Salale University

College of Social Science and Humanities

Department of Civics and Ethical Studies

Course Title: Democracy and Election

Course Code: CESt-2023
Credit Hours: 3

Reading Material Prepared BY: Baynesagn A.

Salale University, Ethiopia

January 2023
Table of Content
Module Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1
CHAPTER ONE.............................................................................................................................................. 2
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY ................................................................................. 2

Chapter Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 2

Key terms or Phrases of the Chapter ........................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Lesson One: The Definition and Concept of Democracy ............................................................................. 3
Lesson Description .................................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Key terms or Phrases of the Lesson ........................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
1.1. Meaning and Definitions of Democracy ........................................................................................ 3
I. Democracy as Moral Value ............................................................................................................ 6
II. Democracy as Social Value......................................................................................................... 6
III. Democracy as Political Practice ................................................................................................. 6
A. At the Level of Norms and Principles ........................................................................................... 7
Lesson Two: Origin and Development of Democracy ............................................................................. 9
1.1. Origin and Evolution of Democracy.............................................................................................. 9
Lesson Three: Exercising Democracy ..................................................................................................... 14
1.3. Ways of Exercising Democracy ........................................................................................................ 14
1.3.1. Direct Democracy........................................................................................................................ 14
i) Initiative ......................................................................................................................................... 14
1.3.2. Indirect /Representative/ Democracy and System of Government ........................................ 16
Lesson Four: Values and Principles of Democracy ............................................................................... 19
1.4. Fundamental Values and Principles of Democracy ........................................................................ 19
1.4.1. Fundamental Principles of Democracy ..................................................................................... 19
i. Political Accountability .............................................................................................................. 31
ii. Administrative Accountability ................................................................................................... 32
iii. Professional Accountability ................................................................................................... 33
iv. Legal Accountability .................................................................................................................. 33
v. Moral or Ethical Accountability ................................................................................................ 33
1.4.2. Fundamental Values of Democracy........................................................................................... 35
Lesson Five: Pillars of Democracy .......................................................................................................... 43
1.5.2 Obligations ........................................................................................................................................ 51
1.5.2.2. Obligations of Citizenship ....................................................................................................... 52

i
Chapter One Summary ............................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter Two .............................................................................................................................................. 55
Contending Theories, Models, and Conceptions of Democracy ........................................................... 55
Lesson One: Theories of Democracy ....................................................................................................... 55
2.1. Major Contending Theories of Democracy ..................................................................................... 55
Salient Feature of the Neo-Liberal Theory of Democracy ................................................................ 60
Critics of Neo-Liberal Theory of Democracy ..................................................................................... 62
Some Major Critics of Pluralists ......................................................................................................... 66
Lesson Two: Models of Democracy ......................................................................................................... 70
Lesson Three: Conceptions of Democracy.............................................................................................. 73
Chapter Three ........................................................................................................................................... 75
The Democratization Process............................................................................................................... 75
Lesson one: Democracy and Democratization ....................................................................................... 75
4) Democracy and Democratization .................................................................................................... 75
4.1) Democracy ................................................................................................................................. 75
4.2) Democratization ........................................................................................................................ 77
Lesson two: Democratic Transition and Consolidation ........................................................................ 82
4.3) Democratic Transition .............................................................................................................. 82
4.4) Democratic Consolidation ........................................................................................................ 83
4.5) Waves of Democratization........................................................................................................ 85
Lesson three: Factors that Contributed for the Raise of Third Wave of Democratization ............... 87
Democratization in Africa and the challenges .................................................................................. 100
Summary of Chapter Three ..................................................................... Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chapter Four ........................................................................................................................................... 104
Election and Electoral System ............................................................................................................... 104
Lesson one: The Issue of Election .......................................................................................................... 105
4.1. Election Defined ...................................................................................................................... 105
4.2. Democratic Election ................................................................................................................ 107
4.2.1. Featured of Democratic Election ....................................................................................... 109
4.3. Difficulties with Election ........................................................................................................ 114
4.4. Types of Election ..................................................................................................................... 117
Lesson two: Electoral System ................................................................................................................ 119
4.5. Electoral System Defined ............................................................................................................ 120

ii
Lesson Three: Issues of Voting Behavior .............................................................................................. 127
4.5. Voting Behavior Defined ............................................................................................................. 128
4.5.1. Determinants of Voting Behavior ........................................................................................ 129
4.6. Party System ............................................................................................................................ 130
4.6.1. Political Party Defined .......................................................................................................... 130
4.6.2. Distinguishing Features of Political Party .............................................................................. 132
4.6.3. Political Party vs Interest Group ............................................................................................. 133
What is an Interest Group? ............................................................................................................... 133
Internal Politics ................................................................................................................................... 135
Similarities between Political Parties and Interest Groups............................................................. 136
4.6.3. Political Parties- Roles and Functions ................................................................................. 137
Lesson Four: Party System .................................................................................................................... 138
4.6.4. Types of Party System ............................................................................................................ 138
a) One-party System........................................................................................................................ 139
b) Two-party Systems...................................................................................................................... 139
c) Multi-Party Systems ................................................................................................................... 141
Lesson Five: Typology of Political Parties ............................................................................................ 142
4.6.5. Typology of Political Parties ........................................................................................................ 142
a) Elite-Based Parties ...................................................................................................................... 143
b) Mass-Based Parties ..................................................................................................................... 145
c) Ethnicity-Based Parties .............................................................................................................. 146
d) Electoralist Party ........................................................................................................................ 148
e) Movement Parties ....................................................................................................................... 149
Summary of Chapter Five ........................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................................ 151

iii
Module Introduction
This module is divided in four separate chapters. Chapter one is an introductory chapter which
focuses on conceptual definitions, origin and development of democracy as well as related
concepts in the introductory study of democracy. Nonetheless, democracy lacks single concrete
or agreed upon definition, this chapter dwells on most commonly cited definitions of democracy.
This chapter also deals with fundamental principles and values which are the actual
manifestations of a very existence and well practice of democracy. Chapter two of this module
entirely deals with the understanding and examining of contending theories of democracy.
Under this chapter the theoretical discourses on democracy are intensively conversed. The third
chapter is devoted to dealing with democratization process. This chapter takes the account of
issues of democratization, democratic transition and democratic consolidation and waves of
democratization in addition. The last chapter (chapter four) is about election and electoral
systems. This chapter mainly discusses concepts of election and election system, voting and
voting behavior, and party system.

Module Objectives

After the completion of this module, students should be able to:

 Understand conceptual definition of democracy and related concepts
 Identify aspects and postulates of democracy
 Explain ways of exercising democracy
 Understand and examine contending theories of democracy
 Describe the basic differences among contending theories of democracy
 Clearly identify the fundamental principles and values of democracy
 Conceptualize and examine democratization process
 Understand and conceptualize election and election system
 Describe voting and voting behavior
 Understand and examine party system
 Describe the typologies of political party
 Develop conceptual and analytical skills to differentiate the merits and demerits of party
systems

1
 CHAPTER ONE
UNDERSTANDING THE CONCEPT OF DEMOCRACY

Chapter Introduction
This chapter basically deals with understanding the concept of democracy. In this chapter,
concepts like democracy will be defined. The chapter also deals with the origin and historical
development of democracy. Therefore, students shall get the opportunity to critically and
analytically understand the concept of democracy: Meaning, conceptual prominent working
definitions of democracy as a moral value, democracy as a social process, and democracy as a
political value. The chapter also discusses the origin and evolution of democracy; aspects,
postulates, and merits of democracy; and rights and responsibilities as pillar of democracy.
Besides, students will analytically learn the direct and indirect ways of exercising of democracy.
In line with this, presidential and parliamentary democracies will be discussed. The fundamental
principles and values of democracy are the other important issue that is discussed in this chapter.

Chapter Objectives
After the successful completion of this chapter, students will be able to:
Describe the concept of democracy: Meaning, conceptual prominent, working definitions;
origin and evolution of democracy;
Explain the aspects, postulates, and merits of democracy and rights and responsibilities
Critically explain the direct and indirect ways of exercising of democracy;
Analytically distinguish the basic pillars of democracy;
Properly distinguish presidential democracy from parliamentary democracy;
Identify the fundamental values and principles of democracy; and
Analytically explain the advantages of democracy

2
Lesson One: The Definition and Concept of Democracy
1.1. Meaning and Definitions of Democracy

As other many social science concepts, the concept of democracy is subjected to different
understandings and interpretations even some of them are hostile each other.. This is why
democracy is defined differently by different social scientists. To this end, democracy can be
defined etymologically as well as theoretically.

Etymologically, democracy is a term derived from two Greek words, “demos’ and ‘Kracia.
Demos mean the people and kracia means power. Therefore, in short it means the power of the
people. However, theoretically and conceptually, democracy has come to mean so many things,
some very hostile to each other. On the basis of this reality, democracy can be defined in several
ways as follow and these are considered as major definitions of democracy.
1. Broadly speaking, democracy is a form of government and way of people’s life
whereby the supreme/highest authority is vested in the people and power is exercised in
the people. The people can exercise power directly by themselves and/or by their elected
agents or representatives under a free, fair and periodic election. Therefore, where there is
democracy, people of a country in question are the ultimate source of political authority
and power.
2. In modern usage, Democracy has three basic senses in contemporary usage. These
are the following:
a) Democracy is a form of government and way of people’s life in which the power to make
political decisions is exercised directly by the whole body of citizens whenever possible,
and acting under procedures of majority rule. This is usually known as direct democracy
which is practically rare in modern world;

b) Democracy is a form of government and way of people’s life in which citizens exercise
their legitimate rights and freedoms, and discharge their obligations not in person but

3
 through representatives and/or leaders chosen by and responsible to them. This is usually
known as indirect (representative) democracy; and

c) Democracy is a form government, usually a representative democracy, in which the

powers of the majority (majority rule) are exercised with in a frame work of
constitutional limits or restrains designed to guarantee all citizens the enjoyment of
certain individual and/or collective rights and discharge their expected legal and moral
responsibilities.

3. Democracy refers to the way that whole people (mass at grassroots) exercises
government power. In other words, democracy denotes to form of government in which the
governing power of the state is legally vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the
members of societies or communities as whole .This means in communities which act by voting,
that rule belongs to the majority, as no other method has been found for determining peacefully
and legally what is deemed the will of a community.

4. Democracy is a government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Democracy, in this way, was defined by Abraham Lincoln. For him, democracy is all about rule
of people. Accordingly, the phrase a government of the people means the government should
come and should be elected from the people of the country. And, by the people refers to the
government of the country in question should come to power by the will of the people ,at least
by the overwhelming section of the people through the principle of majority rule and minority
rights. Lastly, government for the people means the government should profoundly do its best in
the interests of the people of a country in question.

5. Democracy can also be understood as the institutionalization of freedom and Rights.

Democracy in this sense can be understood in two ways. Firstly, democracy is a set of
fundamental ideas and principles, and a set of procedures and practices about rights and freedom.
Secondly, it also implies organizing of agencies that persistently and constantly watch the respect
of and promotion rights and freedoms; the signing and ratification of international treaties and
conventions and introducing these rights and freedoms in a country’s constitution and other a
specific laws.

4
6. Democracy is about peaceful management and resolving of conflict. Undoubtedly, conflict
is inevitable and a natural reality which is inherent in human history both at intrapersonal and
inter group aspects of a society. Conflict is unavoidable that exists and will exist in the future in
every dimension of human life. No one can avoid conflict but can only be minimized the
potential inevitability of conflicts through preventive and curative approach. Conflicts, especially
before they are transformed in to violence, they need to be solved peacefully, legally and in
civilized way. In this regard, democracy composed of values of tolerance, cooperation,
cooperative negotiation, compromise consensus, compassion, civility, pragmatism, open –
mindedness, etc. These values are essentially value instruments to resolve differences and even
violent conflicts peacefully and legally. Therefore, democracy is peaceful or nonviolent
resolution of differences and even violent conflicts in a peaceful, civilized and legal means or
ways. Democracy is therefore, a form of government offering a workable solution to the
functional political pathologies or problems of reaching coactive decisions by peaceful and legal
means being governed by majority rule and minority rights.

7. Democracy is understood as a way of living with peaceful co- existence and working
together.

Democracy is essentially an evolutionary but not static process. As an ideal in democracy, the
management of one’s affair and citizen’s responsibility in self– government is an essential
element. Citizen’s responsibility for an effective self-government is realized by the application of
democracy and democratic culture. Citizens are expected to conceive and apply democratic ethic
for successful self-governance both at individual and collective level. It is self –evident,
therefore, that we can say that democracy is not only about enjoying rights and freedoms of
individuals and groups but also it is about effective and persistent discharging of obligations.
This is fundamentally because of the act that rights and duties are not, and can never be mutually
exclusive; rather, they are complementary and the two sides of same coin.

Given the above points, democracy is thoroughly a political concept founded on three
underlying ideas namely, democracy as a moral value; as a social process; and as political
Practice. These ideas are discussed separately as follow.

5
 I. Democracy as Moral Value

Democracy is above all a moral value or imperative; that is, a basic human need, a necessity, and
therefore, a political demand of all freedom loving human beings. So what this imperative it is
basically permanent aspiration of human beings for freedom, for better social and political order,
one that is more human and more or less egalitarian. In all human societies, people always feel
the need to improve their spiritual and material conditions of life as well as to feel free whatever
the real situation might be. This need becomes a necessity, or even a political demand for a new
social project, when their situation deteriorates, or when they are in a period of crises. In the end,
it should be emphasized that as a moral imperative, democracy implies tolerance, cooperation
and mutual respect for all sorts of diversity.

II. Democracy as Social Value

Like any human construction, democracy is never perfect. It is a continuous process of

promoting equal access to fundamental democratic and human rights and Civic rights and
liberalities for all. By this, it means democracy fundamentally manifests itself in all aspects of
human beings. Therefore, democracy is all about:
i) The fundamental rights of human person to life, security and property;
ii) Freedom of religion, assembly, expression, press, association, etc;
iii) Economic, Social and Cultural rights-the idea here being that democracy is meaningless
when the needs of the population are not satisfied; and
iv) The rights of people, including the inalienable right to self-determination

Given its association with the quest for freedom and a better social order, the concept of
democracy is incomplete without reference to the notion of fundamental human rights.
Democracy is that social process through which people strive to expand these rights, together
with the political space necessary for promoting and defending them effectively. Central to this
process is the idea that a good political order is one in which the state is capable of satisfying the
material and spiritual needs of its citizens.
III. Democracy as Political Practice

Democracy as political practice or a form of rule is also its best-known feature. Democracy as
political practice or a form of rule refers to a specific manner of organizing or exercising power

6
in accordance with certain guiding universal norms and principles. There are two levels at which
this can be examined. These are: the level of the principles; and that of the institutions and
procedures of government, which are compatible with democratic principles.

A. At the Level of Norms and Principles

There are many universal of democratic governance. For the sake of this part, we shall discuss
some five universal principles of democratic governance because we will look at the detail part
of the fundamental principles in the next section.

1. Popular sovereignty. The idea that legitimate authority emanates from the people

2. The concept Rule of law. This means that power should not be arbitrary, and that its
exercise must be circumscribed by a set of rules with respect to its limits and mode of
operation. The concept of rule of law implies that everything is done in conformity with
the law, and that there exists a judicial system capable of ensuring the impartiality of the
law as well as the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and groups.

3. The Principle that rules are chosen by and are accountable to the people. The
element of choice implies that democracy is government by the consent of the governed.
Likewise, the rulers are, must be, accountable to the people for their acts.

4. The Right of Citizens to Participate in the management of public affairs through free,
transparent, and democratic elections; through decentralized governmental structures; and
through nongovernmental organizations (NGOs).

5. The Right of People to Change a Government that no longer serves their interests,
because democracy is essentially “government of the people, by the people, and for
the people.”
B. At the Level of the Existence of Institutions and Procedures of Government

As a form of rule based on the consent of the governed (the people), democracy requires those
institutions that likely to help the people fulfill their deepest as privations, while maximizing
their presence in the political space. Accordingly, democracy is inconceivable without free and
fair election, representative government, and an independent judiciary. Moreover, these
institutions are unlikely to perform in a satisfactory way in the absence of a vibrant civil society

7
and, a free and responsible press. Therefore, the real and actual existence of democracy which all
human persons strive for puts its profounded base on the system in which it runs. This is system
is known as democratic system.

Democratic system is a system of government in which people are governed by persons they
elect as their leaders on the basis of free, fair, and periodic election. We the people of Ethiopia,
for example, have a constitutional right to elect those who serve in positions of authority. The
virtue of any democratic system of government is that it allows a wide range of public
participation and decision making. Therefore, building of democratic system is a very decisive
role for proliferation of democracy. This is why it would be logical to deduce democracy is alive
only if democratic system is well established. And if democratic system is be maintained
constitution should be developed and constitutionalism should be practiced. This is because, it
constitution that ensures rights and freedom of citizens of state in question.
Given the above, democracy is also a way to social, economic and political development of the
people of a given state. The reason people need to build democracy is to secure sustainable
economic, social and political development. Development of democracy involves fair
distribution of resources and social needs such as food, shelter, education, health, road, etc.
Besides, it is worth noting that democracy is a flexible and open political system because it seeks
to find new solutions to the myriad problems and issues facing society. It is also vital in
management of conflict. In this regard, it includes (composed of) values of tolerance,
cooperation, compromise, bargaining, consensus if possible, majority rule and minority rights,
pragmatism, civility, civic mindedness, compassion, self-disciplined virus, etc. These pivotal
values and virtues are essential instruments in resolving differences or conflicts peacefully being
consistent with the laws of the state.
Democracy denotes that form of government in which the ruling power of a state is legally
vested, not in any particular class or classes, but in the members of a society or community bas a
whole. This means, in communities which act by voting, that rule belongs to the majority and no
other method has been found for determining peacefully and legally what is deemed the will of a
community which is not unanimous. Besides, it is worth noting that democracy is a flexible and
open political system because it seeks to find new solutions to myriad problems and issues facing
society .It is also vital in management of conflict.
In this regard, it includes values of tolerance, cooperation, compromise, competitive negotiation,
consensus if possible, majority rule and minority rights, pragmatism, civility, civic mindedness,
8
compassion, self-discipline, etc. These essential values and virtues are essential instruments in
resolving differences and conflicts in a peaceful, civilized and legal manner. Therefore, this is a
vital witness of democracy and actual implementation of democracy.

Lesson Two: Origin and Development of Democracy

1.1. Origin and Evolution of Democracy

As it is explained in the first section of this chapter, the word democracy has its root in ancient
Greek. Accordingly, the literal meaning of implies” the rule of the people”, not the rule of
monarchies or aristocrat. The birth place of democracy is usually associated with Athens, a city-
state of ancient Greece. Democracy, therefore, first originated in the Greek city state of Athens in
the 5th century B.C (that is 6th B.C 5th B.C). Moreover, democracy not only born but also
flourished in Athens. Athens was also the leading polis (city-state) of ancient Greece. Poleis
(city-states) were small independent community. Moreover, classical Greece was not one single
state, but it was combination of poleis (city-states) each of which developed its own political
system ranging from despotic monarchy to extremely open forms of direct popular rule. Thus,
there was more than one form of so-called” democracy” flourishing in the region undoubtedly.
The best known, however, was the system operated in Athens in the 6th and 5th centuries B.C.
Democracy fundamentally flourished in Athens particularly during the years of percales’
leadership. Percale, who was the greatest of the Athenian leaders, explained his country’s
political system in a speech delivered at a time when Athens was in war with Sparta by saying
that; “democracy is government in which people are power full”. Thus, the reign of percales was
the golden age of Athens because it marked the highest of the Athenian democracy. At the early
stage, there was direct democracy in which all free male Athenians participated in deliberation
and decision making.

For the sake of having a clear and precise understanding on the practices of Athenian democracy,
it is better to look at the division of rowers and duties of the Athenian political system in the
form of basic components of the Athenian democracy. Accordingly, the Athenian democracy had
three (3) main component or bodies with their respective rules and procedures, and powers and
duties. Let now see these components/bodies of the Athenian democracy one by one as follow.
1. The Assembly (Juror)

9
The assembly (juror), which was the most central political institution and the most outstanding
feature of the political system of Athens in the 6th and 5th century B.C, composed of 5,000 to
6,000 members as participants and open to all adult male citizens over 30 years as seaming that
any citizen is capable of holding public office. Any adult male citizen aged at least 20 could
attend the assembly sessions and there address his peers; meetings were of citizens, not their
representatives. However, it should be noted that this in particular and the Athenian democracy
in general was not based on the principle of universal suffrage and not all-inclusive because
certain social groups such as children (less than 20 years of age), women, foreigners, and slaves
were absolutely excluded i.e. only citizens who were aged 20 years at least and at the same time
citizens did not include the above mentioned social groups. Furthermore, the assembly met
around or about 40 times a year to settle issues put before it-including the recurring issues of war
and peace which were central to the polis (the Athenian’s city -state) prospects and prosperity.

The assembly was the sovereign body, representing the will of the people, as parliament does in
the modern system. Its function was to discuss and decide questions of internal and external
policy, including defense and finance it also supervised the activities of the magistrate citizens
who were officials who actively carried out the policies. The assembly had 10 (ten) sessions in a
year, and could be summoned to special meeting if necessary, for instance, in case of emergence
or to deal with particularly important issues. Moreover, leaders were not elected but chosen and
the assembly had been virtually using and practicing simple majority vote to decide any domestic
issue without any leas restriction. In association with this, in Aristotle’s the assembly was
”supreme over all causes”, it (the assembly) was the sovereign body, unconstrained by a formal
constitution or even, in the early decades, by a body of written law

2. The People’s Court

The people’s court was one leg of the Athenian democracy that consisted of up to 6,000 citizens
of each of them was above 30 years of age. This was a highly political-legal system that
provided another leg of Athenians complex democracy. Juries of several hundred people (around
6,000 citizens), again selected for specific case, from the panel of volunteers, considered law
suits which citizens could-and frequently did –bring against those considered to have acted
against the true interest of the polis. The courts functioned as an arena of accountability through
which top figures (including generals) were brought to rule. Besides, a person (citizen) was not

10
allowed to hold the same office twice and some among the 6,000 chosen citizens were given the
power to see and decide a particular case.

Although there were no professional judges or lawyers, the juries acted as guardian of the
constitution and of law and order in general besides, the juries tried cases of individual‘s
misconduct as wells political crimes such as treason. The Council of this was an execute
committee, or steering committee, the council of 500 was an administrative body consisting of
500 citizens aged over 30.

The task or function was drawing up the assembly’s agenda, organizing and coordinating its
work, and also supervising the administrative works, carried out by the magistrates. The council
was composed of 500 members, chosen annually by lot from a panel of citizens. Members of the
council had to be over 30 years of age and were not allowed to serve for more than two (2) years.

In addition to the above three organs of governments, 10 generals were chosen by the whole
people. These 10 generals commanded the army and the fleet, and controlled defense and foreign
policy in genetic but they were not allowed to had civilian office. However, some of the
generals had great influence over the assembly. They were sometimes regarded as political
advisors. Since they were re-elected, it was possible of them to continue to hold office for a
number of years and so to become fetal political leaders. The most focus of them pedicles, held
office for 15 years, and virtually dominated the rest. In Athens, there was no professional army.
In case of war, every citizen transformed himself into a soldier just by going home for his shield,
spear and his ration.

Aristotle’s Characterization Of Democracy

(1) All to rule over each and each in his return over all.
(2) Appointment to all offices, except those requiring experience and skill, by lot
(3) No property qualification for office-holding, or only a very low one
(4) Tenure of office should be brief and no man should hold the same office twice
(except military positions.
(5) Juries selected from all citizens should judge all major causes
(6) The assembly should be supreme over all causes
(7) Those at tending the assembly and serving as jurors and magistrates should be
paid for their services.

11
Citizenship was a birth right which could not normally be acquitted by other means. The
Athenian democracy was commonly exercising direct democracy. The reason why the great city-
states exercised direct democracy is that each polis (city-state) was very small, usually with a
population less than 10, 000. The Greek city-states were not really comparable either with
modern states or with molder cities. They were states in the sense that they had their own
independent government and constitution, and were not subject to some higher power. At the
same time, they were cities in the sense that their areas and population were no larger than those
of modern cities. Greek government, then, was a local or municipal as well as national in
character. Furthermore, the scope of the Athenian democracy was extraordinarily wider
providing an all-encompassing political framework within which citizens were expected not only
just to live but also to develop their true qualities. For the Athenians, politics was intrinsically an
amateur a activity, to be undertaken by all citizens to develop both themselves and the broader
polis (city-state). In the Greek vision of democracy, politics is natural social activity not sharply
separated from the rest of life. Rather, political life is only an extension of, and harmonious with
oneself.

Focus

On the basis of all contributions discussed above, we can, therefore, see that Athenian
democracy coined and contained several elements of democracy in particular and politics at large
to which we can still relate to day:
 Direct popular participation in politics.
 Political equality (at least for free male adult citizens)
 The notion that government should be responsible to the people
 It invented the idea of citizen-as opposed to subject
 On the contrary, the Athenian democracy had certain fatal and serious flaws. Therefore,
despite of the irreplaceable contributions, Athenian democracy doesn’t escape from critics.
Let’s look at these serious defects of ancient Athenian democracy.
(1) Citizenship was restricted to a small elite: it was birth right of males whose parents were
both citizens themselves. The vast majority of the adults-including women, slaves, and
resident aliens (metrics)-did not qualify.

12
(2) Participation was not in practice as extensive as the Athenians liked to claim most
citizens were absent from most assembly meetings even after payment for attendance was
introduced.

(3) Athenian democracy was hardly an exercise ineffective government.

It was extravagant, time-consuming, and expensive: an over-complex method of governing a

small, rural society. Its applicability to modern world is too little where people usually spend
their working hours to develop and prosper themselves rather than the state is question.

(4) The principle of self-government does not always lead to decisive and coherent policy.
Indeed the lack of a permanent bur eve racy eventually contributed to a period of infected
government after defeat in war.

After 750 B.C Athens slowly progressed from monarchy (rule of one man) to aristocracy (the
rule of few landowner nobles) and then to democracy (the rule of people). Athenian democracy
encouraged similar reforms in a number of Geek city-states. In ancient times, democracy also
appeared and flourished in other parts of the world. In the ancient time, democracy was also
flourished in the city of Rome and other parts of the world. Democracy, since its first occurrence
in ancient time has shown sensational improvements and has reached at the level where it is in
today’s world.

13
Lesson Three: Exercising Democracy
1.3. Ways of Exercising Democracy
1.3.1. Direct Democracy

Under origin and evolution of democracy above we said that, in world political history direct democracy
was practiced in ancient City-States of Greece as well as in Rome. Direct democracy is a form of self-
government in which all adult citizens participate in collective decisions in a context of equality
and open deliberation. In direct democracy, the states and society become one. Direct democracy
is a way of exercising in democracy where all adult citizens in a country have a say in a day – to
day governing activities and reaching collective decisions. It is a form of democracy in which
people without an intermediary of elected official(s) or representative(s) can participate in the
government issues and other related issues which affect their life in one or other way. It is true
that direct democracy of the ancient Athenian or Raman type cannot prevail in modern country –
states due to the ever – growing population size, complexity of issues, and urgent and pressing
issues that urgently need decisions. Due to these and other related factors it has become
impossible and unthinkable to apply direct democracy in modern times. However, there are
some forms /or / institutions/ or devices of direct democracy that have come up and executed in
modern times though the possibilities are not as usual and as easy as implementing indirect
democracy. These are discussed below

i) Initiative

Here, power is vested in the hands of some members. This means power is at the hands of a
specified number of voters to prepare a bill or a resolution and to ask their government to make a
clarification on the issue in question. In a case of election, for example, specified voters
representing the others can run the initiative. Thus, initiative is an arrangement whereby a
specified number of voters may prepare the draft of a law and may then demand that it is either
be adopted by the legislator or referred to the people for acceptance at a general or special
election. If supported by the required majority, then it becomes a law. In short, it is a procedure
which allows a certain number of voters to initiate a referendum on a given topic. Therefore,
initiative is a procedure that paves a way for ordinary citizens to have direct say on decisions.

ii) Referendum

14
Referendum is the most common way of exercising direct democracy in modern times and
situations. It is a vote of the electoral on issue of public policy such as constitutional amendment,
self-determination, and cession. In the case of referendum, the veto power is vested in the hands
of the voters or the people.

In the case of referendum, the will of the legislature is subordinated to the will of the people.
Therefore, while initiative is the sward, referendum is the shield of democracy. So, referendum
lives usually in the legislative democracy. The main benefit of referendum is to provide double
safety – valve. These are:

(a) Referendum allows a government to put and forward an issue to the people when for some
reason it is hardly possible to come to agreement and make decision by itself; and

(b) Where the initiative is permitted, disappointed citizens can use referendum as a chance to
raise issues and criticisms that might otherwise remain unheard.

There are many countries that use referendum as a means of exercising direct democracy on
many issues. For example, constitutions of Switzerland, France and Australia also permit
referendum in case of bills of constitutional amendment.

In the case of Ethiopia, referendum is also permitted in the case of proper implementation of
article 39 of the FDRE constitution. In this particular case, referendum has a ground of
implementing political decentralization. This, in or another way, handed the Nations,
Nationalities, and People of the country the right to self -administration determination including
the right to session. To make this article effective on the real ground and demands of the Nations,
Nationality and People, it essentially requires the fulfillment some procedural preconditions or
prerequisites.

iii) Plebiscite

Though it is taken as a synonym of “referendum”, plebiscite means that any important issue that
cannot solved by a government of a given state for some reason should be decided by the votes
of the people. Let the decision of the people be final. For example, plebiscite was held in 1935
where by some area was given back to Germany.

iv) Recalling
15
Recalling means that the voters have a right to call back their elected representative in case they
are not satisfied with his/her role or behavior and then elect some ne else instead. This system of
recall is provided in the electoral law of USSR. It also prevails in some states of America.
Generally, recalling essentially allows voters to demand a referendum on whether an elected
representative should be removed from office or from representation.

1.3.2. Indirect /Representative/ Democracy and System of Government

It looks unthinkable to apply direct way of exercising democracy these days. This is why we see
in today’s modern times, democracies are representative rather than direct. The principle of
indirect democracy allows no longer self – government but elected government. In large and
complex societies, people cannot assemble in one place to participate directly in government.
Therefore, citizens participate in government by electing representatives to make decisions for
them on the behalf of them. These elected representatives are expected to represent the interests
and political voices of those who elected them. They serve as the agents of citizens. This is
known as indirect democracy /Representative democracy and it’s a way of exercising
democracy indirectly. Therefore, unlike in the case of direct democracy, there is bridge called
representative between citizens and government in the case of indirect democracy.

Focus
Indirect /Representative/ Democracy is a type of democracy where citizens elect their
representatives to the government that acts on the behalf of the people. The elected
representatives make political decisions, formulate laws an administer programs or the
commons good of the people in question. In a representative democracy, public officials
and representatives hold office on behalf of the people and are forced to act in way
actable to the people. Therefore, the personaties are expected to protested and promote
the interests of the people. If the representatives fail to protect the interest of the people,
people have the right to remove the representatives from their office and can elect new
representatives. This indicates the face that in a democracy, supreme power rests in the
hands of the people.

16
Representative democracy and system of government are intrinsically related one another. On
the basis of this correlation or relations, we can have two types of indirect democracy or there are
two ways of exercising representative democracy. These are:
A. Parliamentary Democracy

B. Presidential Democracy

1. Parliamentary Democracy

As the name indicates parliamentary democracy is a form of democracy, which is applied in

parliamentary system of government. In parliamentary democratic system people elect their
representatives to the legislature and the government is formed after a parliamentary election.
Members of the parliament are directly elected by the people. They are thus people’s
representatives. The interests of the people are represented in the government by via of these
representatives. The party or coalition of parties that win the majority seats in the parliament
shall be the ruling party and shall elect the Prime Minister, and in turn, the Prime Minister selects
the various ministers who hold ministerial offices up on the approval by the majority vote of the
members of the parliament. He/she elects ministers either from parliament or outside the
parliament. In this way of exercising indirect democracy, the executive organ is responsible to
the legislature, which is the collection of representatives of the whole people. In parliamentary
way of exercising indirect democracy, it is only the members of the parliament who are directly
responsible to the people because they are directly elected by the people. This indicates that there
is no clear cut boundary regarding separations of powers between the legislative and executive
branches of government. The parliament can intervene in the activities in one another way.
Moreover, the fate of executive branch of government is decided by the approval as well as vote
of confidence or vote of no confidence of the parliament. Parliament can also make intimidation
on the executive branch of government. Because of these all, The cabinet (council of ministers)
retains executive power only as long as it has the “confidence” of the parliament; that is, only as
long as majority vote in the parliament may unseat a cabinet. Countries like Britain, Canada,
Germany, Italy, Australia, Israel, India, and Ethiopia follow parliamentary democracy.

17
2. Presidential Democracy

Presidential democracy is a form of government, which is chiefly characterized by separation of

powers between the legislative and executive branches of government. Thus, unlike
parliamentary democracy, executive organ of government is independent of influence of
legislative organ of government and also the members of the two houses are elected separately.
In presidential democracy, people elect representatives to the legislatures and the president. In
this system, members of the Assembly (the legislature) and the president are directly elected by
the people. They are, thus, people’s representatives. The members of the legislature and
president are accountable to the people as they are directly elected by the people. Countries like
USA, Argentina, Mexico, and Costa Rica are well known by this type of exercising indirect
democracy.

Key Features of Representative /Indirect / Democracy

Representative democracy is characterized by certain set of features. These are discussed below
separately.

A. Universal Adult Suffrage

The first and the most requirement of indirect democracy is that all adults of the state should
have the right to cast their votes. Every adult citizen of a state in question should be granted with
the right to vote unless it is restricted by convincing law of the state. However, the minimum age
of voter may vary from country to country. The minimum age of a voter, for example, is 18 in
Ethiopia, 20 years in Japan, 18 years as in Britain, USA, Australia, India, and USSR.

There should be no artificial restrictions in matters of suffrage based on the factors of religion,
caste, wealth, sex, colour of the skin, language, domicile and the like. It is, however, a different
matter that a very negligible section of the people may be deprived of the privilege of voting on
the grounds of lunacy, heinous crimes, ridiculous, and the like.

B. Free, Fair and Periodic Election

Elections should take place in specified time interval so that the voters may choose and change
their representative. It is necessary that the elections should be free from corruption or rigging of

18
any kind. Let the votes vote in a free and thank manner so as to register their will in the battle of
the ballot box. And, it is equally necessary that the elections should be conducted periodically
with much specified period, for example five (5) years in Ethiopia and four (4) years United
States of America. In case of the conducting of election is delayed for very long durations
without any reasonable cause, it amounts to the notion of undemocratic system.

C. Roles of Parties and Interest Groups

There should be a law that allows a multi –party system and a number of political parties and
interest groups in a country to take part in the political process. They may form a healthy public
option so as to force the government to run according to the will of the people. The power should
be open between these parties and groups so that it may not be monopolized by a section of
people as happens in a totalitarian or in dictatorship form of government.

D. Freedom of Press and Mass Media

Freedom of mass media plays a paramount role in exercising indirect democracy. It is also
necessary that all channels of information should be open so that people may have a correct
image of the news and views about great matters of public concern. The freedom of press is,
therefore, an essential requirement of democratic system. So other mass media agencies like
broad casting should be free to play their part in the making of the public opinion.

Lesson Four: Values and Principles of Democracy

1.4. Fundamental Values and Principles of Democracy
1.4.1. Fundamental Principles of Democracy
There are numerous definitions of democracy as you have seen in chapter one. Based on such
definitions, democracy can be explained as a form of government in which all eligible citizens
participate equally either directly or through elected representatives in the proposal,
development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that
enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination. Furthermore the dictionary
definition of democracy denotes that democracy is the free and equal right of every person to
participate in a system of government, often practiced by electing representatives of the people
by the majority of the people. The fundamental principles and values of democracy constitute

19
determinant elements which are basic to every democratic society. These basic principles often
become part of the constitution or bill of rights in a democratic society.

Dear trainees now let us mention and discuss the most commonly cited fundamental principles
and values of democracy and democratic system.

3.1. Fundamental Principles of Democracy

1) Popular Sovereignty

In a democratic society people is a supreme source of government power. Meaning, the final or
the highest power of the state resides in the hands of the citizens. In democracy citizens bay
taking part in democratic election, vote to the party whom they consider meet their interest to
form a government. They can also vote to depose the ruling part and replace it. This will be true
only if the sovereignty of the people is practically observed in a democratic society.

Popular sovereignty is the principle that asserts only legitimate source of government authority is
the consent of the governed. The citizens are the sovereign of the state and they hold the ultimate
authority over public officials and the policy of the state. Consent is given by the people through
their regularly elected representatives and through approval of all constitutional changes. Popular
sovereignty also means that the people have the right to withdraw their consent when the
government fails to fulfill its obligations under the constitution. Popular sovereignty in
democracy assumes the principle of majority rule, which means that with in constitutional limits,
majorities should have the right to make political decisions. Such decisions are made within the
framework of regular elections and include the choice of who should be elected to public office
and what laws should be passed by legislative bodies.

2) Citizens Participation

One of the most basic evidences of a democracy is citizen participation in government.

Participation is the key role of citizens in democracy. It is not only their right, but it is their duty
too. Citizen participation may take many forms including standing for election, voting in
elections, participating in development activities, becoming informed, debating issues, attending
community or civic meetings, being members of private voluntary organizations, paying taxes,
and even protesting. This active participation of citizens in all affairs of his/her country
considered as a cornerstone to building a better democratic system.

20
In the developing and developed world too, people’s participation in social decision-making
processes is increasingly being emphasized as a means of combating a range of social malaise,
including the problems of social exclusion, political apathy and so on(United Natios, 2008).

Participation has enormous significance for human beings. According to United Natios(2008)
participation is valued for both intrinsic and instrumental reasons. The intrinsic value refers to
the idea that the act of participation is valuable in itself, quite apart from any value it may have in
helping to achieve other good things. Cited in United Natios(2008) Amartya Sen’s powerful
detailed discussion of the idea of ‘development as freedom’ clearly recognizes the intrinsic value
of participation in the development process. In this perspective, development consists of the
expansion of a range of freedoms to do and to be the things that human beings have reasons to
value, and the freedom to participate meaningfully in public affairs is seen as one of those
valuable freedoms. In this regard people attach value not just to the final outcomes of
development but also to the process through which these outcomes are achieved.

According to UN (2008), Sen (2002) makes a distinction between the opportunity aspect and the
process aspect of freedom. The opportunity aspect refers to the freedom to achieve valuable
outcomes - such as the ability to lead a life free from hunger, disease, illiteracy and so on, while
the process aspect refers to the manner in which these outcomes are achieved. In general people
have the freedom to achieve the ability to lead a life free from miseries (valuable outcomes of
development) and also they have the freedom to take part in the process of achieving these
valuable outcomes. Therefore, development consists in the expansion of both these aspects of
freedom because people attach value not just to the final outcomes but also to the process
through which these outcomes are achieved (Ibid).

The freedom to participate is related to the process aspect of freedom, and as such it is very
much a constituent of development, not just a means of achieving it. As a constituent it may be
valued just as much as the final outcomes. For instance, while people value freedom from
hunger, they are not indifferent to the process through which this outcome is achieved. In
particular, they have the freedom to participate actively in the choice of pathways leading to
freedom from hunger.

According to UN(2008) the argument that the freedom to participate in the development process
is a valuable freedom in its own right has not remained confined to the AmartyaSen’s

21
philosophical domain. The force of the argument has been recognized, for example, by the
international human rights discourse, in which the right to participate is enshrined alongside
rights to other civil-political and socio-economic freedoms. This recognition is quite explicit in
the Declaration of the Right to Development adopted by the United Nations in 1986, which says:
‘The right to development is an inalienable human right by virtue of which every human person
and all peoples are entitled to participate in, contribute to and enjoy economic, social, cultural
and political development, in which all human rights and fundamental freedoms can be fully
realized.’ It is evident from this statement that the right to development is to be seen not simply
as a right to ‘enjoy’ the fruits of development, but also as a right to participate in the process of
realizing them.

The right to participate is not limited, however, to the context of development. It’s a very general
right that has a bearing on all spheres of public affairs, and as such it is equally applicable to
developed as well as developing countries. The International Covenant on Civil and Political
Rights (ICCPR) has also recognized the inalienable right of citizens for participation.
Accordingly the covenant stated that: ‘Every citizen shall have the right and the opportunity to
take partin the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives’
(O’Flaherty &Heffernan). Therefore the universality of the right to participate has been
recognized, underlining the intrinsic value of participation in all spheres of public life.

3) Rule of Law
Democracy is a system of rule by laws, not by individuals. In a democracy, the rule of law
protects the rights of citizens, maintains order, and limits the power of government. All citizens
are equal under the law. No one may be discriminated against on the basis of their race, religion,
ethnic group, or gender. This means rule of law guarantees every legitimate citizen from
mistreatment and bias accordingly one may be not arrested, imprisoned, or exiled arbitrarily. If a
person is arrested he/she has a right to know the charge and to be presumed innocent until proven
guilty according to the law. Anyone charged with a crime has the right to a fair, speedy, and
public trial by an impartial court. No one may be taxed or prosecuted except by a law established
in advance. No one is above the law, not even a king or an elected president/PM. The law is
fairly, impartially, and consistently enforced, by courts that are independent of the other branches
of government. Torture and cruel and inhumane treatment are absolutely forbidden. The rule of
law places limits on the power of government. No government official may violate these limits.

22
No ruler, minister, or political party can tell a judge how to decide a case. Office holders cannot
use their power to enrich themselves. Independent courts and commissions punish corruption,
no matter who is guilty

Generally democracy requires respect for the rule of law, which survives regardless of the
outcome of elections. The rule of law comprises legitimacy, fairness, effectiveness, and checks
and balances. Legitimacy requires that laws reflect a general social consensus that they be
enacted in an open and democratic process. Fairness includes equal application of the law,
procedural fairness, protection of civil liberties, and reasonable access to justice. Effectiveness
refers to the consistent application and enforcement of laws. Fairly enforced laws that protect all
citizens’ help establish a democratic state’s legitimacy. A nation where laws are implemented
fairly and disputes adjudicated impartially is more stable. Unjust or discriminatory laws, on the
other hand, undermine public respect.

Rule of law implies respect for fundamental civil rights and procedural norms and requires that
these transcend the outcome of any given election. In a democracy, the election returns cannot
affect protections for freedom of speech, freedom of the press, or the independence of the
judiciary. New leaders, regardless of how broad their electoral mandate should neither call these
norms into question nor threaten the rights of any citizen, including those who supported a losing
candidate. As a result, respect for the rule of law encourages peaceful election transitions. A
defeated candidate who refuses to accept election results simply will find himself lacking
support; citizens instead will view such a figure as an outlier, possibly a lawbreaker, and
definitely a threat to their shared civic culture. Again, citizens are less likely to support revolts or
to back candidates who refuse to accept election results in a country where legal processes are
respected and the state is seen as legitimate.

To sum up in a Rule of Law, there are fundamental principles and procedures that guarantee the
freedom of each individual and which allow participation in political life. In a democratic State,
all the citizens (both the ordinary citizens and those in power) are equal in front of the law. This
(rule of law) is a system that holds the State accountable for its acts in front of the citizens and it
also gives the latter (citizens) the opportunity to take a stand and to react according to its acts.
Generally in this type of state citizens are completely free to take part in political life as well.

23
 4) Secularism
Secularism is a key attribute of democracy which asserts the separation of state and religion. I a
democratic society there is no state religion which influences governments decision making.
Indeed, in democracy the religion shall not to interfere in government affair and the government
shall not interfere in religious affair too. This is not to mean that they are blocked not to make
interaction, they can work in cooperation on developmental issues of the state.

5) Respect for Human and Democratic Rights

Human rights are much more than a mere component of democracy. They represent sine qua non
requirements for the well performing of a democratic system. Therefore human rights have
universal value and they must be respected in every democratic country. In addition to this as
described in Democracy Reporting International, (2011), a core element of democracy is the
right to participate in the conduct of public affairs, and to stand for and vote in elections.
Participation in public affairs can take place directly, for instance, by referenda. It can be
indirect; e.g., by voting for elected representatives. More generally, participation can refer to
being politically active. In sum, democracies need to ensure both Human Rights and Democratic
Rights.

In this regard the following are some of democratic and Human Rights enshrined in FDRE
constriction:

 Right of thought, opinion and Expression

 The right of assembly, demonstration and petition
 Freedom of Association
 Freedom of movement
 Rights of nationality
 Marital, personal and family Rights
 Rights of women, children
 Rights of Access to justice
 The Rights to Vote and to be elected
 The Right to property
 Economic, social and cultural Right
 Right of Labor

24
  The Right to Development, etc
6) Free, Fair and Periodic Election

Free and fair elections are essential in assuring the consent of the governed, which is the bedrock
of democratic politics. Elections serve as the principal mechanism for translating that consent
into governmental authority. Therefore, elections constitute one of the most important pillars of
democracy. This doesn’t mean that a state which carries out election is democratic, there are
many countries undertaking elections but to be democratic election has to be free, fair and
periodic. According to Inter-Parliamentary Union (1998), the key element in the exercise of
democracy is the holding of free and fair elections at regular intervals enabling the people's will
to be expressed. These elections must be held on the basis of universal, equal and secret suffrage
so that all voters can choose their representatives in conditions of equality, openness and
transparency that stimulate political competition. To that end, civil and political rights are
essential, and more particularly among them, the rights to vote and to be elected, the rights to
freedom of expression and assembly, access to information and the right to organize political
parties and carry out political activities. Party organization, activities, finances, funding and
ethics must be properly regulated in an impartial manner in order to ensure the integrity of the
democratic processes.

Focus

Elections constitute one of the most important pillars of democracy. However, it doesn’t mean
that state which carries out election is democratic, there are many countries undertaking

Free and fair election: Free and fair, or genuine, means that elections offer equal opportunities
for all competing parties and candidates. Such equality requires the ability of political parties and
candidates to register for office without unreasonable requirements, balanced access to the media
for all candidates, the absence of campaign finance abuse, and an independent electoral process.
Democratic elections are free when citizens have the right to choose from several candidates or
parties that can run for the election without any restriction and intimidation. They must also be
free to decide whether they want to use their right to vote or to abstain from doing so, if they
prefer

25
Regular or periodic election: Regular or periodic means holding elections on a set schedule
known to the electorate, either on a specified date (the first Tuesday of November every other
year, as in the United States) or within a particular time frame (within five years of the previous
election, as for Parliament in the United Kingdom and Ethiopia), thereby guaranteeing citizens
the opportunity to change their leaders and to support new policies.

7) Accepting the Result of Election

In democratic elections, there are winners and losers. Occasionally, even in a democracy, the
losers in an election believe so strongly that their party or candidate is the best one that they
refuse to accept the results of the election. The consequences of not accepting election may
results in violence or less voter confidence if voters think their votes will is being ignored.
Assuming an election has been judged “free and fair,” ignoring election results is against
democratic principles.

Therefore, for democracy to work, everyone must agree to accept the results of freely held
elections. The people and parties, who have lost power, or those who failed to gain it, must be
willing to accept defeat. If the loser refuses to accept the winner, the election's legitimacy is
diminished and the political system may be marked by conflict and instability. A key test for a
democracy is the successful and peaceful transfer of power from one party to another. Indeed,
this is a continuous test for any democracy, even established ones.

8) Majority Rule and Minority Right

As a key constituent of democracy, majority rule coupled with the protection of minority rights is
embedded in the constitutions of all genuine democracies today. In every genuine democracy
today, majority rule is both endorsed and limited by the supreme law of the constitution. Tyranny
by minority over the majority is barred, but so is tyranny of the majority against minorities.
Majority rule is limited in order to protect minority rights, because if it were unchecked it
probably would be used to oppress individuals or groups holding unpopular views. Unlimited
majority rule in a democracy is potentially as despotic as the unchecked rule of an autocrat or an
elitist minority political party.

All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. In
the words of American essayist E.B. White: Democracy is the recurrent suspicion that more than

26
half the people are right more than half the time. But majority rule, by itself, is not automatically
democratic.

No one, for example, would call a system fair or just that permitted 51 percent of the population
to oppress the remaining 49 percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society,
majority rule must be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to
protect the rights of minorities and dissenters - whether ethnic, religious, or simply the losers in
political debate. The rights of minorities do not depend upon the good will of the majority and
cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights of minorities are protected because democratic
laws and institutions protect the rights of all citizens.

Minorities need to trust the government to protect their rights and safety. Once this is
accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country s democratic
institutions. The principle of majority rule and minority rights characterizes all modern
democracies, no matter how varied in history, culture, population, and economy.

9) Separation and Balance of Power

Democracy Reporting International (2011) stated that the terms ‘separation of power’ and
‘balance of power’ mean that the power of the three branches of democratic government – the
legislative, executive and judiciary – should not be concentrated in one branch, but should be
distributed such that each branch can independently carry out its own respective functions. The
separation and balance of power rests on two main principles. First, the competencies of the
three branches of governmental power must be clearly delimited and defined. Second, all
branches of government are bound by the rule of law.

The separation of powers is a model for the governance of a state (or who controls the state). The
model was first developed in ancient Greece. Under this model, the state is divided into three
branches, each with separate and independent powers and areas of responsibility so that the
powers of one branch are not in conflict with the powers associated with the other branches. The
typical division of branches is into a legislature, an executive, and a judiciary.

Separation of powers, therefore, refers to the division of responsibilities into distinct branches to
limit any one branch from exercising the core functions of another. The intent is to prevent the
concentration of power and provide for checks and balances.

27
 10) Independence of the Judiciary

As cited in Democracy Reporting International (2011) Article 14 of the ICCPR states that ‘in the
determinations of any criminal charges against him [or her], or of his rights and obligations in a
suit of law, everybody shall be entitled to a fair and public hearing by a competent, independent
and impartial court established by law’. In general the judiciary in every democratic state is
expected to be independent and render justice impartially. The judiciary should not be subjected
to the government in general and that in power in particular rather it must treat all equally in light
of prescribed laws.

11) Accountability and Transparency

Accountability and transparency arecritical components and key requirments of democracy and
democratic governance. In this regard, accountability and transparency become inviolable
elements of democracy.

The notion of accountability is an amorphous concept that is difficult to define in precise terms.
However, broadly speaking, accountability exists when there is a relationship where an
individual or body, and the performance of tasks or functions by that individual or body, are
subject to another’s oversight, direction or request that they provide information or justification
for their actions. The concept of accountability is not only limited to governmental institutions
but also it streches to privet sectors and civil society organizations.

Threrefore, the idea of accountability obliges governemnt institutions, privet sector aswell as
civil society organizations to be accountable for the public. According to AfDB(1999),
accountability defined as holding responsible elected or appointed individuals and organizations
charged with a public mandate to account for specific actions, activities or decisions to the public
from which they derive their authority. In a narrow sense, accountability focuses on the ability to
account for the allocation, use, and control of public spending and resources in accordance with
legally accepted standards, i.e. budgeting, accounting, and auditing. In a broader sense, it is also
concerned with the establishment and enforcement of rules of corporate governance. According

28
to RAND(2008) accountability is an ethical concept – it concerns proper behavior, and it deals
with the responsibilities of individuals and organizations for their actions towards other people
and agencies. The concept is used in practical settings, notably in describing arrangements for
governance and management in public services and private organizations. The term is often used
synonymously with concepts of transparency, liability, answerability and other ideas associated
with the expectations of account-giving. Bovens’ (2005) cited in RAND(2008) defined
accountability as a social relation in which an actor feels an obligation to explain and to justify
his or her conduct to some significant other.

The principle of Accountability also established in Ethiopian Constitution. In Ethiopia, since the
fall of Derge regime, having recognized the inviolability of accountability and transparency in
governance system, the newly established FDRE government, has gave attention to it. Indeed,
the 1995 Ethiopian constitution in Article 12 under sub article 1-3, clearly stated about the
accountability of government. According to the constitution in the government which is
accountable, the following features are prevalent:

 The conduct of affairs of government shall be transparent.

 Any public official or an elected representative has to be accountable for any failure in
official duties.
 In case of loss of confidence, the people may recall an elected representative.

In sum accountability make sure that, for every action and inaction in government and its
consequences there is a body responsible and accountable to the government, the society and the
people in general. On the other side transparency makes sure that people know exactly what is
going and what is the rational of the decisions taken by the government or its functionaries at
different levels. AFDB(1999) broadly defined transparency as public access to knowledge of the
policies and strategies of government. Among other things, it involves making public accounts
verifiable, providing for public participation in government policy-making and implementation,
and allowing contestation over decisions impacting on the lives of citizens. It also includes
making available for public scrutiny accurate and timely information on economic, financial and
market conditions.

More over transparency means clearness, honesty and openness. Transparency is the principle
that those affected by administrative decisions should be informed, and it is the duty of civil

29
servants, managers, and trustees to act visibly, predictably, and understandably. It describes the
increased flow of timely and reliable economic, social, and political information (for example,
about government service provision). Transparency enables institutions—and the public—to
make informed political decisions; it improves the accountability of governments and reduces the
scope for corruption (Ibid).

a) Dimensions of Transparency
Transparency is generally regarded as a key feature of democracy and democratic governance,
and an essential prerequisite for accountability between states and citizens. At its most basic,
transparent governance signifies ‘an openness of the governance system through clear processes
and procedures and easy access to public information for citizens stimulating ethical awareness
in public service through information sharing, which ultimately ensures accountability for the
performance of the individuals and organizations handling resources or holding public office’
According to TI (2009) cited in McGee & Gaventa(2010), transparency is a ‘characteristic of
governments, companies, organizations and individuals of being open in the clear disclosure of
information rules, plans, processes and actions’. In general there is an underlying assumption that
transparency produces accountability.

Transparency has the following dimensions and can be ensured as per elements below:

 Openness in public dealings.

 Right to information relating to service delivery process.
 Right to information relating to criteria and their applications.
 Right to information to public expenditure / contracts.
 Enactment relating to Right to information.
 Code relating to access to information
 Openness in the cost of the project, quality standard etc.

b) Classification of Accountability
Accountability can be a somewhat slippery concept, defined in different ways in theory and in
practice, and applied differently in a range of circumstances. In spite of the conceptual
definitions, recently, there has been a growing discussion within both the academic and
development communities about the different accountability typologies. Thus, it can be difficult

30
for scholars and practitioners to navigate the myriad of different types of accountability. The
literature made clear that different scholars have identified various classifications of
accountability according to different methodological criteria. According to RAND(2008), the
criteria used to distinguish between these types are based on (i) the form of accountability
relationship between particular actors and (ii) the type of data required by these actors to make
informed judgments about conduct. The RAND Corporation has identified five types of
accountability (organizational, political, legal, professional and moral/ethical). Cendon (1999),
also distinguished political, administrative, professional, and democratic accountability.
However for the purpose of this we tried to highlight five types of accountability which are
common in literature (political, administrative, professional, legal and moral/ethical
accountability).

i. Political Accountability
Political accountability is one of the dimensions of accountability. Political accountability is
exercised by elected and appointed polticians and is mainly about achieving democratic controls.
It takes place in double dimenssions (vertical and horizontal). In its vertical dimenssion, political
accountability is a relationship that links those in the high positions of the administrative
structure who are appointed and removed freely, according only to political reasons (positions of
political confidence). This includes the prime minister or the president of the governemnt,
minsters and top positions of the public administraation.

In its horizontal dimenssion, political accountability is a relationship that links the governemnt
with the parliament. It may include some of the positions at the top of the administrative
hierarchical ladders. This again, depends on the legal and constitutional provisions of each
country.

The realization of horizontal accountability is based on a very wide set of criteria, including
technical and objective considerations, but more than any other criterion horizontal dimension of
political accountability is based on political considerations. In vertical dimension inferior
positions are accountable to superior ones, and the latter may supervise and control the
performance of the former. In the vertical dimension, though, the realization of political
accountability is based on considerations of a technical/objective character, always loaded with a
certain political perspective. In both dimensions, vertical and horizontal, the consequence of

31
political accountability may end up with the resignation or the dismissal of the official in
question (Cendon, 1999).

Therefore, political accountability tends to use outcomes as the main parameter for evaluation or
performance, rather than compliance with administrative rules and procedures. For this reason,
public officials tend here to keep in mind the expectations of the elected authority and,
ultimately, of the electorate itself, and to act accordingly, for their permanence in office having
been directly elected by the citizens or not, depends on it. The parliament and electorate
therefore, are the main and ultimate references for the control and the evaluation that takes place
within the framework of political accountability (Ibid).

ii. Administrative Accountability

Administrative accountability, like political accountability, takes place in double dimension

(vertical and horizontal). In its vertical dimension, administrative accountability is a relationship
that links inferior administrative positions with superior political or administrative ones. In its
horizontal dimension, administrative accountability links the individual administrator and the
public administration as a whole (i) with citizen, as a concrete subject or user of the service, but
also (ii) with other external organizations of supervision and control established to this purpose,
such as oversight bodies, audits, ombudsmen, etc.

In terms of realization, both the vertical and horizontal dimensions of administrative

accountability are based on strict and objective criteria of a legal and functional character, which
take the form of obligations of doing or not doing that bind public officials. For instance, the
duty of fulfilling all the obligations linked to the position, the duty of obedience and loyalty
towards superiors, the duty of neutrality or impartiality, the duty of integrity, the duty of
discretion, the duty of using appropriately public resources, the duty of treating citizens, as much
as superiors, colleagues, and subordinates, with attention and respect, and the duty to abide by
the constitution and the rest of the legal order. To which the corresponding duty of abstaining
from carrying out any action that infringe these principles must be added.

The fulfillment of these duties and obligations is assessed, in the vertical dimension of
administrative accountability, through a wide set of internal mechanisms of control and
supervision. The aim of these mechanisms is indeed to assure the strict compliance of

32
administrative performance with the established rules and procedures, and the correct use of
public resources.

In its horizontal dimension, administrative accountability, besides being subject to the legal
principles described in preceding paragraphs, it is also based on other formal criteria legally
established, which frame the terms of the relationship between (i) public administration and the
citizen, and (ii) public administration and the external organs of control and supervision.

iii. Professional Accountability

Professional accountability focuses on conformity to standards and codes of conduct for

professional behavior, checked by peers, through their professional institutions. Professionals are
bound by the codes of standards and codes of practice set by the professional associations with
regard for the public interest. These norms are binding for all members and they need to be
implemented in professionals’ everyday practice.

Professional accountability is characterized by the existence of a set of norms and practices of a

technical or professional nature that govern the behavior and performance of members of a
certain profession. These norms and practices, as long as their respective profession is integrated
in the organic structure of public administration, become also part of the set of rules, regulations,
and principles that govern the operation of public administration in those areas where the
profession is exercised.

iv. Legal Accountability

Legal accountability, in which courts and quasi-judicial accountability systems play the central
role, is mostly about checking the integrity of organizational and individual behavior. The
importance of legal accountability is increasing due to formalization of social relations and the
shift of trust from parliaments towards courts. The public has the possibility of addressing the
violation of law through designated authorities (courts) that are formally or legally conferred
with specific responsibilities. The delegation of responsibility to independent bodies that are
subject to the legal scrutiny based on detailed legal standards, means that legal accountability is
the most unambiguous type of accountability.

v. Moral or Ethical Accountability

33
Ethical or moral accountability has a central place in a professional’s conduct. It is based on an
accommodation between the competing requirements of individual and collective benefits.
Ethical or moral accountability builds on the ordinary moral responsibilities of people as citizens
in a civil society and on the established ethical obligations and rights internalized by individuals.
Ethical or moral accountability is driven by internal values and often linked to an external code
of conduct and formalized by a professional organization. The main difference between ethical
or moral and professional accountability is the degree to which it has been incorporated in the
official standards. While professional accountability is binding for members of professionals
associations, ethical or moral accountability relies on an informal code of proper conduct.
Among various officials the state of being committed to service users and other stakeholders is
entirely depends or relies on their own judgment and individual moral values. Thus, it is the
internalized value of a person that forces him/her to act in the best interest of the service user and
other stakeholders.

In nutshell, accountability and transparency in public administration are essential to democracy.

Without exception, this applies to all those with governmental and public authority (whether
elected or not) and to all bodies of government and public authority. Accountability refers about
the state of being responsible for one’s own action and it also calls for answerability of a public
official in which the official is expected to give sufficient information on his or her action.
Transparency on the other side refers about openness in which government decisions are open to
the people and the people can easily access information. Without some level of transparency,
there can be no accountability. The concept of transparency is underpinned by freedom of
expression, which is likewise closely related to freedom of information.

12) Free Media

Media freedom is vitally important for democracy. It contributes to creating plural, open
societies and accountable, transparent systems of government, as well as safeguards human
rights and fundamental freedoms. In particular, a free media sector plays an essential role in
guaranteeing the freedom of expression and freedom of information, both of which are necessary
for facilitating the effective participation of citizens in democratic processes. In modern
democratic society democracy will flourish if citizens are informed and know about what is
going on in the country. This means democracy is dependent on an informed citizenry, thus to
make citizens informed there must be free media. When we say media it doesn’t only refer

34
television, radio and newspapers, but also it includes internet that play a decisive role. In the
current mass societies, communication can only be carried out through mass media

1.4.2. Fundamental Values of Democracy

Dear learners! The previous part of this chapter illuminated the fundamental principles of
democracy which need to appear and realized in a democratic society. The following part of this
chapter also addresses fundamental values of democracy like equality, liberty/freedom and
justice respectively.
1) Equality

Democratic societies emphasize the principle that all people are equal. Equality means that all
individuals are valued equally, have equal opportunities, and may not be discriminated against
because of their religion, economic back ground, ethnic group, gender or sexual orientation.
Equality also denotes the condition of having equal dignity, rank, or privileges with others; the
fact of being on an equal footing. In a democracy, individuals and groups still maintain their
right to have different cultures, personalities, languages and beliefs. Equality is about fostering
and promoting the right to be different, to be free from discrimination, and to have choice and
dignity and to be valued as an individual or group, with a right to own beliefs and values.

i. Political Equality

Political equality refers to equal access of citizens in order to participate in the affair of state or
government. Accordingly political equality guarantees citizens to have equal access to compute
and hold public offices, to elected and be elected, to criticize the act of government and so on.

Political equality in elections is easy to define: each citizen has one and only one vote. This basic
concept is central to democratic theory. But when some people advocate political equality, they
mean more than one person, one vote. These people contend that poor urban ghetto dweller and
the chairman of the board of Microsoft are not politically equal, despite the fact that each has one
vote. Through occupation or wealth, some citizens are more able than others to influence
political decisions. For example, wealthy citizens can exert influence by advertising in the mass
media or by contacting friends in high places. Lacking great wealth and political connections,

35
most citizens do not have such influence. Thus, some analysts argue that equality in wealth,
education, and status—that is, social equality—are necessary for true political equality.

ii. Legal Equality

Legal equality is known as equality before the law, equality under the law, equality in the eyes of
the law, or it is the principle under which all people are subject to the same laws of justice (due
process). Law also raises important and complex issues concerning equality, fairness, and justice.
There is an old saying that 'All are equal before the law. The belief in equality before the law is
called legal egalitarianism. Accordingly, Article 7 of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights (UDHR) states that "All are equal before the law and are entitled without any
discrimination to equal protection of the law. Thus, everyone must be treated equally under the
law regardless of their race, gender, national origin, color, ethnicity, religion, disability, or other
characteristics, without privilege, discrimination, or bias. To what extent this principle is honored
among legal systems across the world differs greatly. Long-standing cultural traditions have
prevented equality in some nations, while intolerance has prevented equality in others.

iii. Economic Equality

People in a democracy must have some form of economic freedom. This means that the
government allows some private ownership of property and businesses, and that the people are
allowed to choose their own work and labor unions. The role the government should play in the
economy is open to debate, but it is generally accepted that free markets should exist in a
democracy and the state should not totally control the economy. Some argue that the state should
play a stronger role in countries where great inequality of wealth exists due to past
discrimination or other unfair practices.

2) Freedom or Liberty
We often equate being free with an absence of constraints, impediments, or interference.
Freedom can be used in two major senses: freedom of and freedom from. Freedom of is the
absence of constraints on behavior; it means freedom to do something for example; freedom of
religion, freedom of speech and so on. In this sense, freedom is synonymous with liberty.
Freedom from is negative liberty- that is freedom from constraints or interference. Here freedom
suggests immunity from fear and want. In the modern political context, freedom from often

36
symbolizes the fight against exploitation and oppression. The cry of the civil rights movement in
the 1960s (USA) —“Freedom Now!” conveyed this meaning. If you recognize that freedom in
this sense means immunity from discrimination, you can see that it comes close to the concept of
equality.

Dear learners, based on the explanations given above we can analyze freedom/liberty
categorizing it in to civil, political, and economic freedom/liberty as discussed below.

i) Civil liberty
Civil liberties are legal and constitutional rights that protect citizens from government actions.
For instance freedom of religion, freedom of the press, and freedom to assemble (to gather
together for a common purpose, such as to protest against a government policy or action) are
some aspects of civil liberty. These and other freedoms and guarantees set forth in the
democratic society are essentially limits on government action.
To clearly understand the concept of civil liberty and it importance in democratic society let us
see the following example specifically lucid the empirical experience of civil liberty issue in
china.

If you were a student in China, for example, you would have to exercise some care in what
you said and did. That country prohibits a variety of kinds of speech, notably any criticism
of the leading role of the Communist Party. If you criticized the government in e-mail
messages to your friends or on your web site, you could end up in court on charges that
you had violated the law-and perhaps even go to prison.

Scholars make a distinction between civil liberties and civil rights. The distinction between the
two has always been blurred, and today the concepts are often used interchangeably. However,
they do refer to different kinds of guaranteed protections. Whereas, liberties are limitations on
government action, setting forth what the government cannot do. They are protections against
government actions or liberties from government actions or restraints. On the other hand, civil

37
rights specify what the government must do to ensure equal protection under the law or they are
legal actions that the government takes to create equal conditions for all people.

ii) Political Freedom/Liberty

Political freedom (also known as a political autonomy) is a central concept in history and
political thought and one of the most important features of democratic societies. It was described
as freedom from oppression or coercion, the absence of disabling conditions for an individual
and the fulfillment of enabling conditions, or the absence of life conditions of compulsion, e.g.
economic compulsion, in a society. Although political freedom is often interpreted negatively as
the freedom from unreasonable external constraints on action, it can also refer to the positive
exercise of rights, capacities and possibilities for action, and the exercise of social or group
rights. The concept of political freedom is closely connected with the concepts of civil liberties
and human rights, which in democratic societies are usually afforded legal protection from the
state.

iii) Economic Freedom or Liberty

Economic freedom or economic liberty is the ability of members of a society to undertake

economic actions. This is a term used in economic and policy debates as well as in the
philosophy of economics. One approach to economic freedom comes from classical liberal and
libertarian traditions emphasizing free markets, free trade, and private property under free
enterprise. Another approach to economic freedom extends the welfare economics study of
individual choice, with greater economic freedom coming from a "larger" (in some technical
sense) set of possible choices.

The free market viewpoint defines economic liberty as the freedom to produce, trade, and
consume any goods and services acquired without the use of force, fraud or theft. This is
embodied in the rule of law, property rights and freedom of contract, and characterized by
external and internal openness of the markets, the protection of property rights and freedom of
economic initiative. There are several indices of economic freedom that attempt to measure free
market economic freedom. Empirical studies based on these rankings have found higher living
standards, economic growth, income equality, less corruption and less political violence to be
correlated with higher scores on the country rankings.

38
 3) Justice

Justice is action in accordance with the requirements of some law. Whether these rules are
grounded in human consensus or societal norms, they are supposed to ensure that all members of
society receive fair treatment. Issues of justice arise in several different spheres and play a
significant role in causing, perpetuating, and addressing conflict. Just institutions tend to instill a
sense of stability, well-being, and satisfaction among society members, while perceived
injustices can lead to dissatisfaction, rebellion, or revolution. Each of the different spheres
expresses the principles of justice and fairness in its own way, resulting in different types and
concepts of justice: distributive, procedural, retributive, and restorative/corrective. These types of
justice have important implications for socio-economic, political, civil, and criminal justice at
both the national and international level.

a) Distributive Justice
Distributive justice in theory is characterized as the fairness related to the distribution of
resources and decision outcomes. The resources or outcomes can be tangible or intangible. It
concerns the nature of a socially just allocation of goods in a society. A society in which
incidental inequalities in outcome do not arise would be considered a society guided by the
principles of distributive justice. The concept includes the available quantities of goods, the
process by which goods are to be distributed, and the resulting allocation of the goods to the
members of the society. Often contrasted with just process, which is concerned with the
administration of law, distributive justice concentrates on outcomes.

Distributive justice, or economic justice, is also concerned with giving all members of society a
"fair share" of the benefits and resources available. Fair allocation of resources, or distributive
justice, is crucial to the stability of a society and the well-being of its members. When issues of
distributive justice are inadequately addressed and the item to be distributed is highly valued,
intractable conflicts frequently result.

To determine whether distributive justice has taken place, individuals often turn to the
distributive norms of their group. A norm is the standard of behavior that is required, desired, or
designated as normal within a particular group. If rewards and costs are allocated according to
the designated distributive norms of the group, distributive justice has occurred.

39
 b) Procedural justice

Procedural justice is concerned with making and implementing decisions according to fair
processes that ensure "fair treatment." Rules must be impartially followed and consistently
applied in order to generate an unbiased decision. Those carrying out the procedures should be
neutral, and those directly affected by the decisions should have some voice or representation in
the decision-making process. If people believe procedures to be fair, they will be more likely to
accept outcomes, even ones that they do not like.

c) Restorative or Corrective Justice

A Restorative approach justifies punishment as a response to past injustice or wrongdoing. The

central idea is that the offender has gained unfair advantages through his or her behavior, and
that punishment will set this imbalance straight. In other words, those who do not play by the
rules should be brought to justice and deserve to suffer penalties for their transgressions.

Restorative justice focuses on violations as crimes against individuals. It is concerned with

healing victims' wounds, restoring offenders to law-abiding lives, and repairing harm done to
interpersonal relationships and the community. Victims take an active role in directing the
exchange that takes place, as well as defining the responsibilities and obligations of offenders.
Offenders are encouraged to understand the harm they have caused their victims and take
responsibility for it. Restorative justice aims to strengthen the community and prevent similar
harms from happening in the future. At the national level, such processes are often carried out
through victim-offender mediation programs, while at the international level restorative justice is
often a matter of instituting truth and reconciliation commissions.

Merits or Advantages of Democracy

It is not beyond imagination that democracy has attained a marked popularity in the world. The
following are some major advantages of democracy.

(A) Democracy Creates an Efficient Form of Government

One of the most important tests of the strength or weakness of a particular form of government is
its efficiency. The efficiency of government is judged by a conduct in normal times as well as

40
during emergencies. It is rightly said that “popular election, popular control and popular
responsibility” are more likely to ensure a greater degree of efficiency than any other system of
government. Self-government includes the masses to be disciplined, inculcates in them a sense of
responsibility and makes them legal and devoted citizens.

(B) Democracy Upholds Individual and Collective Rights

Democracy is the only form of government which strongly up holds individual and collective
rights and freedoms; and guarantees their rights through constitutional safeguards. In relation to
this, it is believed that substantial part a constitution should be about fundamental rights (Human
and Democratic Rights) of citizens.

Democracy recognizes the worth of the individual and groups and assures them that they will be
given an opportunity to contribute their part in the development of society. Therefore, in a
complete, established and/or consolidated democracy, no one and/or group can complain that an
individual and/ a group has no chance to be heard. Democracy is very much sensitive to the
wishes of individual citizens and groups. In relations to this, it is rightly observed, “democracy
ties a nerve to every individual and/or groups.” It makes a connection between the individual
and groups, and the center.

(C) Democracy Assures Equality

Undoubtedly, equality is a central attribute of democracy. Democracy stands for equality both in
the political, social, economic and cultural spheres. It assures the right to vote, the right to
contest election, the right hold public office, the right to freedom of association, publication,
movement, freedom of thought, petition, etc without any discrimination on the basis of status,
color, belief, sex, ethnicity, etc. In the economic sphere, it ensures equality of opportunity and
economic security of the masses. In a true democracy, everyone and/or groups are assured of the
minimum necessities of life and social security. Moreover, democracy up holds, and strongly
recognizes the equality of citizens.

(D) Democracy Educates the Masses

Democracy has been truly considered a large-scale experiment in public education. Election
campaigns, for instance, are in a sense educational. At the time of general or by elections, public
41
issues are discussed and debated by various candidates or many political parties. Pamphlets are
usually widely distributed. Meetings and debating forums are arranged where polities and
programme of various political parties are forwarded and explained. Thus, the public gets
enlightened in casting their votes, and this indicates its preferences for the party and candidate
which policies and programme it likes. This raises their mental level and enables citizens to
comprehend the problems facing the country in question. Therefore, it is rightly said that: “All
government is a method of education, but the best education is self-education, therefore the best
government is self-government which is democracy”.

(E) Democracy Promotes Constitutional Patriotism

Constitutional patriotism refers to citizen’s strong commitment or alignment with democracy and
human rights, or the strong devotion or for one’s country based on the basis of constitution and
other laws of the country as well as the social and moral values of society of the country where
the society’s solidarity is founded up on. Constitutional patriotism is essentially inward looking
not outward looking. On the other hand, traditional patriotism is the devotion or love for one’s
country and simply aligned to narrowly define national feelings, and specific cultures and
symbols. Therefore, it is based on geography and it is outward looking, not based on the laws of
the country in question and not based on the social and ethical values and virtues of society of
the country in question. Thus, democracy instills Constitutional patriotism in the people by
making them feel for their country based on the laws of the country in question and social and
moral values of society of that country. When they are given an opportunity to choose their
representatives they start feeling that they have room in their country and so that they may feel
belongingness.

(F) Democracy Ensures a Stable Form of Government

Government stability is a fundamental condition not only for the maintenance individual and
group security but also for the achievement of overall development of the country in question.
Democracy should be protected from the danger of instability and revolution. When the people
are given a chance to change their government by a vet of “no confidence” or through ballot box,
they have no reason to declare conspiracy against the government in power and use bullets. By

42
persistent and commendable striving for the removal of economic, political, social, and cultural
inequalities, democracy removes possible discontent and makes the society safe from revolution.

(G) Democracy Promotes Order and Progress

Dictatorship assures order, but progress tends to be either ignored or the progress does not
become sustainable. Democracy is the only and the best form of government to maintain peace
and order in the country in question. Democracy also aims at making people proportions and
enables them to make progress in various aspects of life.

(H) Democracy Promotes People Representation

In a country where democracy is practiced, efficiency is not enough. A government by specialists

warps intellect and develops a stereotyped mentality amongst those who hold the power of
government. Dictatorships, monarchies, and aristocracies depend up on experts, who are hardly
aware the needs and wishes of the people and who do not also care to know what the people feel.
Democracy, however, is able to make use of the expert advice of specialists work at the behest of
the popularly elected function arise. This enables the people to obtain the services of experts, as
well as final policy decision by their own popularly elected political officials who know their
view point. It establishes a healthy connection between the governed and government.

(I) Democracy Serves as a School for Citizenship

One of the actual advantages of a democracy is that it serves as a training school for citizenship.
It assures the right to vote and the right to contest elections, etc. Exercising vote properly and
contesting election successfully give training in citizenship. No other form of government
assures such an opportunity. Thus, “The most important point of excellence which any form of
government can possess is to promote the virtue and intelligence of the people themselves and
the first consideration in judging the merits of a particular form of government is how far they
tend to foster intellectual and moral qualities in the citizens.”

Lesson Five: Pillars of Democracy

1.5. Basic Pillars of Democracy

43
1.5.1. Rights
1.5.1.1. Understanding Rights
The recognition as well as protection is one of the indispensable issues in modern times. It plays
a decisive role in the relations between citizens and government. The proper relation between the
individual and groups on the one hand and the state on the other hand has long been one of the
most interesting issues of discussion since ages. In a society where people live together, there
must be certain recognized rules of human conduct. Good and smooth social life will not be
possible unless there are curtail rules of human conduct. People accept these certain rules (rights,
restraints and responsibilities) in their behavior and relationships towards one another and
towards the state. Rights are those conditions of social life which no man can seek to be
him/herself at his/her best without it. They are the sum total of the opportunities which ensure
adequate development and expressions of individual and/or group personalities. Without such
sum total of the opportunities, good and stable social life becomes impossible.

Moreover, right is an arrangement, rule or practice sanctioned by the law of community /society
and conducive to the highest moral good of the citizenry of the state and society. Therefore,
every civilized society and state provides at least, certain basic rights to the individual and/or
groups as are considered necessary, not only sufficient, for the realization of his/her and their
personalities in a compatible manner. And, hence, every state is fundamentally known by the
rights that it maintains. But rights are not devoid of responsibly; rather, they are inseparable from
obligations citizens and the state expected to discharge or fulfill them in their respective spheres.
Thus, it is worth noting that rights and obligations are not mutually exclusive; rather, they are
fundamentally complementary (go-together without separating one from the other), and hence
they can be said that: “rights and responsibilities are the two sides of the same coin.”

Rights must be distinguished from powers. Nature has endowed every human being with a
certain amount of power to satisfy his/her needs.

Power is simply the physical force at the disposal of a person. But, on the basis of force, no
system of rights can be established. Common good demands that each should recognize in others
the powers which he/she claims for him/herself.

44
Rights are, then, the powers recognized as being socially necessary for the individual and/or
groups.

Focus
Rights are what we may expect from others and others from us, and all genuine rights are
conditions of social welfare. Thus, the rights any one may claim are partly those which are
necessary for the fulfillment of the function that society expects from his/her.

Rights are conditioned by, correlative to, his societal responsibilities. The consciousness of
common good may be said to constitute the essence of rights.

Under a system of rights, each man (human being) is conscious not only of his/her own good but
also of the good of others. Therefore, rights arise from individuals and/or groups as member
individually and/or collectively of society, and from the recognition that, for society, there is an
ultimate good which may be reached by the development of the powers inherent in every
individual. Thus, it is the consciousness of common good that turns powers in to rights through
social recognition.

Nature of Rights

In broad speaking, rights are benefits and privileges that one claims. Rights are something more
than mere power or claim on the part of the individual and/or groups. However, the specific
meaning of right depends on the context and foundation that one claims. This is why not all
claims can be acceptable to either society or government. Society is likely to recognize only such
claims as it considers necessary and reasonable. To be necessary, a claim has to be in the larger
interest of the community as a whole and also capable of being made universally applicable.
Pinpointing it, a right is something more than an unreliable desire. The subjective claim can
become a right only if it rests up on an objective rule. In short, the claim must rest up on
common interest and be capable of general .The qualities mentioned above –common interest of
society, and social recognition (having moral foundation on the society), though indispensable,
do not transfer recognition. The recognition of one person or a group of persons is not still
enough. When it is recognized by society, it may be called a moral right; and when it is

45
recognized by the state, it becomes a legal right. The recognition of a right by state should also
include translation of a claim in to law which brings legal foundation of rights.
Rights and obligations usually emanate from societal standard. Therefore, it follows that rights
are social in nature and are in conformity with the prevailing ideas of social welfare. Hence,
there can be no rights against society; but there are rights against the government. It also implies
that the individual and/or groups enjoying rights must will similar rights of others. In short,
rights and duties are correlated, or they are the two sides of the same coin. Rights depend up on
the due performance of one’s and/or group’s rights. It is only in the world of duties that rights
have significance and meaning. Rights in their nature are the result of “the general system of
right or justice on which the state and its laws are based.” Rights are part of justice as distributed
among, embodied in, and enjoyed by person. One cannot have rights apart from the notion of
rights nor can one have guaranteed and secured rights in the legal sense of the term which is
apart from the law that is based up on the notion of Right.

Focus
In association with the above explanation, each individual and/or group is vested by law with
rights on two complementary grounds. These are following:
1. The immediate ground is that the sum total of rights is the expression for individual and/or
group of the system on which the state is based; and
2. The ultimate ground is that this sum total of rights is the condition for the individual and/or
the group, and equality for his/her fellows. This is a reflection of achieving the end which
inspires and determines the whole of the system of Right. The end consists of highest
possible development of the capacities of personality, in the fullest sense of the term.

Law contributes a very significant role in ensuring and securing claims in the form of rights.
Rights are thus secured to us, and are vested in us by law. In modern society, the state is the
immediate source of rights. Laws of the state do not limit rights rather they only make them more
secure. Laws undertake to secure such of the rights as have achieved state recognition and
sanction. Behind the recognition of right by law of the state there is public recognition of rights.
Besides, rights are always claimed under the law of the state or a moral law. Ideally, a right will
always be derived simultaneously from two sources, and they possess double quality. These are
the followings:

46
 1. The source of individual and/or group personality, and quality of being a condition of
their development; and

2. The source of the state and its laws.

But in actual life, we may find a sort of right, or a “quasi right” which is derived from one source
only, and possesses only one quality. There is always likely to be “a gulf between the notion of
right and the prescription of law.

Focus
Nevertheless, it may be added that the state does not create rights; it only recognizes them. In a
sense, rights have been prior to the state. But, our rights are not independent of society. In this
regard, it has been pointed out that rights, therefore, are corrective with functions. An individual
has rights that he/she my make his/her contribution to the social end and a recognizable public
interest is involved in their recognition. One can have a right or rights against the state but cannot
have against public welfare. The mutual claims of the state and its citizens must be justified by
reference to a common good which includes the good will.

Rights in their nature are intrinsically related to obligations this relation can be put or expressed
as follows:
1) Rights arise in society. Outside society, there cannot be rights.
2) Right is a claim to power which aims at common good.
3) A right is a claim that simultaneously has three basic ingredients/ elements. These are:
A. Common Interests /general will;
B. Social recognition and socially based moral foundation; and
C. Translating them in the laws and enforced by the state.
4) Every right has a corresponding duty.
5) Only such claims or powers are rights which have bee recognized by the society.
6) The state does not create rights; it only maintains or recognizes them
7) The rights are definite
8) Rights have the tendency to grow.

Classification of Rights

47
Rights are of different kinds. A classification of rights in a very identifiable and clear form is
difficult owing to the fact that some of the specific rights overlap each other. Moreover, rights
are also classified on the basis of different. For example, on the basis of the role of government,
rights may be categorized in to positive and negative rights. Moreover, rights may also be
classified as human and democratic rights on the basis of their essentiality. In simplified form
however, we may categorize rights as moral and legal rights putting them on the ground where
they are founded. These classifications of rights are discussed in the following manner:

1. Moral Rights

On the basis of their foundation, rights can be classified into moral and legal rights. Moral rights
are the claims of the individuals based on the conscience of the community. Rights, in this sense
are those claims which the ethical conscience of the society recognizes. In other words, these
rights are the claims recognized by the good sense of the society. For example, a child has the
moral right to be well treated by the parents; a wife has a moral claim to be kindly threaded by
her husband. Moreover, a teacher may have a moral claim to be respected by his/her students.
But the difficulty with such rights is that they are not, and cannot, be enforced by the courts; their
enforcement depends on the good sense of the community. In other words, moral claims or rights
are not supported by the laws of the state and hence, there is legal force behind these claims.
They are based on the notions of the people and are sanctioned by the prevalent ethical
conceptions of the society in question. When moral rights are converted into legal rights, they
become enforceable by the organs and actions of the government. Or moral claims or rights,
when recognized by the laws of the state, they are transformed in to legal rights.

Moral rights lack the force of law and no legal remedy can be secured against a person in case
he/she violates these rights or claims because they are not legally founded.

2. Legal Rights

Legal rights are the exact opposite or reverse of moral rights. Therefore, legal rights are those
rights or privileges of citizens which the state recognizes, secures, and sanctions. If any person
makes an encroachment upon them, the remedy can be sought from a court of law. Or a violation
of legal right is followed by corresponding legal reaction. Legal rights also contain fundamental
rights though the concept is defined and interpreted in different ways.

48
The term “fundamental right” is understood in two different ways. Firstly, it has philosophical
sense. In its philosophical meaning, rights stand for those rights which are indispensable for the
growth of human personality and human persons cannot survive in the absence of these rights.
These rights the same sense with “natural rights” or human rights. Secondly, fundamental rights
refer to rights which are important for the freedom of human individual and group/s.
Safeguarding from state or constitutional guarantee is significant for prevalence of these rights.
Human rights, in this sense, are sometimes called “democratic rights” or “constitutional rights.”

Legal rights may be further classified in to civil and political rights.

A. Civil Rights

Civil rights are rights relating to the person and property of the individual and/or group. They are
called civil (social) because they essential conditions of a civilized society. Without them a
civilized life is unthinkable. Among these rights may be included:
 The right to property
 The right to freedom
 The right to life
 The right to personal liberty, thought, expression
 The right to religion
 The right to marriage
 The right to education
 The right to form association, etc

First of all, of all the civil rights, right to life is the most essential and the most important since
enjoyment of all other rights depends up on it. It implies that no person can take the life of
another. Not only this, a person has the right to save his/her life even by killing another incase
his/her opponent(s) makes an attempt with the intention to kill him/her. This is called “right to
self-defense”.

Another form of civil right is the right to personal liberty. It includes right to live like a free
citizen. A person cannot be detained without a proper cause and that he/she cannot be punished

49
physically or not physically unless he/she is found guilty by a court of jurisdiction. The trial of
the accused must also be free and open.

B. Political Rights

Political rights are those rights or privileges which entitle citizens as individual and/or groups to
have a voice in the political affairs of the state. Political rights are the foundations of a
democratic political system or polity. They are exercised by those persons whom the state
permits a share in the legal expression and administration of its sovereign power. They ensure
the participation of the citizens in the exercise of the sovereign power of the state. These rights
are available only to citizens. Aliens are denied from political rights. Political rights include:
 The right to vote,
 The right to be elected,
 The right to peaceful demonstration
 The right to take public employment,
 The right to support or oppose government and changing it though constitutional
means, supporting or opposing political parties,
 The right to be a member of a political party,
 The right to make petitions,
 The right to participate in public policy discussion (forum),
 The right to hold public opinion, etc.

C. Economic Rights

Economic rights are legal rights relating to citizen’s vacation, his/her engagement in legal and a
gainful employment or trade, the right to own properties, etc so as to solve the problem of good,
shelter, and clothing.
The right to work falls in this category. Economic rights include:
 The right to work
 The right to vacation (rest and leisure)
 The right to own properties, etc.

50
D. Human Rights

Hunan rights are modified version of what was once termed as “natural rights”. Human rights
have got a significance attention since the formulation of the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights Commission and their adoption by the General Assembly of the United Nations in1948.
The declaration is quite comprehensive and it incorporates a host of rights that have a necessary
connection with moral and civil rights pointed out above. It says that all human beings are born
free and equal in dignity and rights. It also declares they are endowed with reason and
conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brother hood. It also speaks of the
right to security in the time of unemployment, sickness, disability, or old age.

Among the major ones of human rights include:

 The right to life,

 The right to liberty,
 The right to security, etc.

Generally, broadly speaking, rights are categorized in to two. These are moral and legal rights.
Moral rights are rights that establish necessary connection with legal rights. Legal rights are
further divided into civil rights, economic rights, and political rights.
However, in some cases rights are only (human and democratic rights). In this context, some
states like current Ethiopia recognize rights as human and democratic rights. Ethiopia insured
this in the FDRE constitution.

1.5.2 Obligations

1.5.2.1. Understanding Obligation

When we discussed on right, we have said that rights and obligations are the two sides of one
coin or they are inseparable. This statement may make to remember the saying, “There’s no free
lunch.” That just means that you cannot get something for nothing. In almost any kind of
relationship, there is some give and take. Therefore, obligations are things we must do. In any
country, citizens give up some of their individual powers to the government. In return, the
government agrees to protect the rights of citizens.

51
But the government is you. You must play your part, too. In order to ensure that your rights and
freedoms are protected, you have duties and responsibilities to the country. You must be an
informed, active, and involved citizen.

1.5.2.2. Obligations of Citizenship

In return for having the benefits and privileges of a citizen, there are a few duties that a citizen
must do. These duties are crucial to making our democratic government work. Dear learners,
some of these obligations are discussed as follow.

A. Obeying the Law

Undoubtedly, it is very clear that every citizen of the given state must obey the laws of their land.
What would happen if people didn’t? Our society would quickly collapse. To obey the laws, you
have to know what the laws are. For example, if a police officer stops you for speeding, it
probably will not help to claim that you did not know the speed limit. Why? It is your duty to
find out what the speed limit is and to obey it.

B. Paying Taxes

Tax plays indispensable and irreplaceable role in the overall economy of a state as it a substantial
source of revenue for government. If you work, you probably have to pay taxes. When you buy
things, you probably have to pay taxes. Almost nobody escapes them. We might not love paying
taxes, but we enjoy the services that our tax money buys. Taxes pay for police and fi re
protection and countless other services. When you drive down a paved street, go to school, or
turn on an electric light, you are seeing the results of taxes you pay. Tax money also pays the
huge costs of national security and defense.

C. Serving in the Armed Forces

The issue of security (external security in this sense) is quite important for a state. It is citizen of
that country that must maintain peace and order for that state. Whenever Ethiopia has been
threatened, its citizens have come together to defend it. When Italy invaded Ethiopia, volunteers
formed militias, or armies, to fight the Italy. However, a draft may be needed to establish legal
ground regarding who, how, and when take part in armed conflict to serve forces.

52
 D. Appearing in Court

Citizens must report to serve as members of a jury, if they are called to do so. This responsibility
is called jury duty. Jury obligation often involves sacrifice. Many citizens must take time off
work to serve on a jury, and they are paid very small sums for their time. Why do we ask people
to make this sacrifice? The law of the land (constitution) guarantees citizens the right to a trial by
jury of their peers—that is, their fellow citizens. Citizens must also testify in court if called as
witnesses. For our system of justice to function, citizens must fulfill their duty to serve on juries
and appear as witnesses.

E. Voting

American editor George Jean Nathan once said, “Bad officials are elected by good citizens who
do not vote.” If you do not vote, you leave the choice up to others—and you might not like the
candidate they choose. Another way of putting this is the familiar phrase, “If you don’t vote,
don’t complain about the results.”

In democratic states, many people engage in election at different levels so that all citizens could
vote. That makes voting not only an honor, but also a responsibility. Our government is based on
the consent, or the approval, of the governed. Therefore, we must let our legislators know when
we approve or disapprove of their actions. We do that by voting for people whose views we
support and who we believe to be good, honest candidates. The first step in voting is to know
what you are voting on.

F. Being Informed

To cast your vote wisely, you must be well informed about candidates, current events, and key
issues. That involves taking an interest in the programs and activities of the government. You
also have a responsibility to tell your representatives what you think about topics of public
concern.

G. Taking Part in Government

We, as citizens, have a duty to know what is going on and happening in government office.
Being informed is just the start of participating in government.

53
We also need people who will join political parties and help shape their positions on issues. We
need citizens who will lead, who will educate others, and who will influence public opinion. We
especially need people willing to run for political office and serve wisely if elected. The quality
of any democratic government depends on the quality of the people who serve in it.

H. Helping Your Community

Development of community where we live means our improvement in different actors. Thus, the
more and the more our community is improved, the better and better our life becomes. One of
the most important ways to be a responsible citizen is to take pride in your community. In
addition, you should make sure that your community can take pride in you and your actions.
Have you ever volunteered to help your community? There are so many ways to help, from
giving your time at the public library to participating in a walk for hunger. Citizens should
volunteer to improve their communities.

The government cannot be aware of every small problem, much less fix them all. Yet solving
small problems is something volunteers can do in many ways. Think of how small acts of
kindness—such as planting a tree, cheering up a sick person, or caring for a stray animal—make
community life better.

I. Respecting and Protecting Others’ Rights

It will be like asking expensive goods for free, if someone claims for rights without shouldering
his/her obligation. The lasting success and the strength of a state depend on the protection of the
rights of its citizens. You can play an important role in protecting these priceless rights.
The first step knows your own rights as an American citizen. Then remember that the people
around you share those same rights. By knowing what rights all people share, you can be sure to
respect those rights. For example, it is essential that community members respect others’
property. You should also know when people’s rights are being violated. You have a
responsibility to help protect the rights of others, just as you would want them to defend your
rights. All Ethiopians must help defend human rights. As one of the people, you have the
responsibility to help make sure that our society works for everyone.

54
 Chapter Two
Contending Theories, Models, and Conceptions of Democracy
Lesson One: Theories of Democracy

Lesson Objectives

After the successful completion of this lesson, students will be able to:
Analytically distinguish the major theories of democracy.
Critically explain the differences between theories of democracy
Analytically analyze the merits and demerits of theories of democracy

2.1. Major Contending Theories of Democracy

The study of theories of democracy essentially includes many theories on democracy. Broadly
speaking, theories of democracy can be grouped into two categories or parts. These are liberal
theory and Marxist/socialist theory of democracy. Dear learners, each of these theories will be
discussed in detail separately with their sub categories in the following sections.
2.1.1. Liberal Democracy

There is continuous controversy over the desirable theory of democracy. However, much of
contemporary debate is around how democracy works in practice and what democratization
implies. In this regard, there is a broad, even worldwide, acceptance of a particular theory or
model of democracy. This theory is generally termed as liberal democracy. There are certain
central features of liberal democracy. Dear learners, these features are discussed as follow;

(A) Liberal democracy is an indirect and representative form of democracy

In liberal democracy, political office is gained through success in regular elections that are
conducted on the basis of formal political equality. In liberal democracy, representation is a way
of substituting the many with few. The representative nature of liberal democracy is merely a
way of deciding who shall decide on behalf.

(B) Liberal democracy is based on competition and political pluralism

55
These are achieved through political pluralism, tolerance of a wide range of contending beliefs,
and the existence of conflicting social philosophies and rival movements and parties.

(C) Liberal democracy is a reflection of limited government

Liberal democracy is a compromise which seeks to combine the authority of democratic

governments with limits on the scope of powers and functions, and actions. A core feature of
liberal democracy is maintaining limited form of government. Liberal democracy also targets at
securing individual freedoms

(D) In liberal democracy there is clear boundary between state and society

In liberal democracy, civil society and state are clearly distinguished. This distinction is
maintained through the existence of autonomous groups and interests, and the markets or
capitalist organization of economic life.

Nevertheless, liberal theory of democracy is a subject to different interpretations. As a result of

this, there is a considerable amount of disagreement about the meaning and significance of
liberal democracy. Therefore, this theory of democracy is likely classified on the basis of some
significant questions. These questions are;

 Does liberal democracy ensure a genuine and healthy dispersal of political power?
 Do democratic processes genuinely promote log-term benefits, or are they self-defeating
in liberal democracy?
 Can liberal democracy accommodate political equality with economic inequality?

On the basis of these questions, liberal theory of democracy is interpreted in different ways by
different theorists. The most important of these interpretations are advanced in the form of the
following forms of liberal democracy:
1) Classical liberal theory of democracy.
2) Neo-liberal theory of democracy.
3) Pluralist liberal theory of democracy.
4) Elitist theory of democracy.

56
Dear learners, each of these forms of liberal theory of democracy are discussed in the following
section.

2.1.1.1. Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy

Classical liberal democracy, also known as traditional liberal theory of democracy, is best
defined and explained by the following salient features:

(A) Power is vested in and exercised by the people

In classical liberal theory of democracy, people exercise power via their elected representative
and their chosen representatives are accountable to them for their acts of people, whether express
or implied. This in practical terms means the will of the majority. Thus, it stands on the premise
that “people are always right” (in theory), or the “decision of the majority is always correct” (in
practice).

(B) The people have certain natural and inalienable rights

In classical liberal theory of democracy, people are entitled with certain natural and inalienable
rights which the government cannot abrogate or diminish. This presupposes people derive from
Adam and are endowed with certain natural rights of liberty, property, freedom of conscience,
and equality in political privilege. This also asserts that “all men are naturally born free” and
from this principle it is derived that “the liberty and right of free-born men to be governed as
seems them best. The most powerful argument was that it must begin with the recognition of a
natural and original freedom of all men to order their actions and dispose of their possessions as
they think fit within the bounds of the laws of nature.

(C) Democracy alone ensures prevalence of the “general will”

In every community, there is a section of really selfless and enlightened people who think in
terms of public interest and it is the inherent force of their selfless arguments that ultimately
prevails in any matter under discussion before a body of the people. Through the process of
cancellation good would set aside the bad. Therefore, all contradictions would be resolved and in
the end any “dominant good” would emerge. This good, which would be what was left at the will
of all becomes integrated, would be in effect the same as the general will.

57
(D) Democracy has no substitution in terms of excellence

For classical theorists, democracy has no substitution in terms of excellence. They see
democracy particularly from a practical point of view. Every form of government has its merits
and demerits. But peculiar is the case the democracy where merits far out weight its demerits.

Generally, classical liberal theory of democracy has been part a theory of certain original and
natural rights of man. Thus, it has a view that government is made in virtue of those rights and
must conform to them.

Merits of the Classical Liberal Theory of Democracy

1. It is a fact that the forms and phrases of classical democracy are for states associated with
events and developments in their history which are enthusiastically approved by large majored.
Any opposition to the established regime is likely to use these forms and phrases whatever its
meanings and social roots may be. Under these circumstances, a democratic revolution has
meant the advent of freedom and decency, and democratic creed meant a gospel of reason and
betterment.

2. Classical liberal democracy provides an effective mechanism for talking and implanting
decisions whether it is a small and primitive society of Switzerland or a big and industrialized
society of the USA. This is the case with many small and primitive societies which, as a matter
of fact, served as a proto type to the classical theory. It may be the case with those societies also
that are not primitive, provided they are not too differentiated and do not harbor any serious
problems.

3. The politicians appreciate a phraseology that flatters the masses and offers an excellent
opportunity not only for evading responsibility but also for crushing opponents in the name of
the people.

Demerits of Classical Liberal Democracy

Despite its above discussed merits, the classical liberal theory has been criticized on many
accounts. The major drawbacks of classical liberal are discussed below;

58
 1. It is thoroughly normative. It is loaded with high ideals and bombastic propositions like
“general will”, “people’s rule”, ‘people’s power’, a common good” and the like that cannot
be subjected to empirical verification. All these terms are quite elusive.

2. It attaches no importance to the role of numerous interest groups and organizations that
play their part in the struggle for power, or which compete among themselves and that all
constitutes the stuff of a democratic system in practice. The utilitarian talk about “greatest
happiness of the greater number” without taking into consideration the powerful roles of
groups, factions and elites that ever strive have to protect and promote their specific
interests.

3. The socialists and the Marxists have their own version of democracy that stretches the
system of political democracy into social and economic spheres. To the Marxists, it is all
that like a defense of the discredited bourgeois system.

2.1.1.2. Neo- Liberal theory of Democracy

The Neo-Liberal theory of democracy, which is also known as the empirical theory of
democracy, is a modification, not a mutilation, of classical or traditional liberal theory of
democracy with a view to approximate to reality what it seeks to profess. In other words, the
neo-liberal theory of democracy like to abjure the use of terms like “general will”, ‘common
interest’, ‘people’s rule’, and the like on account of their being of non-verifiable nature. Neo-
liberal democracy instead prefers to develop an explanation about the nature and working of
democracy with the use of a new vocabulary loaded with casual and practicable implications. An
attempt may also be seen in the direction of narrowing down the gulf between the liberty of the
individual and the authority of the state in a democratic setup. Thus, instead of treating the two
as basically anti-theatrical terms, the neo-liberals like to establish a sort of happy and workable
compromise between them.

Moreover, it is taken into account that although democracy may be available in many countries
of the world, it differs from place to place so that a uniform theory of democracy of universal
application cannot be formulated.

59
Salient Feature of the Neo-Liberal Theory of Democracy

The neoliberal theory of democracy has many characteristic features. The major salient features
of the Neo-liberal theory of democracy are identified and discussed here under:

(A) Democracy has different forms of its own in different parts of the world.

Neo-liberal theory of democracy claims the first step in democracy is to dispel the illusions of
democracy always stands for that which is good and virtuous about a political system. If
democracy is used to describe the “good society”, then there will, indeed, be as many types of
democracy as there are visions of utopia and the word will lose all descriptive meetings.

(B) It recognizes the principle of natural equality of human being reservation

The neo-liberal theories of democracy accept the principle or doctrine of natural equality of
human being but with a reservation. Though they do not frankly subscribe to the rule of natural
inequality of mankind, as stressed by Aristotle, they make dexterous attempt to do so by sticking
to the practical side of things. They discard the meaning of equality in ideal or absolute terms.
According to this theory, “democracy implies some commitment to political equality, not an
absolute equality, since any form of rule necessarily involves some political inequality.
However, this inequality is in the sense of no race, class, or individual being arbitrarily deprived
of the opportunity of participating in the political process”. It is, of course, almost a truism to say
that democracies will vary in the extent to which the idea of equal political participation is
approached.

(C) Democracy is neither the rule of all nor the rule of many

An inference from the above would be that democracy is neither the rule of all, nor of many,
rather it is the rule of a section of the political people. It attempts to harmonize the “law of
oligarchy” with the premise of the rule of the people”. Hence, according to this theory of
democracy, the democratic method is that institutional arrangement for arriving at political
decisions in which individuals acquire the power through election by people to decide by means
of a competitive struggle for the people’s vote.

(D) The neoliberal democracy rejects the doctrine of nature as rights

60
Neo-liberal theory of democracy argues that unstained and also unsustainable by any possible
evidence and without practical value in solving any of the actual problems of political life.
Particularly, this theory attacks is directed against the democratic assumptions as to “the equality
of men in political capacity”.

According to the neo-liberal theory of democracy, what is decisive is the case of position and
role of man in a “market society”, a society governed by free market principles. To an economist
market works according to the law of supply and demand; to empirical theories of politics means
exercise of “extractive” and “developmental” capacities of man. Politics is a struggle for power;
it is like a competition in which many actors are involved and competed. The merit of democracy
is that it opens doors for all to enter into the arena of organizations of a “plural society” play
their part for the sake of protecting and promoting their needs and interests. Democracy is thus
becomes an “elective oligarchy”

(E) It gives high credit for numerous political parties, civil society, and interest groups/
pressure groups

Neo-liberal theory of democracy argues that a realistic theory of democracy must frankly
highlight the role of numerous political parties, civil society, and interest groups (pressure
groups). It also equally admits their techniques and tactics for the protection and promotion of
their specific interest. According to this theory, although due emphasis is given to the “iron law
of oligarchy”, it describes to the doctrine of calling democracy “elective oligarchy” without
bothering for the fact some critics would call it “an aristocratic theory of democracy” as against
its “democratic version”.

In simple terms, it means that all people may be having equal rights in theory; but they are quite
different due to their natural capacities. Thus, all the people cannot rule all in the interest of all.
The principle of democracy then merely means that the reins of government should be handed to
those who command more support than do any of the competing individuals or parties. And this,
in turn, seems to assure the standing of the majority system with in the logic of the democratic
method, although it might be condemned it on grounds that lie outside of that logic.

61
Critics of Neo-Liberal Theory of Democracy

Despite its above discussed merits, the neo- liberal theory has been criticized on many accounts.
The major drawbacks of classical liberal are discussed below;

1. It essentially discards the place of norms and goals in the operation of a democratic system. It
takes things in their cross materialistic forms, and thereby takes away the freshness of the idea of
democracy that comes from its normative sense or version.

2. It seems vulgar instrument for the justification of the discredited bourgeois system in which
society is taken as a multitude for numerous interests competing and conflicting with each other.
This theory of democracy gives less room for prevailing economic inequalities and does into call
for social and economic justice in a free and humanistic order.

Focus
Powerful advocates of this theory enumerate the following points in its defense.
A. We are provided with a reasonably efficient criterion by which we may distinguish
democratic governments form others.
B. It leaves all the rooms we my wish to have for a proper recognition at the vital fact
of leadership.
C. There are genuine group-wise volitions at all- for instance, the will of the
unemployed to receive unemployment benefit or the will of other groups to help
this theory does not neglect them.
D. It involves the concept of leadership. Democracy seems to imply a recognized
method by which to conduct the competitive struggle, and that the electoral method
is practically the only one available for communities of any size.
E. It seems to clarify the relation that subsists between democracy and individual
freedom.
F. In marketing it the primary function of the electorate to produce a government
(directly or indirectly) it also includes the function of evicting it. The one simply
means the acceptance of the leader or a group of leaders, the other simply means
the withdrawal of this acceptance.

62
 2.1.1.3. Pluralists Liberal Theory of Democracy

Pluralist theory of democracy can be traced back to early liberal philosophy, and notably the
ideas of John Lock and Montague

The term Pluralist democracy is sometimes used interchangeably with liberal democracy to
indicate a democratic system based on electoral competing between a numbers of political
parties. But, more specifically, pluralistic democracy refers a form of democracy that operates
through the capacity of organized groups and interests to articulate popular demands and ensure
government responsiveness. As such, it can be seen as an alternative to parliamentary democracy
and to any form of majority rule.

Pluralist theory of democracy believes in the system of limited political participation. And it
holds there are numerous groups that play their part in the struggle for power. An open society or
a pluralist society recognizes the existence of various interests of the people and their groups
formed for the sake of protecting and promoting their specific interests. Thus, according to this
theory of democracy, in a democratic system all such groups should be allowed to take part in
the political process that operate either single, or in combination with other groups, either
directly and automatically or in alliance with some political party.

As such, the pluralist theory of democracy stands on the premise of individual’s interest and
there by becomes a part of liberal theory on democracy. It is cardinal factor of self-interest that
forces persons to be unison with other like-minded ones in order to enhance their positions and
interests and power to the point of gaining recognition, legitimating and realization of their
specific interest. That is, it depends upon the fact that a man’s skin is closer to him than his/her
shirt. “And so men think more carefully, as a rule, about their immediate concerns than about
their general welfare: they are more likely to perceive their own interest in politics than the larger
framework.

The most influential modern exponent of pluralist theory of democracy is Robert Dahl. He holds
that although the politically privileged and economically powerful exerted greater power than

63
ordinary citizens, no ruling or permanent elite is able to dominate the political process.
Accordingly, the key features of such pluralist theory of democracy is that the completion
between parties at electing time, and the ability of interest groups or pressure groups to articulate
their views freely, establishes a reliable link between the government and the governed and
creates a channel of communicating between the two. While this may fall along way short of the
ideal of popular self-government its supporters nevertheless it ensures a sufficient level of
accountability and popular responsiveness for it to be regarded as democratic.

According to this theory, the government comprises of groups representing within its framework
broader social processes, as well as interests and claims. Thus, making available to outside
groups a number of points of access at which it is open to influence.

Therefore, pluralist democracy means a political system in which policies are made by mutual
consultation and exchange of opinions between various groups. And, the state is not alone a
repository of sovereign authority and hence the governing power of the state should be
distributed in a way that the groups have share in it. All important decisions on economic, social
and political matters should be taken by the officials of the state after consulting groups whose
interests are involved in it, or who might be affected by the implementation of such decisions.

Thus, for pluralist liberal theory of, democracy, apart from being a rule of the people, or of the
majority, is a socio-political system in which the power of the state is shared with a large number
of private groups, interest organizations and individuals represented by such organizations.

Focus

Pluralism, as the name indicates, is a system in which political power is fragmented among
branches of government; it is, moreover, shared between the state and a multitude of private
groups and individuals.

The concept of pluralism is understood in two different ways. In its broader sense, pluralism
is a belief in or a commitment to diversity or multiplicity. As a descriptive term, pluralism
may be used to denote the existence of party completion (political pluralism), multiplicity
of ethical values (moral pluralism), or a variety of cultural norms (cultural pluralism). As a

64
normative term, it suggests that safeguards individual’s liberty and promotes debate,
argument, and understanding. More narrowly, pluralism is a theory of distribution of
political power. It holds that power is widely and evenly distributed or dispersed in society
rather than concentrated in the hands of an elite (elites) or ruling class. In this form,
pluralism is usually seen as a theory of “group politics” in which individuals are represented
largely through their membership of organized groups, and all such groups have access to
the policy-process.

The burden of the argument of the pluralists is that the state must recognize the personality
and autonomy of social groups and allow them to take part in the political process of a
country. The main function of the state is to deal with social conflicts in a way that the
competitive struggle for power is regulated. The state is the harmonizer of social relations it
is the adjuster of conflicting social norms. The groups fill up the gap between the
individuals and social and political systems. It is through their leaders that such groups
mediate between individuals and all organized forms of power. In this way, government is
kept close to people, and decisions benefit from the skill and interest which such groups
provide. There, the pluralist theory puts that:

The conditions for a healthy pluralist theory of democracy include the following:

A) There is a wide dispersal of political power among competing groups, and

specifically, elite groups are absent;

B) There is a high degree of internal responsiveness, with group leaders being

accountable to members; and

C) There is a neutral government machine that is sufficiently fragmented to

offer groups a number of options.

65
Some Major Critics of Pluralists

The pluralist theory of democracy may be criticized on the following major grounds.

(A) It undermines the sovereign post on of the state by laying too much on the personality
and autonomy of social groups. It forgets the salient fact that the state alone can deal with the
conditions of anarchy in which the hands of some rebellions and irresponsible groups may be
traced. It is true that the role of many groups would act as a check on the abuse of power by the
government, but it is also true that incase of groups are given the kind of liberty as desired by the
pluralists, they would create many series problems of law and order. It is a pity that while the

(B) It heavily concentrates on the role of elites. Let there be as many social groups as possible
to take part in the political process of the country, but its role of the elite that must be given all
significances. The iron law of oligarchy stands to demonstrate the point that elites control power
and power shifts among them.

(C) The relationship between pluralism and democracy may not be secure one. The systems
of rule by multiple minorities simply have been a device to prevent the majority (the property
less masses) form exercising political power.

(D) Another problem is the danger of what has been called “pluralist stagnation”. This
occurs as organized groups and economic interests become so powerful that they create a log
jam, resulting in the problem of government “overload”. In such circumstances, a pluralist
system may simply become ungovernable.

(E) Unequal ownership of economic resources. There is the problem notably that the unequal
ownership of economic resources tends to concentrate political power in the hands of the few
and deprive it from the many.

2.1.1.4. Elitist Theory of Democracy

The term elite originally meant, and still mean, the highest, the best, or the excellent. Used in a
neutral or empirical sense, however, elitist theory refers to rule of minority. Minority here is
understood in terms of handing power, wealth or privilege, or otherwise. The term elitism has
different manifestations or forms. Normative elitism is the one that suggests that elite rule is

66
desirable and inevitable. In other words, elitism claims political power should be vested in the
hands of a wise or enlightened minority. Classical elitism claimed to be empirical and it saw elite
rule as being inevitable, and an unchangeable fact of social existence.

The other form of elitism known as modern elitism has also developed an empirical analysis, but
it is more critical and discriminating about the causes of the elite rule. Whereas classical elitists
strove to prove that democracy was always a myth, modern elitist theorists have tended to
highlight how far particular political system falls short of the democratic ideal.

This theory of democracy is a reinterpretation of the liberal theory of democracy in a strictly

empirical direction. This theory lies on the rule of the elites. It discards the normative
expressions like “voice of the people” or rule of the people or the general will” and it stands for
the “rule of the chosen few” with the consent or acquiescence of the many. For this stand, elitists
give justification that even if all men are taken equal according to the Biblical injection of
“Father Hood of God and brother hood of man”, some are more equal than others. Some are
more equal because few have a position of advantage over the many. Elitists also argue that
inequality is a universal fact making every political system rule of few or “oligarchic”, though in
varying degrees. Thus, the elitists would say that all people are always governed by elites, or by
“a chosen elements of the population”. In this sense, democracy is the government of the people
in theory, in practice it is the “government of elites”.

In democracy, people’s participation in politics is limited to some activities. In this sense, the
people may participate or they may think they participate in political process, but in reality, their
influence is largely limited to elections. Thus, the way people exercise politics in democracy is
limited in terms of both arena and time. At the center of power there is social elite which wields
considerable influences.

The elitist theory of democracy should be taken as peculiar mixture of the classical theory of
democracy and aristocracy. It has a democratic content in that it accepts residence of power in
the people; its aristocratic content lies in its assertion that only a few persons under a leader are
capable of exercising power. However, its democratic content should also be viewed with this
line of distinction that while classical theory of democracy would appreciate the growing role of
the people in the sphere of political process, the elite theoretic would like to keep the distribution

67
of power in a limited circle of the most influential, most intelligent, most shrewd, most cunning,
and most competent people.

Focus
Elitists critically divide every political system is divided into two groups-
1) The elite group: This group is a collection of few individuals who are more
equal. The elites or the political entrepreneurs have ideological commitments
and manipulative skills, and
2) The ordinary group: This group is a collection of the masses at the grassroots
level. It includes citizens at large, the masses or the political clay of the system,
a much larger class of passive, inert followers who have little knowledge of
public affairs and even less interest.

Elitists believe a good political system is one that enjoys stability, and stability requires limited
political participation. In this sense, elitist theory of democracy is quite different from classical
theory of democracy. In this aspect, classical theory of democracy hoped that growing political
participation would be a blessing for the success of democracy. In contrary to this, elitist theory
of democracy contends that call for more and more political participation should be treated as
essentially as a noble myth. Thus, limited popular political participation would give stability to a
democratic system. This is democracy may have good reasons to fear increased political
participation. A successful or stable democratic system depends upon widespread political a path
and general political incompetence.

Critiques of Elitist Theory

Despite the loaded and verifiable assumptions, the elitist theory of democracy is criticized on the
following grounds:

(A) It is more of conservative: Elitist theory of democracy inherits a conservative character in

that it affirms that in case the uninformed masses participate in large numbers, the network of
democratic restrains will break down and peaceful competition among the elites would become
impossible. Thus, by reviewing the theory to bring into closer correspondence with reality, the

68
elite theorists have transformed democracy from radical into a conservative political doctrine,
stripping away its distinctive emphasis on popular political activity so that it “no longer serves a
set of ideals which society ought to be striving.

(B) It discards the moral and ethical aspect of democracy: The elitist theory of democracy
discards moral or ethical aspect of democracy that is so powerfully stressed by the classical
theory of democracy. To eleitist democracy is a mere mechanism with no morality of its own, or
with the set of its existing morality that pertains to a bourgeois system. In the version of the
elitists, emphasis has shifted to the needs and functions of the system as a whole; there is no
longer a direct concern with human development. It has no place for ideas or noble directions
towards which a democratic system must move. The central question is not how to design a
political system which stimulates greater individual participation and enhances the moral
development of its citizens, but how to combine a substantial degree of popular participation
with a system of power capable of governing effectively and coherently.

(C) It negates the system of democracy itself: In a void sense, the elitist theory of democracy is
the negation of the system of democracy. Democracy is only system that stands on the “will of
the people”. As such, growing participation of the people in the political process should be
desired and appreciated. Contrary to this, the elitist theory of democracy assumes a distinctly
oligarchic complexion by denying in practice what it accepts in theory. It allows the citizen only
a passive role as an object of political activity. A citizen exerts his/her influence on policy-
making only by rendering judgments at the time of elections. Obliviously, political participation
is reduced to the manageable task of periodic choices in elections. The elitists forget that the
safety of contemporary democracy lays in the high minded sense of responsibility of its leaders,
the elements of a society who are actively striving to discover and implement the common good.

(D) It discards social movement: The elitist theory of democracy looks for the principal source
of innovation in the competition among rival leaders and the clever manicuring of entrepreneurs
which is in its view the most distinctive aspect of a democratic system.

The primary concern of the elitists is maintenance of stability, or the status queue, or the
preservation of democratic procedures, and the creation of machinery which could produce
efficient administration and coherent public policies. With these goals in mind, social

69
movements have usually been pictured as threats to democracy as or manifestations of political
extremism.

They deliberately ignore the fact that every political system undergoes changes or dynamics
from time to time and the requirement of the present age is to make democracy in tune with the
good of the people in general. Instead, they must take it for granted that “one major consequence
or (function) of social movements is to break society’s long jumps to prevent ossifications in the
political system, to prompt and justify many innovations in social policy and economic
organizations.

(E) It commits contradiction of ideas: Above all, this theory commits an act of self-
contradictory by adulating democracy as a “pen system”, and at the same time, by justifying the
way of manipulation and secrecy in which elites remain involved all the time. Elite politics is
never open politics, and yet it requires a democratic system that is invariably an open system.
Politics should be open and clean, and if politics of this kind prevails, a democratic system would
be an ideal for the humanity. Leadership should not be mere transactional or based on the
principle of give-and-take; it should be of a transformational kind correcting the behavior of the
followers.
Lesson Two: Models of Democracy

Lesson Objectives

After the successful Completion of This Lesson, Students Will be Able to:
 Identify different models of democracy; and
 Analyze democracy differently on the basis of contending views of models of
democracy

2.2. Major Models of Democracy

Therefore, these theories are discussed separately in the following sections.

2.2.1. Classical Model of Democracy

70
The classical model of democracy is an old form of democracy and it is the manifestation of pure
or ideal democracy. It is based on the polis, or city state of Ancient Greece, and particularly on
the system of rule that developed in the largest and most powerful Greek City –States. This form
of democracy is a very old form and so its theory dates back to the days of the Greeks who
identified it with “People’s power” (percales), or a system of governance in which “rulers are
accountable to the people for what they do there in.”

The form of direct democracy that operated in the Athens during the 4th and 5th century (BC) is
often portrayed as the only pure or ideal system of popular participation. The Athenian
democracy a developed a very peculiar kind of direct popular participation and this form of
popular participate has only a very limited application in the modern world. Athenian democracy
mounted to form of government by mass meeting. All major decisions were made by the
Assembly to which all citizens belonged. This met at least 40 times a year.

Athenian democracy was a remarkable democracy. What made the Athenian democracy so
remarkable was the level of political a activity of its citizens. Not only did they participate in
regular meeting of the Assembly but they were also prepared to shoulder the responsibility of
public office and decision making.

Dear learners! as it is discussed under first chapter of this module, practically the principal
drawback of Athenian democracy was that, it could operate only by excluding the mass of the
population from political activity. Participation was only restricted to Athenian born males who
were over 20 years of age, Slaves (the majority of the population), women and foreigners had no
political rights what so ever. Indeed, citizens were able to devote so much of their lives to
politics only because slavery relived them of the need to engage in arduous labor, and the
confinement of women to the private realm freed them from domestic responsibility. However,
the classical model of the Athenian democracy (direct or pure democracy) and continuous
popular participation in political life has been kept alive in certain parts of the world, notably in
the local (for example kebele) meetings, and township meetings. It is also the basis for the wider
use of referendum, particularly in relation to constitutional issues and in the issue of secession,
and the like.

2.2.2. Protective Model of Democracy

71
As the name indicate, protective model of democracy, emphasis on protecting citizens from the
encroachments of the government in general and officials in particular. It is also the
manifestation of revival of democracy. When democratic ideas were revived in the 17th and 18th
centuries, democracy appeared in the form that was very different from the classical democracy
of the Ancient Greece. In particular, democracy was seen less a mechanism though which the
public could participate in their political life, and more as a device through which citizens could
protect themselves from the encroachments of government, hence protective democracy.

Protective democracy is essentially emanated from the concept or form of democratic system of
“government by consent” operating through a representative assembly. However, to justify
democracy on protective grounds is to provide only a qualified endorsement of democratic rule.
In short, protective democracy is a limited and indirect form of democracy. In practice, the
consent of the governed is exercised through voting in regular and competitive elections. This
there by ensures the accountability of those who govern. Political equality is thus understood in a
strict technical terms to mean equal voting rights.

Moreover, this is above all a system of constitutional democracy that operates with in a set of
formal or informal rules that check the exercise of government power. If the right to vote is a
means to defending individual liberty, liberty must also be guaranteed by strict enforced
separation of powers via the creation of separate executive, legislature, an judiciary, and by the
main tenancy of basic rights and freedoms, such as freedom of expression, freedom of
movement, freedom of association, freedom of thought, freedom from arbitrary arrest, etc.

2.2.3. Developmental Model of Democracy

Developmental democracy contends the development of common interests of a community.

Thus, the central notion of this model of democracy is exercising grass root democracy. This is
in the sense that practical and actually democracy is exercised at the lowest possible level.
Despite the fact that the above model of democracy focused on the need to protect individual
rights and interests, this model of democracy gives room for the community development. The
shift has resulted in development of new model of democratic rule that can broadly be referred to
a system of developmental democracy. It was developed by Jean –Jaques Rousseau. According
to this model of democracy, democracy is ultimately a means through which human beings could
achieve autonomy, in the sense of “obedience to law one prescribes to oneself.” In other words,
72
citizens are “free” only when they participate directly and continuously in shaping the life of
their community. This is an idea that moves well beyond the conventional notion of electoral
democracy and offers support for the more radical ideal of direct democracy. However, what
gives the developmental model of democracy different is its novel character that insists that
freedom ultimately means obedience to the general will –the genuine interests of collective body
equivalent to the common good.

This model of democracy holds that the general will to be the “true” will of each citizen, in
contrast to his/her private or selfish will. By obeying the general will citizens are therefore doing
nothing more than obeying their own “true” natures, the general will being what individuals
would will if they were to act selflessly. According to this model of democracy, a system of
radical developmental democracy requires not merely political equality but a relatively high level
of economic equality.

2.2.4. Social Model Democracy

Social democracy can be considered to be driven from socialist and communist ideas, in a
progressive, gradualist, a dualist and constitutional setting. Many social democratic parties in the
world are evaluations or evolutionary parties that or ideological or pragmatic reasons, come to
embrace a strategy of gradual change through existing institutions, or a policy of working for
liberal rearms pronto more pronoun social change, instead of sudden revolutionary change. It
may for example involve progressivism. Today, however, most of the parties calling themselves
social democrat do not advocate the abolishment of capitalism, but instead that it should be
heavily regulated.

Lesson Three: Conceptions of Democracy

Lesson Objectives

After the successful Completion of This Lesson, Students Will be Able to:

 Identify and explain the conceptions of democracy

 Conceptualize and analyze democracy in different ways

73
 2.3. Major Conceptions of Democracy
According to political theorists, there are at least four (4) major contending conceptions of democracy. These the

2.3.1. Minimalist Conception of Democracy

Minimalism democracy is a system of government in which citizens give teams of political

leaders the right to rule in periodic elections. According to this minimalist conception of
democracy, citizens cannot and should not rule because on most issues, most of the times, they
have not clear views or their views are not very intelligent. This view of democracy is
expounded and articulated by Joseph Schumpeter in his most famously book entitled:
Capitalism, socialism and democracy.

