Mediaboss Marketing

Scottish voters have spoken: They want to remain part of the United Kingdom. British Prime Minister David Cameron gambled and won, but barely, and after offering last-minute economic and political concessions. Cameron came close to losing because he underestimated the power of democracy and overestimated the power of his government. Voters used a democratic process to determine their fate, and although they came out pro-union, its clear that many Scots do not feel well represented in London. Why has democracy a widely appealing form of government that spread rapidly over the last few decades yielded increasingly ineffective governments? In my view, broken bonds of trust are at the heart of the problem.

The rise of separatist movements from South Sudan to Ukraine to Catalonia to Quebec to Colorado follows closely on an unprecedented worldwide expansion of democracy. From the early 1970s through the turn of this century, the number of electoral democracies increased from about 35 to almost 120. Francis Fukuyama, Senior Fellow at Stanford University and author of two brilliant volumes, The Origins of Political Order and Political Order and Political Decay, asserts that democracy is still the dominant trend in world politics, predicting that 25 years from now, China will look more like Europe and the United States than the other way around. But there are signs that this trend has stalled and even begun to reverse. Stanford University democracy scholar Larry Diamond calculates that the number of democracies declined from a peak of 121 in 2006 to 114 in 2010. Moreover, some democracies in name are in fact corrupt oligarchies. In 2013, Freedom House recorded its seventh consecutive year of more declines than gains in freedom worldwide. Even in established democracies, the capability of governments has declined, diminishing support for those democratically elected.

Separatist movements within democracies often result from a weakening fabric of trust. To begin to restore trust, one needs to parse out the word trust and understand the somewhat different reasons for its erosion. At the most basic level, electorates need to trust the character and integrity of their elected officials. Beyond that, they need to trust their leaders competence their ability to deliver on what they promise. And finally, they need to trust that their leaders are working within a system that functions well enough to enable them to do their jobs.

United Kingdom?

A breach of the most basic kind of trust of personal character and integrity is the kind of breach most associate with someone they regard as untrustworthy, unethical or even corrupt. Nominally democratic systems that never developed strong institutions to limit power or constrain behavior are particularly vulnerable to this kind of lapse in trust, and even where democratic institutions are well established, governments and their leaders may be prey to untrustworthy behavior. While no system is entirely immune from dishonesty, this type of breach of trust did not weigh heavily in Scotlands independence vote.

But even honest leaders with good intentions may break trust with the electorate if they promise things they cant deliver on. On this front, pro-independence leaders would do well to show caution. An independent Scotland would have been economically fragile. North Sea oil reserves would not provide income forever, and even if the oil services sectors developed in Aberdeen continued to pay dividends for years to come, countries dependent on commodity exports are notoriously vulnerable to macroeconomic shocks. Creating a new currency and establishing credit especially if Scotland were perceived to walk away from its share of the United Kingdoms debt would have been a delicate process. Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond may offer an inspiring vision, but inspiration fades quickly if leaders cant deliver on what they promise.

Vision doesnt always translate into effective governance because leading and governing require different skill sets. Leading involves articulating a vision, uniting people around a purpose, and inspiring action in support of that purpose. Governing, on the other hand, requires effective management of resources, systems, people and time. To meet the needs of their electorates, democracies need both inspiring leadership and effective governance. Todays democratically elected leaders too often fail at effective governance (and most surely are somewhat limited at inspired and inspiring leadership).

But leaders are failing for reasons that go beyond their personal integrity and competence. Around the world, in both the public and private sectors, leaders capability their power to get things done is diminishing, making governance more difficult. Moiss Nam, Senior Associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, in his most recent extraordinary book, The End of Power, asserts that power is both shifting and decaying, making democracy more difficult. Among the 34 member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), only four elected governments control a majority of votes in their parliaments. Fukuyama coined the term vetocracy to describe the gridlock that results when democratically elected governments are more capable of being vetoed than supported. Fukuyama, however, argues that power, instead of decaying, is simply too constrained in systems with outdated institutions. Perpetual gridlock may lead electorates to lose trust in the system and believe that no one is capable of accomplishing anything. The United Kingdoms institutions are designed to allow for less gridlock than the United States, which enables them to escape the vetocracy trap. But the other side of the coin is that the power that the majority party wields in London may leave minority voters feeling disenfranchised and clamoring for independence.

Scottish separatists lost their bid for independence this week, but the vote was closer than many expected a short time ago, and the British government is shaken. Moreover, losses dont necessarily quash separatist movements. As weve seen in Quebec, a near-win can egg on separatists to repeated attempts at independence,irrespective of Camerons assertion that the issue is settled for at least a generation.

Here is the original post:
Scottish Independence: Strong Democracy, Weak Government