Mediaboss Marketing

Today, we hear increasingly about a crisis of confidence in governments. While the pace of history accelerates, democratic governments often find themselves in a deadlock. Scholars now consider a growing percentage of countries to be failed democracies.

The progress of democracy in our world is fundamentally linked to improving the quality of human life. The promise of democracy is that the citizens themselves know how to achieve such progress in the best possible way. If that promise is met with disappointment, then democracy is in danger. But what can we say about why democratic systems often fall short in their efforts to improve the quality of the lives of their people?

There are four elements that could help strengthen democracys effectiveness in meeting this central challenge: improved constitutional understanding, an independent and pluralistic media, the potential of civil society and a genuine democratic ethic.

The current challenges to governance should be seen less as problems of democracy and more as problems of constitutionality. But constitutional revision especially in developing countries is not an easy undertaking. One problem involves the poor understanding of comparative government systems. This subject is not part of most curricula. In developing and developed countries alike, the media rarely explains the logic or the options of constitutional change. Even when a referendum is held to validate such change, most people are neither prepared nor willing to express a considered judgement. The result is that the governments in power often have an open field. As a result, the first step to improve democratic governance is a better public understanding of constitutional principles.

It is easy to say that we want a government of, by and for the people and governments should be servants of the people and ultimately responsible to them. But this does not mean that most governmental decisions must be made by an enormous range of far-flung participants: by vast plebiscites, popular referenda, public opinion polling or the number of hits on a blog. Such misapplied versions of democracy can produce irrational leadership choices and poorly informed policies.

Sometimes efforts to impose simplistic popular democracy can create voids of governance, which can be exploited to dangerous ends and one can see this in various countries in the developing world. But then, who should make various governmental decisions? A simple response would emphasise the idea of balanced authority, including the concept of healthy federalism. For increasingly diverse societies, a constitution that divides and balances power is essential.

In discussing constitutional challenges, it is impossible to ignore the recent revival or creation of new theocratic political parties in the Muslim world. The question involves how theocratic principles of governance can operate constitutionally in increasingly secular political environments. It seems essential that such principles should be regularly tested by the electoral process if only so that the Muslim world can have a better understanding of the secularisation processes, which are inherent to democracy. And democratic principles, in turn, must respect the broad diversity of faiths and cultures.

Finding the right constitutional balance is no easy matter and we can make a grave mistake if we think that one size can somehow fit all. Effective constitutions must be adapted to a variety of cultural and demographic realities. But it can be done. One recent example is that of Tunisia, where after intense and arduous negotiation, a promising new constitution received broad public support. The central point is that we cannot build better democratic performance over time without a better understanding of constitutional values.

A second key variable for enhancing democratic effectiveness is the critical role of competent and independent media voices. We often forget that democracy in Ancient Greece required a highly compact community living within the sound of a criers voice, as Aristotle said. Under such conditions, face-to-face dialogue could foster a sense of trust and political accommodation. But these ideal conditions are now only rarely obtained. Populations are much larger, more widely scattered and far more diverse. They can most easily be mobilised around vivid but superficial symbols and negative propositions. Often what counts most in our extended societies is not what one is for, but whom one is against. In such circumstances, polarisation and an impasse are constant risks.

Nor can we rely on advancements in communication technologies to overcome the obstacles of distance and diversity. In fact, new media technologies have often made matters worse. From the development of written language and the invention of printing to the development of electronic and digital media, quantitative advancements in communication technologies have not necessarily produced qualitative progress through mutual understanding.

To be sure, each improvement in communication technology has triggered new waves of political optimism. But, sadly, if information can be shared more easily as technology advances, so can misinformation and disinformation. If truth can spread more quickly and more widely, then so can error and falsehood. Throughout history, the same tools the printing press, the telegraph, the microphone, the television camera, the cell phone, the internet that promised to bring us together have also been used to drive us apart.

The age-old promise of democracy is that social cohesion and public progress could be achieved through consensus rather than coercion. But genuine democratic consent depends on dependable public information. The danger in the age of the mass media is that information also can be misused to manipulate people. All around the world, authoritarian rulers increasingly use the media to coerce the consent of the governed. Having said that, our technologies alone will not save us. But they should not ruin us as well. It is not the power of our tools, but how we use them that will determine our future. Among other things, this means prioritising the role of the independent media and, indeed, of a multiplicity of independent voices. Demographic pluralism must be reflected in healthy media pluralism.

At a time of democratic disappointment, we must re-emphasise the immense potential of those non-governmental institutions that we refer to as the civil society. Too often, our thinking is trapped in a false dichotomy. We talk about the public sector and the private sector. But we often undervalue the third sector: civil society.

The civil society is powered by private energies that are committed to the public good. It draws on the ancient, classical link between democracy and the publicly-committed citizen. It includes institutions of education, health, science and research, embracing professional, commercial, labour, ethnic and arts organisations. However, the civil society, if not self-conscious, can also be a source of establishing the hegemony of a dominant ideology, regardless of its democratic value. A self-conscious civil society seeks consensus through genuine consent. It can experiment, adapt and accommodate diversity. It can, in the fullest sense, be of, by and for the people. It can, in the fullest sense, only be a remarkable source of support on the condition that is it sustained, accepted and encouraged by the government.

At the heart of a democratic ethic is a commitment to genuine dialogue to achieve a better quality of life, even across new barriers of distance and diversity. This involves the willingness to give and take, listen and bridge the empathy as well as the ignorance gaps that have so often impeded human progress. It implies a pluralistic readiness to welcome diversity and to see our differences not as difficult burdens but as potential blessings.

The ultimate requirement for any effective democracy is the capacity to compromise. Social order rests either on oppression or accommodation. But we can never find that balancing point where the interests of all parties are recognised unless competing leaders and their diverse followers alike, are committed to finding a common ground. That common ground is the global aspiration for a better quality of life built upon opportunities that will provide genuine hope for the future. Democracy can only survive if it demonstrates across years and across the globe that it is the best way to achieve that goal.

The writer is a freelance columnist based in Islamabad.

Email: [emailprotected]

Go here to see the original:
Making democracy work - The News International