2.3.2. Aggregate Conception of Democracy

The aggregate conception of democracy holds that government should be a system that produces
laws and policies that can form to the vector sum of citizen’s preferences. A good democratic
government is one that produces laws and policies that are close to the views of the median
voter-with half to his/her left and the that half to his right.

2.3.3. Deliberative Conception of Democracy

Deliberative conception of democracy is based on the notion that democracy is government by

discussion. Deliberative democrats contend that law and policies should be based on reasons that
all citizens can accept. The political arena should be one in which leaders and citizens make
arguments, listen, and change their minds.

2.3.4. Participatory Conception of Democracy

This conception of democracy gives big room for the participation of citizens. Participatory
conception of democracy holds that citizens should participate directly, not through
representatives in making laws and policies. Proponents of participatory democracy offer varied
reasons to support this view. Political activity can be valuable in itself, it socializes and educates
citizens, and popular participation can check powerful elites. Most importantly, citizens do not
really feel themselves unless they directly decide on laws and policies.

74
 Chapter Three
The Democratization Process
Learning outcome!

Dear students! Upon accomplishment of the unit you will be able to:

Identify democracy and democratization process

Explain democratic transition and democratic consolidation
Analyze the challenges of democratization process in Africa
Conceptualize the waves of democratization (1st, 2nd and 3rd waves
Lesson one: Democracy and Democratization
Lesson Objectives

Dear students! Upon accomplishment of the lesson you will be able to:

Give brief definition of democracy

Distinguish democracy and democratization
Describe the nature of democratization (whether it is a concept or a process)
Mention factors that affect or limit democratization
Describe factors that affect or limit the democratization process

4) Democracy and Democratization

4.1) Democracy
Students! We hope that, you have gone through various definitions of democracy in your study
in chapter one. Having this in consideration, we have put forward some views of democracy, to
help you understand and distinguish democracy and democratization process.

The term ''democracy"' means different things to different people, and that conclusion is accepted
by most commentators. Indeed, there is a wide range of perspectives as to the meaning and
content of democracy as well as to the conditions of its realization; all of which vary depending
on the proponents' philosophical, ideological, political, cultural, social, and economic
perspectives.

75
Contemporary political thinkers see democracy essentially as a process which is based on some
principles, though recognizing that the mere existence of a formal process is not a sufficient
guarantee to achieve substantive democracy. This approach raises another paradigm, namely:
whether democracy is a modality through which authority is delegated by the multitude to the
one or the few who are to exercise certain (defined or limited or undefined or unlimited) powers
over them on the basis of that delegation of authority, or whether it is a series of interactive
processes in which checks and balances constantly or periodically redress or equalize the scales
of power between those who govern and those who are governed. To speak of allocation of
powers, checks and balances, control and redress mechanisms presupposes a choice in the
institutions of government, that is to say three branches of government: legislative, executive,
and judicial.

Historical experience reveals that democracy cannot be attained without a system of government
which divides power among three co-equal branches each with certain prerogatives of power,
and where the role of the judiciary is to channel power-related conflicts through a legal process
which uses agreed legal reasoning to interpret and apply pre-existing law

The factors taken into account by contemporary commentators and proponents of different
perspectives on democracy are not always clear or easily identifiable; and when they are, it is not
always apparent that the various arguments they advance are followed consistently or logically.
This is evident in the literature on contemporary political thought, but even more so in the public
debate over democracy. One of the sources of this intellectual and political confusion is the fact
that the term democracy is often used interchangeably and without distinction with respect to
three different concepts for which the term is employed. They are:

1. Democracy as a process, with all that which it comports of mechanisms, procedures and
formalities — from political organization to elections.

2. Democracy as a state, with all which this condition implies for given civil society and its
governance, including the processes of democracy and maybe also democratic outcomes.

3. Democracy as an outcome, is putting into effect policies and practices which are generally
agreed upon by the governed. Such an outcome may or may not be the result of a condition or
state, and it may or may not be the product of democratic processes.

76
These three concepts are neither mutually self-excluding nor contradictory; on the contrary, they
are on the same continuum. But it is important to distinguish between them because in a sense
they represent three levels or stages of democracy. Whatever meaning and content is given to
the term democracy, what essentially distinguishes it in essence from other systems of
government is the right of popular participation in governance, and the legitimacy and
legitimation of government and governance.

The Vienna Declaration on Human Rights states: "Democracy is based on the freely-expressed
will of the people to determine their own political, economic, social and cultural systems and
their full participation in all aspects of their lives,” But, it would be misleading to read these
assertions only in light of western cultural and socio-political experiences. As Secretary- General
Boutros-Ghali stated in his 1995 Report to the UN General Assembly: "Democracy is not a
model to be copied from certain states, but a goal to be attained by all peoples and assimilated by
all cultures. It may take many forms, depending upon the characteristics and circumstances of
societies.

4.2) Democratization
A related term, democratization, has also recently appeared in the debate on democracy. At times
it is used to refer to the processes of democracy, and at other times it refers to the "transitional
stage" of government from non-democratic to the various emerging forms of power sharing,
governance and public accountability in new regimes. In both cases, however, the term
democratization is process-oriented and it, therefore, represents a series of evolutionary
developments. Thus, the content of democratization is necessarily relative and contextual,
particularly with respect to the issue of accountability for the abuses of prior regimes.
Democratization in transitional countries also encompasses societies which are deemed least
developed countries (LDC) and whose priorities are both economic development and democracy.
But, as much as these two goals do not appear to be in consistent, they are in fact very difficult to
achieve in tandem. In that respect the Vienna Declaration on human rights states: "The World
Conference on Human Rights reaffirms that least developed countries committed to the process
of democratization and economic reforms, many of which are in Africa, should be supported by
the international community in order to succeed in their transition to democracy and economic
development.

77
Democratization is a process which leads to a more open, more participatory, less authoritarian
society. Democracy is a system of government which embodies, in a variety of institutions and
mechanisms, the ideal of political power based on the will of the people.

In places from Latin America to Africa, Europe and Asia, numbers of authoritarian regimes have
given way to democratic forces, increasingly responsive Governments and increasingly open
societies. Many States and their peoples have embarked upon a process of democratization for
the first time. Others have moved to restore their democratic roots.

The basic idea of democracy is today gaining adherents across cultural, social and economic
lines. While the definition of democracy is an increasingly important subject of debate within
and among societies, the practice of democracy is increasingly regarded as essential to progress
on a wide range of human concerns and to the protection of human rights.

Focus

Democratization is a process which leads to a more open, more participatory, less

authoritarian society. In places from Latin America to Africa, Europe and Asia, numbers of
authoritarian regimes have given way to democratic forces, increasingly responsive

Both democratization and democracy raise difficult questions of prioritization and timing. It is
therefore not surprising that the acceleration of democratization and the renaissance of the idea
of democracy have met with some resistance. On the practical level, the world has seen some
slowing and erosion in democratization processes and, in some cases, reversals. On the
normative level, resistance has arisen which in some cases seeks to cloak authoritarianism in
claims of cultural differences and in others reflects the undeniable fact that there is no one model
of democratization or democracy suitable to all societies. The reality is that individual societies
decide if and when to begin democratization. Throughout the process, each society decides its
nature and its pace.

Democratization as a process of political change that moves the political system of any given
society towards a system of government that ensures peaceful competitive political participation
in an environment, that guarantees political and civil liberties. This is a concept that captures the
dynamic quality of democratic evolution in any society but especially in developing countries.

78
Having the above points in mind, democratization can be defined as follow:

Democratization refers to a movement toward democracy, that is, toward a different

political regime.
Democratization is the transition of an existing political system to a more democratic
political regime.
It may be the transition from an authoritarian regime to a full democracy, a transition
from an authoritarian political system to a semi-democracy or transition from a semi-
authoritarian political system to a democratic political system.
According to literatures, there are various factors which affect or ultimately limit the
democratization process. Among the most frequently mentioned factors the following are some
and may be more relevant to Africa’s experience with democratization. These are: education,
civil society, culture, economic development, previous experience with democracy and so on.
Now let us see how each element can be a factor encouraging or discouraging the
democratization process.

a) Education
Some believe that education plays an important role affecting democratic consolidation, though
not tested , however a poorly educated and illiterate population may elect populist politicians
who soon abandon democracy and become dictators even if there have been free elections.

b) Civil society
The term “civil society” is used, loosely, to refer to a diffuse collective existence outside
formally organized structures of the state, such as official parties, and, presumably, trade unions,
NGOs, and youth and women’s organizations.

Much of the debates around civil society’s involvement in the democratization process have
articulated the civil society movement as having tremendous implications for shaping and
pluralizing power relations, broadening the avenues of societal representation of interests and of
individual and group influence and participation, creating a new political culture of citizenship
that stresses rights, obligations, protest and contestation, and prompting political liberalization.
Civil society plays the crucial role of legitimating state power through norm setting of operative
rules of politics, and the reconstruction of public responsibility. Hence, it has been rightly argued

79
that “the legitimacy of a political leaders claim to exercise state power thus derives from civil
society”.

Civil society also plays an important role in mobilizing people for democratization of the
governance. A healthy civil society (NGOs, unions, academia, human rights organizations) are
considered by some theorists to be important for democratization, as they give people a unity and
a common purpose, and a social network through which to organize and challenge the power of
the state hierarchy. Involvement in civic associations also prepares citizens for their future
political participation in a democratic regime. Additionally, horizontally organized social
networks build trust among people and trust is essential for functioning of all democratic
institutions.

Empirical evidence has shown that civil society has been associated with much of the
transformation of Sub-Saharan nations towards democratic, transparent, and accountable
governance, having been heavily active in the popular struggles for democratization in South
Africa, Congo, Niger, Guinea, Mauritania, and Nigeria, and multiparty democracy in Gabon,
Cameroun, Kenya, Malawi, and Zambia. Grindle (1996), in a study of eight Latin American and
African countries, found out that an invigorated civil society heightened public debates, media
criticisms, political mobilization and public agitation, and contestation for increased participation
over policy and governance, resulting in the opening up of space for negotiation, redefinition and
re-constitution of state-society and state-economy relations. The activities of active civil society
in the democratization include; “challenging abuses, strengthening the rule of law, monitoring
human rights, educating citizens about rights and responsibilities, building a culture of civic
engagement, enhancing state responsiveness to societal interests and needs, and building a
constituency for economic as well as political reforms”.

Beyond democratization processes are crucial roles of democratic sustenance, and civil society is
expected to protect the democratic values of pluralism, accountability, responsibility and
participation in governance processes and the nature and strength of civil society in Africa’s
fledging civil societies have helped to determine the prospects for democratic consolidation.

Available literature has indicated that “civil society is today the main analytic paradigm in
African politics and is romantically associated with the wave of popular protests and social
mobilization that has resulted in democratization since the early 1990s”.

80
Therefore, the presences of well organized, active and enabled civil society have a tremendous
effect on democratization process and democratic consolidation. Civil societies educate and train
citizens and advocate democracy and good governance to ensure the responsiveness,
accountability and participatory nature of the government. On the other side the absence of
active and enabled civil society deter democratic transition.
c) Culture
It has been argued that the world's great historic cultural traditions vary significantly in the extent
to which their attitudes, values, beliefs, and related behavior patterns are conducive to the
development of democracy. A profoundly antidemocratic culture would impede the spread of
democratic norms in the society, deny legitimacy to democratic institutions, and thus greatly
complicate if not prevent the emergence and effective functioning of those institutions. The
cultural thesis comes in two forms. The more restrictive version states that only Western culture
provides a suitable base for the development of democratic institutions and, consequently, that
democracy is largely inappropriate for non-western culture.

It is claimed by some that certain cultures are simply more conductive and conducive to
democratic values than others. This view is likely to be ethnocentric. Typically, it is Western
culture which is cited as "best suited" to democracy, with other cultures portrayed as containing
values which make democracy difficult or undesirable. This argument is sometimes used by
undemocratic regimes to justify their failure to implement democratic reforms. Today, however,
there are many non-Western democracies. Examples include India, Japan, Indonesia, Namibia,
Botswana, Taiwan, and South Korea.

d) Previous Experience with Democracy

According to some theorists, the presence or absence of democracy in a country's past can have a
significant effect on its later dealings with democracy. Some argue, for example, that it is very
difficult (or even impossible) for democracy to be implemented immediately in a country that
has no prior experience with it. These thinkers assert that, democracy must evolve gradually.
Others, however, believe that past experiences with democracy can actually be bad for
democratization--- a country, such as Pakistan, in which democracy has previously failed may be
less willing or able to go down the same path again.

81
Lesson two: Democratic Transition and Consolidation
Lesson objective

After completing the lesson you will be able to:

Describe the features of democratic transition

Distinguish democratic transition and democratic consolidation
Figure out criterion that can be used to examine the consolidated democracy
Describe the three waves of democratization
Point out factors that contributed for the occurrence of third wave of democratization

4.3) Democratic Transition

Democratic transition is a primary event that comes first before democratic consolidation. It is a
transition from a given set of political structure and culture as well to a new transformed set of
political structure, ensuring regime change. Once democratic transition is occurred it has to be
consolidated in order to sustain democracy.

A regime transition is the “interval between one political regime and another”. A democratic
transition is therefore the interval between an authoritarian polity and a democratic one. In
defining democratic transitions, the “transfer of power” is usually identified as the key element,
which by definition equals democratization and consists of two distinctive phases. The essential
ingredient of a democratic transition is that political authority is derived from the free decision of
an electorate. Transition refers to the intermediate phase which begins with the dissolution of an
old regime and ends with the establishment of a new one.

82
Democratic transitions consist of two simultaneous but to some extent autonomous processes: a
process of dissolution of the authoritarian regime and a process of emergence of democratic
institutions. The key difference between authoritarian regimes and their democratic successors is
that the rules of the latter guarantee opposition groups the right to challenge incumbent rulers
and policies, and to replace those rulers through competitive elections. Such competition
assumes broad suffrage rights, free speech and association, and guarantees of basic civil liberties.
Democratic transitions can be considered to have occurred when authoritarian governments are
forced to yield power to ones that operate within this set of rules. Therefore, democratic
transition is defined as a political process of movement aimed at establishing a democratic
political system, initiated either from above or below or a combination of both, promoting
democratic values and goals, tolerating opposition, allowing bargaining and compromise among
different political forces for the resolution of social conflicts, institutionalizing the pluralist
structures and procedures by which different political forces are allowed to compete over the
power, regularizing transfer of power, and engaging in the fundamental transformation of
political structure(S.Guo, 2005).

4.4) Democratic Consolidation

Literally, the concept means an identifiable phase in the transition from authoritarian rule to civil
rule and by extension, democratic systems that are germane and fundamental to the
establishment and enthronement of a stable, institutional and enduring democracy. Achieving
democratic consolidation therefore calls for the enthronement of democracy as a system of
organizing both the society and government and thereafter creates concomitant institutions,
culture, ethics, support system and the ‘will’ that are crucial in making it stable, efficient and
responsive. Essentially, arriving at a consolidated democracy requires nurturing democratic
values and ethos, principles and institutions in a matured sense that prevents a reversal to a
hitherto authoritarian regime. It also rests upon a strong and dynamic civil society whose
responsibility is to check repeated abuses of power and hold public officials accountable for their
actions and inactions in the management of public resources and also serves to mitigate political
conflicts. According to scholars a vibrant civil society is probably more essential for
consolidating and maintaining democracy than for initiating it.

Democratic consolidation, it should be emphasized, begins with the enthronement of democracy

after a free and fair election, and spans through the period when its probability of breakdown is

83
very low or on the other way round, when its probability of survival is very high. There must
then be the optimism expressed by major political actors, all relevant observers and the entire
citizenry that the democratic regime can last into a foreseeable future, thereby having the
capacity to build dams against what Huntington (1991) would describe as a ‘reverse wave’.

Therefore, one democracy is consolidated it is sustainable and long lasting. A consolidated

democracy is protected from threat of “reverse movement” meaning movement back to
authoritarianism. If it is so we need to have features of consolidated democracy. In this regard
scholars identified criterion to examine the consolidated democracy.

First, the primary point that helps to identify a consolidated democracy is ‘transfer of power
test’. This criterion reckons with the ‘behavioral’ aspects of democratic consolidation as it
questions the attitude of political actors when defeated in an electoral contest. Clearly stated the
probability of democratic survival is not high until and unless democratically elected regimes
loose elections in subsequent contests and accept the verdict. Democracy is therefore
consolidated when a ruling political party or class hands over power to an opposition party after
losing the contest. This speaks volume of the readiness of major political players and their
supporters to respect the rules that govern the game of electoral contest and their readiness to
sacrifice their personal and/or sectional interest for the good of the democratic system.

Focus
Democracy is therefore consolidated when a ruling political party or class hands over power to
an opposition party after losing the contest.

The second is the “simple longevity” or “generation test”. The import of this criterion is that 20
years of regular competitive elections should be sufficient enough to adjudge a democracy
consolidated irrespective of the fact that power is not transferred to another political party or
class. The criterion argues that continuous and regular elections would have created in people a
mind-set that develops apathy for any near alternative to democracy. It is therefore unthinkable
for the electorates to explore another method of appointing their leaders. However, no one
criterion or condition is a ‘pure type’ on its own and that democratic sustainability is a product of

84
a combination of factors or conditions operating together. An accumulation of these facilitating
conditions therefore offers the prospects of democratic survival and deepening to be enhanced
(Oni, 2014).

Focus
Democratic sustainability is a product of a combination of favorable factors or conditions
working together.

4.5) Waves of Democratization

According to Samuel P. Huntington, the world has experienced three waves of democratization.
Huntington grouped the world nation’s transition in to democracy in to three consecutive waves
of democratization. He identifies a wave of democratization as a group of transitions from non-
democratic to democratic regimes that occur within a specified period of time that significantly
outnumber transitions in the opposite direction. Based on his scholarly contribution the first
wave of democratization was took place (1820s-1926) almost for a century. The second wave of
democratization was also taken the period (1942-1962), and the third wave of democratization
has begun 1974 and still continued to date (Huntington, 1991).

i) The First Wave of Democratization (1820s-1926)

In the first wave of democratization which took almost a century, around 29 countries of the
world were made transition to democracy/ became democracies. The first wave brought
democracy to Western Europe and Northern America in the 19th century. However, it was
followed by a rise of dictatorships during the Interwar period. In 1922, the coming to power of
Mussolini in Italy marked the beginning of a first "reverse wave" that by 1942 had reduced the
number of democratic states in the world to12. In this regard the world has experienced the first
reverse wave 1922-1942 reversely un-democratizing the democratic nations.

For instance, during this long period: USA, Britain, France, Italy and Argentina became
democracies. First Reverse Wave (1922-1942): Italy, Germany and Argentina backed down to
totalitarianism (the first two) and authoritarianism.
ii) The Second Wave of Democratization (1942-1962)

85
The second wave began after World War II, but lost steam between 1962 and the mid-1970s.The
triumph of the Allies in World War II initiated a second wave of democratization that reached its
zenith in 1962 with 36 countries governed democratically, only to be followed by a second
reverse wave (1960-1975) that brought the number of democracies back down to 30.

During this short period: West Germany, Italy, Japan, India, and Israel moved to
democracy. Second Reverse Wave (1958-1975): Brazil, Argentina and Chile.
iii) The Third Wave of Democratization (1974 to date)

The current era of democratic transitions constitutes the third wave of democratization in the
history of the modern world. This wave of democratization has begun around 1974 and
continued up to this period. Under this wave Portugal, Spain, and most Asian, African, East
European and Latin American countries are democratizing.

To pin down some features of the third wave of democratization, the following are some:
Huge number of democratizing countries.
Mostly preconditions of democracy do not exist.
The future is uncertain.
Huntington identified five major factors that have contributed significantly to the occurrence and
the timing of the third-wave transitions to democracy:

1. The deepening legitimacy problems of authoritarian regimes in a world where democratic

values were widely accepted, the consequent dependence of these regimes on successful
performance, and their inability to maintain "performance legitimacy" due to economic
(and sometimes military) failure.
2. The unprecedented global economic growth of the 1960s, which raised living standards,
increased education, and greatly expanded the urban middle class in many countries.
3. A striking shift in the doctrine and activities of the Catholic Church, manifested in the
Second Vatican Council of 1963-65 and the transformation of national Catholic churches
from defenders of the statuesque to opponents of authoritarianism.
4. Changes in the policies of external actors, most notably the European Community, the
United States, and the Soviet Union.
5. "Snowballing or the demonstration effect of transitions earlier in the third wave in
stimulating and providing models for subsequent efforts at democratization.

