Adonis Diaries

Posts Tagged ‘equilibrium of political forces

Good democracy: “Next election, Party in power should lose”

The fundamental characteristic of an oiled democracy is that political processes are transparent:  All political parties and syndicates should be able to figure out the strategies of their opponents in a short time.

An oiled democratic system opens up data, documents, political discussions, political decisions and make them available for all political parties to access them within adequate time period so that opponents get aware of the projects, programs, a changing platforms of the government in power.

An oiled democracy affords consistent and timely comprehension of the equilibrium of political, economic, and social association forces in society:  Every serious political organizations should be able to know “what is in the best interest” of all the opposing organizations, if it works for its best interest.

There are two main types or concepts of democratic systems.

1. The first political tendency is that a democracy is not meant to create laws or institutions, and much less distributing the wealth of the nation, unless it is a temporary resolution of a conflict among the main political parties.

The winning Party in election has the privilege and right  to play the ultimate arbiter of social conflicts, if the various associations and organizations fail to reach a consensus.

In this democracy, the arbiter is not devoid of any power: the government is best positioned to know first hand the causes of the main conflicts, and thus, has the advantage of collecting complete and timely intelligence pieces on all the other opposing parties.

Having the facilities and prerogatives for gathering intelligence and fast information is the main leverage of the arbiter party in power in this type of democracy.  This type of democracy has not the duty of caring for social or economic inequalities in society so long as the citizen is guaranteed equal political rights, freedom of expressions, liberty of associating, and voting.

This democracy has the responsibility of neutralizing political inequalities since every citizen are equal in all political rights and responsibilities.

2. The second type of democracy is that the winning political party has to execute its political platform and programs that it promised the electing voters.  Consequently, the elected government has the responsibility and right of satisfying the wishes and wants of the majority.

The winning party is not concerned of facilitating the job of the opposition, if it can perform without. It is focused on creating laws and institutions that precipitate the execution of the platform.

Democracy is a battle field without the physical violence; though moral, ethical, and psychological violence are permitted to staying in power.

There are several factors that maintain democratic systems:

First, political rights are guaranteed, secured, and protected for every citizen such as voting, freedom of association, liberty of expression and opinion, running as candidate…

Second, the annual income for every citizen must not drop below a certain level:  Currently, it is estimated to be around $6,000 per year as a cut-off point.  (I guess this amount represents the average income of the lower middle class in any stable democracy.)

Third, democracy can be sustained if neighboring States enjoy stable democratic systems.

Fourth, status inequalities (economic or historical) are not codified in the system as an ideology (religious, political, or other forms).  This means, citizens should not feel they are excluded by laws from public facilities on the basis of color, gender, social origin, or ethnic background… In general, stable democracy institute a moral code of avoiding blatant exposure of inequalities and wealth.

Democratic systems are adapted to managing new situations that reflect changes in the relationship of organized social forces:  This is what election is supposed to reflect.

As for managing crisis, it is advisable that stable and specialized institutions for every particular major crisis not be restructured with every new government:  Election does not substitute for professionalism.

In many developing democracies, the outgoing government foments riots and violent marches  in order to preventing smooth transfer of power and make it very difficult for the new victor realizing its platform.

In all cases, democratic systems in developing states, with all their deficiencies, have demonstrated far better efficiency in sustained development.  Colonial powers spread the fraudulent culture that dictatorship periods are essential for development before democratic systems are tried out.

Colonial powers had vested interest of blocking competitions in deals with the previously colonized country by obstructing democratic control institutions.

Note 1:  Only in the last 50 years have US governments changed parties by democratic elections.  Prior to that time, winning parties stayed in power in 5 out of six elections.  The reasons maybe that communication (including transport and trade) was low and life-style was slower in changing for drastic political reforms to be demanded.

Note 2:  Adam Przeworski, political scientist at NYU, has analyzed 3,000 elections results to study trends and causes of stable democracies using statistical mathematical modeling.

Przeworski claims that India is a democracy that spends on elections more than on health budgets.  India system flaunts all criteria for democracy, and if it is still functioning, it is mainly that no dictatorship regime is willing to shoulder the terrible headache of running and managing this vast and populous State confronted with insurmountable problems.




May 2023

Blog Stats

  • 1,521,885 hits

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by

Join 769 other subscribers
%d bloggers like this: