A disturbing feature in the last round of local council elections was the unexpected low turn out of the electorate – a sharp drop from 88 per cent of votes cast in 2003 to 66 per cent this year. In numerical terms, this works out to about 45,000 citizens foregoing their right to vote.

There was a lower turn out in all localities without exception. It was the ruling Nationalist Party that suffered most from the haemorrhage. All sorts of explanations have been advanced to explain or, alternatively, to explain away, this phenomenon.

Some took the result to confirm the electorate’s loss of faith in the government. Others highlighted local factors. Others still argued that electoral indifference takes the upper hand at local elections, as distinct from national elections.

One can discuss these themes until the cows come home. The fact remains that the latest electoral consultation saw a sharp and sudden increase in the number of voters who decided to give a wide berth to the ballot boxes.

Electoral disenchantment

The number of non-participating citizens raises the question of electoral disenchantment, not with the parties and their candidates – but with the way democracy is working in these islands.

Democracy depends on people participation. It rests on a maximum of consent and a minimum of coercion. Democratic politics inevitably find themselves faced by paradoxes or contradictions. It is not easy to reconcile the tensions that arise. Their democratic solution calls for electoral involvement, rather than abstention.

Many of the problems that crop up in the developing world spring from the tensions inherent in the democratic process. Foremost among these tensions is that between consensus and conflict. Democracy institutionalises competition for power. There is no democracy without competition and conflict. But conflict can become too intense to the point of putting political stability and civil peace in jeopardy. It is for this reason that cleavage must be tempered by consensus.

Mechanics of accountability

Yet another inherent source of tension is the uneasy relationship between representativeness and governability. Democracy shuns the concentration of power in the hands of the few. It therefore subjects politicians and policies to mechanisms of accountability and popular representation. But, in the interests of stability, democracy must be able to act decisively and, at times, speedily. It must be able to resist demands from interest groups or to mediate among them. This calls for a party system capable of governing, and cohesive enough to represent competing groups, without being paralysed or captured by them.

The third contradiction is that between consent and effectiveness. Democracy means “rule by the people” or, at least, rule with the consent of the governed. This is the message of people all over the world who stand up to repression and corruption in the part of authoritarian ruling elites. An electorate with democratic blood in its veins claims the right to turn its rulers out of office and to be governed only with its consent.

Popular legitimacy

Founding a democracy and preserving it are two different things. In order to be stable, democracy must be deemed legitimate by its people. Because it rests on the consent of the governed, democracy depends on popular legitimacy. This legitimacy calls for profound moral commitment and emotional allegiance. These qualities develop over time, in part as a result of effective performance.

The electorate will not value democracy unless it deals effectively with economic and social problems, and unless it is in a position to achieve a modicum of order and justice.

If democracy does not work, people might prefer not to put up with the pain of political choice. They may opt not to be governed through their own consent. Hence the paradox: Democracy requires consent. Consent depends on legitimacy. Legitimacy needs effective performance but elected leaders will, very often, be reluctant to pursue unpopular measures.

These paradoxes impact on the development of democracy.

Democracies, in particular, face special problems. Popular assessments of government performance tend to take the short view. Democratic governments everywhere are constantly tempted to tailor their policies with an eye to the next election. In the short term, this may make political sense; very often, it is not conducive to sound economic policy. Equally often, it is economic performance that counts in the end.

Economies grow when they foster savings, investment and renovation, and when they reward initiative and enterprise. They stagnate when they build structures of inflexible favouritisms that are inimical to competition, innovation and social mobility.

Economies that invest in the human capital of the poor by meeting their basic human needs, develop a continuing momentum of growth. But those that neglect the advancement of their citizens ultimately founder

Governability also requires sufficient concentration and autonomy of power to choose and implement policies with dispatch. It may be held that this generally conflicts with the need to hold power accountable to popular scrutiny, representation and control. In effect, however, vigorous public accountability may strengthen the capacity to govern, as well as the effectiveness of government. This is more clearly so with regard to political corruption.

Poison of corruption

Corruption at government level is poisonous to democracy. It impedes economic growth by misdirecting the flow of capital and resources, and by distorting investment decisions and economic competition in general.

Moreover, where the prospect of ill-gotten gain is an important motive for the pursuit of office, the democratic process becomes a mere power struggle rather than a contest over policies. The premium on political power becomes so great that competing forces will do anything to win. This threatens the very essence of the democratic process – free and fair elections.

Statism exacerbates corruption by giving public officials numerous opportunities to collect rents from the State’s regulatory activities. The only remedy is accountability, which requires a free press, willing and able to expose corruption, an organised citizenry, ready to monitor the political process and the conduct of public officials, and an asserting, independent legal system, equipped to prosecute and punish official misconduct.

In this way, accountability serves governability by limiting the power of the State, and especially the executive, in order to prevent abuses.

Electoral prerogative

Perhaps the most basic tension in democracy is that between conflict and consensus. Democracy implies dissent and division – but this must be on a basis of consent and cohesion. Citizens must be free to assert themselves, but they must put up with the government’s authority. A democratic political culture depends on the tolerance of opposition and dissent, trust in political actors, a willingness to cooperate, accommodate and compromise – and hence, a certain flexibility, moderation, civility and restraint in one’s partisanship.

To honour these virtues in deed, as well as in speech, is often one of the most important challenges facing troubled democracies, particularly those ravaged by deep-seated political polarisation.

The above goes some way to explain the extent to which a viable democracy relies on a lively and responsible electorate. Democracy is not only about freedom. It is also about economic well-being and political stability.

It depends on active citizen participation – not on the abdication of citizen rights. The foundations of democracy rest on consumer sovereignty and the prerogative of an enlightened electorate to choose alternatives when it is so minded.

* * *

The above has been written with due acknowledgement to a study by Larry Diamond in Journal of Democracy (Summer 1990), of which he was then co-editor. Mr Diamond is a former senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution.

[email protected]