassers or lickers of envelopes, such militants may be, from the professional’s point of view, a source of internal conflict and resistance to the perhaps inevitable compromises of democratic politics. They may serve, however, from time to time, to inject an element of idealism and dynamic change into political systems.
‘SPIN’ AND POLITICAL MARKETING
... to ‘woo’ key support
In the United States, the differences between parties have long been less marked than in Europe, and the system of primary elections for major party nominations encourages candidates to sell themselves as individuals rather than as party ideological standard-bearers. It is not surprising that, in the home of capitalism, the use of techniques from commercial marketing and public relations should have been pioneered in politics.
....mirrors changes ...
Adele - Hello / Lacrimosa (Mozart) – The Piano Guys
领英推荐
‘permanent campaign’
‘Every day is Election Day’
‘permanent communication’?
In order to win the media battle every day, governments, political parties, and other political actors have increasingly relied on media management to dominate the news agenda. This is a competitive process where the protagonists are always looking for new techniques and technologies to gain an advantage.
A worsening relationship between journalists and politicians cannot help the transmission of political communication to citizens.
A pressure or interest group is a formal social group that differs from a political party in seeking only to influence the government – and not to become a formal part of it.??
A pressure group can be said to be in the business of political communication. ‘Interest group’ may be the better term since it may well seek to influence the government more by persuasion and information than by threats of political reward or penalty. However, it would be surprising if interest groups were not listened to more closely if they represent large numbers of voters (trade unions), influential ‘opinion formers’ (doctors), or wealthy actual or potential contributors to party funds.
Broadcasting: the centralized origination of simplex flows of information to large numbers of recipients whose only choice is to choose another channel, ‘listen’ or switch off.
In this context, we might ask: what information on political life is available to be reported? How many channels of such information are available? Who controls and edits the transmission of information by these channels in whose interests? How do potential recipients of the messages react to them? Do the mass media represent the masses to the elite???
Freedom of Information Act: provides?public access to information held by public authorities.
It does this in two ways: public authorities are obliged to publish certain information about their activities; and. members of the public are entitled to request information from public authorities.
Another problem with political communication patterns from a democratic point of view is the relatively limited number of effective ‘channels’.
The more ‘channels’ available the less we need to worry about the content and control of any one of them since consumers can exercise influence over them by selecting them or not.
The Internet uses electronic digital technology and enables ordinary users to transmit as well as receive information.
Potentially every home becomes a broadcasting studio able to transmit its own political messages as well as to respond interactively to broadcasts by others. Thus flows can be described as ‘multiplex’ with complex networks being developed.
DEMOCRACY AND COMMUNICATION
Justin Bieber - We Don't Talk Anymore ft. Selena Gomez (Official Video)
Chapter on POLICIES
considers how, in liberal democracies, such as Britain, public policies should be made and implemented, how they are made, and the problems of evaluating the public policy process.
...it is important to consider the extent to which the state – especially the national government – should make decisions on behalf of the whole community.
Not every social problem is perceived as a public policy problem.
Choices may be left to be resolved through the market mechanism, or informally through families and social networks.
From the right:
Individual freedom = Consumer sovereignty = Good
versus
State decision making = bureaucracy = bad
From the left:
Social decision making by welfare state = democracy = good
versus
Market decision making = capitalism = exploitation = bad
...deciding upon which way social decisions should be resolved.
In deciding the appropriate role of the state, important considerations are: how far it is likely to reach a more rational decision than the market; how far it can effectively involve ordinary citizens in the decision-making process; and whether the increased costs of such decision making seem justified by any improvement in its quality.
If the state is seeking to promote (following Bentham) ‘the greatest happiness of the greatest number’, it should not lose sight of the fact that only individuals can judge their own happiness.
If we each have an equal amount of real resources with which to achieve satisfaction, some will achieve more satisfaction from buying fishing rods or fashionable clothes, others from the purchase of fast cars, or the consumption of malt whisky.
For the state to allocate everyone equal amounts of fishing equipment, cars, clothes and whisky, and proceed on the assumption that all citizens want the same, will lead to dissatisfaction and waste.
The state cannot achieve the level of information and efficiency required to satisfy individual consumer needs.
The argument is, therefore, that a free-market economy enables individuals to allocate resources in such a way as to maximise everyone’s satisfaction.
...as Adam Smith described, the ‘invisible hand’ of the market balances supply and demand to the satisfaction of all in the marketplace.?
One of the interesting outcomes of the 2007 French presidential election is that the winner, Nicolas Sarkozy, is committed to moving the French economy towards a more ‘market economy’ approach.
If the theoretical assumption is made of an equal distribution of resources to everyone at the outset then, in the short term, the market mechanism seems to be a fair device for decision making.
In many cases the distribution of wealth is the consequence of obscure historical events in periods when the market system hardly functioned.
?In reality markets are almost always ‘imperfect’ in that consumers are misled by advertising; new competition faces considerable barriers to entry into the market; and governments may subsidise domestic producers and tax or obstruct foreign competition. Thus the state is often forced to intervene to reestablish a competitive environment.
In a purely capitalist system the producer is responsible only for staying within the law and maximising profits for shareholders. Competitive forces are thought to ensure that individual consumer needs are met.
However, it may be that the costs to the community of some productive activities will not be reflected in the costs producers (and ultimately consumers) pay. For instance, a factory may pollute its environment or workers in distant markets may be exploited. This may lead to a severe misallocation of resources, and often leads to demands for government intervention, and/or for businesses to adopt a socially responsible attitude towards all the ‘stakeholders’ affected by them.
So far, we have examined this question largely as if there were only two alternative modes of social action – either decisions are taken by individuals through the market mechanism or they are taken by ‘the state’. This is, however, clearly an oversimplification.
The idea that market decision making is a form of individual choice is also an oversimplification. Individuals are generally confronted with alternatives that are the results of social processes over which they have little control.
How about ... Time to exercise choice?!?!?
Lobby and/or Lobbying?!
...seek to understand...
..seek to understand the role of such organizations and the behavior of the bureaucrats within them.
WHY organizations are NOT always RATIONAL
(Hogwood and Gunn, 1984: 50–53)
Although organizations collectively possess much more information on problems than individuals (through filing systems, computer databases, etc.) they frequently fail to access the relevant information at the right time. Thus they lose one of the major strategic advantages they possess.?
Allison (1987) suggests a second ‘organisational process model’ of decision making which stresses that organizations normally operate without explicitly defining objectives through a repertoire of standard operating procedures reflecting the parochial views of their constituent departments.
INCREMENTAL DECISION MAKING
Essentially policy-making is seen as the outcome of a game between players occupying positions.
The outcome is the result of bargaining between players and is dependent on (among other things) their bargaining skill, their resources, and the rules of the game.?
HOGWOOD AND GUNN’S MODEL OF THE POLICY PROCESS
In comparison with the rational–comprehensive model, this formulation has some important and desirable features: it sees policymaking as a more or less continuous process; it stresses political issues of agenda-setting, decision process, and definition; and it does not take the implementation of the decision for granted.
Indeed many commentators on public policy – especially in the national press – scarcely consider the possibility of a gap between policy prescription and its implementation.
MULTI-LEVEL GOVERNANCE...
‘Governance is about managing networks’ (Rhodes, 1996: 658).
TEN PRINCIPLES FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT:
(Osborne and Gaebler, 1992)?
EVALUATING PUBLIC POLICY
THE 3 ‘E’S:
The three concepts can be seen as occupying a hierarchical relationship with efficiency the most limited concept, economy a somewhat broader one, and effectiveness the most comprehensive.
Any rational monitoring and evaluation of public policy need to measure as precisely as possible how far objectives are being achieved.
A CRISIS IN DEMOCRATIC POLITICS?
Communication by politicians, therefore, needs to reflect that the recipient is the citizen-consumer, not the citizen-voter.
Politics is not only a spare time or academic activity, however. There is truth in the feminist slogan ‘the personal is the political.
It is worth reviewing your personal relationships and professional activities and plans to see if they are in accord with the political principles you profess (although this can be rather sobering).
STUDY POLITICS:
Briefing!!
Book availability thanks to:
AND...