86
Here we gave focus for the latter two factors that contributed for the raise of third wave of
democratization; external factor and snowballing or demonstration effect of democratic
transition.

Lesson three: Factors that Contributed for the Raise of Third Wave of
Democratization
Lesson Objectives

Dear students! After accomplishing the lesson you will be able to:

Identify factors that contributed for the raise of third wave of democratization in
particular
define the meaning of reverse wave of democratization
identify factors that resulted to transitions away from democracy during the first and
second reverse waves
explain cultural and political obstacles to democratization
explore democratization in Africa and challenges encountered and facing today
External Factors

During the third wave, the European Community (EC) played a key role in consolidating
democracy in southern Europe. In Greece, Spain, and Portugal, the establishment of democracy
was seen as necessary to secure the economic benefits of European Community membership,
while Community membership was in turn seen as a guarantee of the stability of democracy. In
1981, Greece became a full member of the Community, and five years later Spain and Portugal
did as well.

In April 1987, Turkey applied for full EC membership. One incentive was the desire of Turkish
leaders to reinforce modernizing and democratic tendencies in Turkey and to contain and isolate
the forces in Turkey supporting Islamic fundamentalism.

The withdrawal of Soviet power made possible democratization in Eastern Europe. If the Soviet
Union were to end or drastically curtail its support for Castro's regime, movement toward
democracy might occur in Cuba. Apart from that, there seems little more the Soviet Union can
do or is likely to do to promote democracy outside its borders. The key issue is what will happen

87
within the Soviet Union itself. If Soviet control loosens, it seems likely that democracy could be
reestablished in the Baltic States. Movements toward democracy also exist in other republics.
Most important, of course, is Russia itself. The inauguration and consolidation of democracy in
the Russian republic, if it occurs, would be the single most dramatic gain for democracy since the
immediate post-World War II years.

Like EC during the 1970s and 1980s the United States was a major promoter of democratization.
Whether the United States continues to play this role depends on its will, its capability, and its
attractiveness as a model to other countries. Before the mid-1970s the promotion of democracy
had not always been a high priority of American foreign policy. However, now a day’s
promoting democracy abroad has become the top priority of American foreign policy.

Snowballing or Demonstration Effect

The impact of snowballing on democratization was clearly evident in 1990 in Bulgaria,

Romania, Yugoslavia, Mongolia, Nepal, and Albania. It also affected movements toward
liberalization in some Arab and African countries. In 1990, for instance, it was reported that the
"upheaval in Eastern Europe" had "fueled demands for change in the Arab world" and prompted
leaders in Egypt, Jordan, Tunisia, and Algeria to open up more political space for the expression
of discontent.

The East European example had its principal effect on the leaders of authoritarian regimes, not
on the people they ruled. President Mobutu SeseSeko of Zaire, for instance reacted with shocked
horror to televised pictures of the execution by firing squad of his friend, Romanian dictator
Nicolae Ceau~escu. A few months later, commenting that "You know what's happening across
the world," he announced that he would allow two parties besides his own to compete in
elections in 1993. In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere observed that "If changes take place in Eastern
Europe then other countries with one-party systems and which profess socialism will also be
affected." His country, he added, could learn a "lesson or two" from Eastern Europe. In Nepal in
April 1990, the government announced that King Birendra was lifting the ban on political parties
as a result of "the international situation" and "the rising expectations of the people.

If a country lacks favorable internal conditions, however, snowballing alone is unlikely to bring
about democratization. The democratization of countries A and B is not a reason for

88
democratization in country C, unless the conditions that favored it in the former also exist in the
latter. Although the legitimacy of democratic government came to be accepted throughout the
world in the 1980s, economic and social conditions favorable to democracy were not everywhere
present. The "worldwide democratic revolution" may create an external environment conducive
to democratization, but it cannot produce the conditions necessary for democratization within a
particular country.

In Eastern Europe the major obstacle to democratization was Soviet control; once it was
removed, the movement to democracy spread rapidly. There is no comparable external obstacle
to democratization in the Middle East, Africa, and Asia. If rulers in these areas chose
authoritarianism before December 1989, why can they not continue to choose it thereafter? The
snowballing effect would be real only to the extent that it led them to believe in the desirability
or necessity of democratization. The events of 1989 in Eastern Europe undoubtedly encouraged
democratic opposition groups and frightened authoritarian leaders elsewhere. Yet given the
previous weakness of the former and the long-term repression imposed by the latter, it seems
doubtful that the East European example will actually produce significant progress toward
democracy in most other authoritarian countries.

Reverse Wave of Democratization

By 1990 at least two third-wave democracies, Sudan and Nigeria, had reverted to authoritarian
rule; the difficulties of consolidation could lead to further reversions in countries with
unfavorable conditions for sustaining democracy. The first and second democratic waves,
however, were followed not merely by some backsliding but by major reverse waves during
which most regime changes throughout the world were from democracy to authoritarianism. If
the third wave of democratization slows down or comes to a halt, what factors might produce a
third reverse wave?

Among the factors contributing to transitions away from democracy during the first and second
reverse waves were:

The weakness of democratic values among key elite groups and the general
public;

89
 Severe economic setbacks, which intensified social conflict and enhanced the
popularity of remedies that could be imposed only by authoritarian governments;
Social and political polarization often produced by leftist governments seeking the
rapid introduction of major social and economic reforms;
The determination of conservative middle-class and upper-class groups to exclude
populist and leftist movements and lower-class groups from political power;
The breakdown of law and order resulting from terrorism or insurgency:
Intervention or conquest by a nondemocratic foreign power;
"Reverse snowballing" triggered by the collapse or overthrow of democratic
systems in other countries.
Transitions from democracy to authoritarianism, apart from those produced by foreign actors,
have almost always been produced by those in power or close to power in the democratic system.
With only one or two possible exceptions, democratic systems have not been ended by popular
vote or popular revolt. In Germany and Italy in the first reverse wave, antidemocratic movements
with considerable popular backing came to power and established fascist dictatorships. In Spain
in the first reverse wave and in Lebanon in the second, democracy ended in civil war.

The overwhelming majority of transitions from democracy, however, took the form either of
military coups that ousted democratically elected leaders, or executive coups in which
democratically chosen chief executives effectively ended democracy by concentrating power in
their own hands, usually by declaring a state of emergency or martial law. In the first reverse
wave, military coups ended democratic systems in the new countries of Eastern Europe and in
Greece, Portugal, Argentina, and Japan. In the second reverse wave, military coups occurred in
Indonesia, Pakistan, Greece, Nigeria, Turkey, and many Latin American countries. Executive
coups occurred in the second reverse wave in Korea, India, and the Philippines. In Uruguay, the
civilian and military leadership cooperated to end democracy through a mixed executive-military
coup.

In both the first and second reverse waves, democratic systems were replaced in many cases by
historically new forms of authoritarian rule. Fascism was distinguished from earlier forms of
authoritarianism by its mass base, ideology, party organization, and efforts to penetrate and
control most of society. Bureaucratic authoritarianism differed from earlier forms of military rule
in Latin America with respect to its institutional character, its presumption of indefinite duration,

90
and its economic policies. Italy and Germany in the 1920s and 1930s and Brazil and Argentina in
the 1960s and 1970s were the lead countries in introducing these new forms of nondemocratic
rule and furnished the examples that antidemocratic groups in other countries sought to emulate.
Both these new forms of authoritarianism were, in effect, responses to social and economic
development: the expansion of social mobilization and political participation in Europe, and the
exhaustion of the import substitution phase of economic development in Latin America.

Although the causes and forms of the first two reverse waves cannot generate reliable predictions
concerning the causes and forms of a possible third reverse wave, prior experiences do suggest
some potential causes of a new reverse wave.

First, systemic failures of democratic regimes to operate effectively could undermine their
legitimacy. In the late twentieth century, the major nondemocratic ideological sources of
legitimacy, most notably Marxism- Leninism, were discredited. The general acceptance of
democratic norms meant that democratic governments were even less dependent on performance
legitimacy than they had been in the past. Yet sustained inability to provide welfare, prosperity,
equity, justice, domestic order, or external security could over time undermine the legitimacy
even of democratic governments. As the memories of authoritarian failures fade, irritation with
democratic failures is likely to increase. More specifically, a general international economic
collapse on the 1929-30 models could undermine the legitimacy of democracy in many
countries. Most democracies did survive the Great Depression of the 1930s; yet some
succumbed, and presumably some would be likely to succumb in response to a comparable
economic disaster in the future.

Second, a shift to authoritarianism by any democratic or democratizing great power could trigger
reverse snowballing. The reinvigoration of authoritarianism in Russia or the Soviet Union would
have unsettling effects on democratization in other Soviet republics, Bulgaria, Romania,
Yugoslavia, and Mongolia; and possibly in Poland, Hungary, and Czechoslovakia as well. It
could send the message to would-be despots elsewhere: "You too can go back into business."
Similarly, the establishment of an authoritarian regime in India could have a significant
demonstration effect on other Third World countries. Moreover, even if a major country does not
revert to authoritarianism, a shift to dictatorship by several smaller newly democratic countries

91
that lack many of the usual preconditions for democracy could have ramifying effects even on
other countries where those preconditions are strong.

If a nondemocratic state greatly increased its power and began to expand beyond its borders, this
too could stimulate authoritarian movements in other countries. This stimulus would be
particularly strong if the expanding authoritarian state militarily defeated one or more democratic
countries. In the past, all major powers that have developed economically have also tended to
expand territorially. If China develops economically under authoritarian rule in the coming
decades and expands its influence and control in East Asia, democratic regimes in the region will
be significantly weakened.

Finally, as in the 1920s and the 1960s, various old and new forms of authoritarianism that seem
appropriate to the needs of the times could emerge. Authoritarian nationalism could take hold in
some Third World countries and also in Eastern Europe. Religious fundamentalism, which has
been most dramatically prevalent in Iran, could come to power in other countries, especially in
the Islamic world. Oligarchic authoritarianism could develop in both wealthy and poorer
countries as a reaction to the leveling tendencies of democracy. Populist dictatorships could
emerge in the future, as they have in the past, in response to democracy's protection of various
forms of economic privilege, particularly in those countries where land tenancy is still an issue.
Finally, communal dictatorships could be imposed in democracies with two or more distinct
ethnic, racial, or religious groups, with one group trying to establish control over the entire
society.

All of these forms of authoritarianism have existed in the past. It is not beyond the wit of humans
to devise new ones in the future. One possibility might be a technocratic "electronic
dictatorship," in which authoritarian rule is made possible and legitimated by the regime's ability
to manipulate information, the media, and sophisticated means of communication. None of these
old or new forms of authoritarianism is highly probable, but it is also hard to say that any one of
them is totally impossible.

Why democracy?

Over the last half-century, the meaning of democracy has shifted considerably in world affairs.
In 1945, democracy was a clear concept as defined by the Allied nations in opposition to

92
fascism. With the onset of the cold war, democracy came to be propounded from two
perspectives, East and West. As the third world took its place on the international stage, its
members strove to find their own methods of government, appropriate to their needs, providing
in the process alternative perspectives on democracy. Today, the rapidly changing global scene
has set the age-old concept of democracy in a new light. While differences in the economic,
social, cultural and historical circumstances of the world's societies mean that differences will
continue between democracy as viewed by one society and democracy as viewed by another,
democracy is increasingly being recognized as a response to a wide range of human concerns
and as essential to the protection of human rights.

This is not to say that democracy is without its detractors. In some quarters, the charge is made
that there can be no democracy in times of trouble or war, that democracy itself leads to disorder,
that democracy diminishes efficiency, that democracy violates minority and community rights,
and that democracy must wait until development is fully achieved. However, whatever evidence
critics of democracy can find in support of these claims must not be allowed to conceal a deeper
truth: democracy contributes to preserving peace and security, securing justice and human rights,
and promoting economic and social development.

Democratic institutions and processes channel competing interests into arenas of discourse and
provide means of compromise which can be respected by all participants in debates, thereby
minimizing the risk that differences or disputes will erupt into armed An Emerging Consensus 1
conflict or confrontation. Because democratic Governments are freely chosen by their citizens
and held accountable through periodic and genuine elections and other mechanisms, they are
more likely to promote and respect the rule of law, respect individual and minority rights, cope
effectively with social conflict, absorb migrant populations and respond to the needs of
marginalized groups. They are therefore less likely to abuse their power against the peoples of
their own State territories. Democracy within States thus fosters the evolution of the social
contract upon which lasting peace can be built. In this way, a culture of democracy is
fundamentally a culture of peace.

Democratic institutions and processes within States may likewise be conducive to peace among
States. The accountability and transparency of democratic Governments to their own citizens,
who understandably may be highly cautious about war, as it is they who will have to bear its
risks and burdens, may help to restrain recourse to military conflict with other States. The
93
legitimacy conferred upon democratically elected Governments commands the respect of the
peoples of other democratic States and fosters expectations of negotiation, compromise and the
rule of law in international relations. When States sharing a culture of democracy are involved in
a dispute, the transparency of their regimes may help to prevent accidents, avoid reactions based
on emotion or fear and reduce the likelihood of surprise attack.

Lacking the legitimacy or real support offered by free elections, authoritarian Governments all
too often have recourse to intimidation and violence in order to suppress internal dissent. They
tend to reject institutions such as a free press and an independent judiciary which provide the
transparency and accountability necessary to discourage such governmental manipulation of
citizens. The resulting atmosphere of oppression and tension, felt in neighboring countries, can
heighten the fear of war. It is for this reason that the Charter declares that one of the first
purposes of the United Nations is "to take effective collective measures for the prevention and
removal of threats to the peace". Threatened by the resentment of their own people, non-
democratic Governments may also be more likely to incite hostilities against other States in order
to justify their suppression of internal dissent or forge a basis for national unity. It is true that the
introduction of democratic practices into formerly authoritarian or war-torn States may
contribute to civil conflict by opening channels for free expression, including the expression of
hatred. Free and fair elections can be followed by the suppression of those defeated. There is also
a danger that strengthening civil society without also addressing State capacity may undermine
governability or overwhelm the State. Especially for Governments in underdeveloped countries,
which are typically engaged full time in the provision of basic human needs for their populations,
the risks to stability that may arise in the early stages of democratization may make them
reluctant to continue democratization or even to begin the process at all.

These difficult questions of prioritization and timing suggest several important lessons. First and
foremost, it is essential that each State itself decide the form, pace and character of its
democratization process. This suggests a fundamental prerequisite for democratization: the
existence of a State which is able and willing not only to create the conditions for free and fair
elections, but also to support the development and maintenance of the institutions necessary for
the ongoing practice of democratic politics. Second, democratization must begin with an effort to
create a culture of democracy — a political culture, which is fundamentally non-violent and in
which no one party or group expects to win or lose all the time. Such a culture is built upon a

94
societal consensus not about policy, but about the process and framework of democratic political
life: that the will of the people is the basis of governmental authority; that all individuals have a
right to take part in government; that there shall be periodic and genuine elections; that power
changes hands through popular suffrage rather than intimidation or force; that political opponents
and minorities have a right to express their views; and that there can be loyal and legal
opposition to the Government in power. Third, democratization must seek to achieve institutional
balance between the State and civil society. Finally, support for democratization must be coupled
with support for development in order that socio-economic as well as civil and political rights are
respected. Although development can take place without democracy, there is no evidence that
the breakthrough to development requires an authoritarian regime. There is, however, ample
evidence suggesting that, over the long term, democracy is an ingredient for both sustainable
development and lasting peace. Moreover, the globalization of economic activity and
communications has generated pressures for democratization and human rights.

In today's world, freedom of thought, the impetus to creativity and the will to involvement are all
critical to economic, social and cultural progress, and they are best fostered and protected within
democratic systems. In this sense, the economic act of privatization can be as well a political act,
enabling greater human creativity and participation. The best way to cultivate a citizen's
readiness to participate in the development of his or her country, to arouse that person's energy,
imagination and commitment, is by recognizing and respecting human dignity and human rights.
The material means of progress can be acquired, but human resources — skilled, spirited and
inventive workers — are indispensable, as is the enrichment found through mutual dialogue and
the free interchange of ideas. In this way, a culture of democracy, marked by communication,
dialogue and openness to the ideas and activities of the world, helps to foster a culture of
development.

Democracy is not an affirmation of the individual at the expense of the community; it is through
democracy that individual and collective rights, the rights of persons and the rights of peoples,
can be reconciled. Many different balances can be struck between the rights of individuals and
the rights of the community within the context of democratic politics. Democratic processes are
the most reliable way to ensure that these balances are genuinely reflective of a people's broader
culture, which, in every society, must itself serve as the ballast for the healthy functioning of
democracy.

95
Democracy today is receiving widespread acknowledgement for its capacity to foster good
governance, which is perhaps the single most important development variable within the control
of individual States. By providing legitimacy for government and encouraging people's
participation in decision-making on the issues that affect their lives, democratic processes
contribute to the effectiveness of State policies and development strategies. Democratic
institutions and practices foster the governmental accountability and transparency necessary to
deter national and transnational crime and corruption and encourage increased responsiveness to
popular concerns. In development, they increase the likelihood that State goals reflect broad
societal concerns and that government is sensitive to the societal and environmental costs of its
development policies.

Non-democratic States over time tend to generate conditions inimical to development: politicized
military rule; a weak middle class; a population constrained to silence; prohibitions on travel;
censorship; restrictions on the practice of religion or imposition of religious obligations; and
pervasive and often institutionalized corruption. Without democratic institutions to channel
popular pressures for development and reform, popular unrest and instability will result. The
reality is that no State can long remain just or free, and thus also have the potential to pursue a
successful and sustainable development strategy, if its citizens are prohibited from participating
actively and substantially in its political processes and economic, social and cultural
development. Increasingly, it is from this perspective that democracy is being seen today — as a
practical necessity (United Nations, 1996).

Obstacles to Democratization
Another approach to assessing democracy's prospects is to examine the obstacles to and
opportunities for democratization where it has not yet taken hold. As of 1990, more than one
hundred countries lacked democratic regimes. Most of these countries fell into four sometimes
overlapping geo cultural categories:
1. Home-grown Marxist-Leninist regimes, including the Soviet Union, where major
liberalization occurred in the 1980s and democratic movements existed in many
republics;
2. Sub-Saharan African countries, which, with a few exceptions, remained personal
dictatorships, military regimes, one-party systems, or some combination of these three;

96
 3. Islamic countries stretching from Morocco to Indonesia, which except for Turkey and
perhaps Pakistan had nondemocratic regimes;
4. East Asian countries, from Burma through Southeast Asia to China and North Korea,
which included communist systems, military regimes, personal dictatorships, and two
semi democracies (Thailand and Malaysia).

The obstacles to democratization in these groups of countries are political, cultural, and
economic.

Political Obstacles to Democratization

One potentially significant political obstacle to future democratization is the virtual absence of
experience with democracy in most countries that remained authoritarian in 1990.
Twenty-three of 30 countries that democratized between 1974 and 1990 had had some history of
democracy, while only a few countries that were nondemocratic in 1990 could claim such
experience. These included a few third-wave backsliders (Sudan, Nigeria, Suriname, and
possibly Pakistan), four second-wave backsliders that had not re-democratized in the third wave
(Lebanon, Sri Lanka, Burma, Fiji), and three first-wave democratizers that had been prevented
by Soviet occupation from Re-democratizing at the end of World War II (Estonia, Latvia, and
Lithuania). Virtually all the 90 or more other nondemocratic countries in1990 lacked significant
past experience with democratic rule. This obviously is not a decisive impediment to
democratization--if it was, no countries would now be democratic--but it does make it more
difficult.

Another obstacle to democratization is likely to disappear in a number of countries in the 1990s.

Leaders who found authoritarian regimes or rule them for a long period tend to become
particularly staunch opponents of democratization. Hence some form of leadership change within
the authoritarian system usually precedes movement toward democracy. Human mortality is
likely to ensure such changes in the 1990s in some authoritarian regimes. In 1990, the long-term
rulers in China, C6te d'Ivoire, and Malawi were in their eighties; those in Burma, Indonesia,
North Korea, Lesotho, and Vietnam were in their seventies; and the leaders of Cuba, Morocco,
Singapore, Somalia, Syria, Tanzania, Zaire, and Zambia were sixty or older. The death or
departure from office of these leaders would remove one obstacle to democratization in their
countries, but would not make it inevitable.
97
Between 1974 and 1990, democratization occurred in personal dictatorships, military regimes,
and one-party systems. Full-scale democratization has not yet occurred, however, in communist
one-party states that were the products of domestic revolution. Liberalization has taken place in
the Soviet Union, which may or may not lead to full scale democratization in Russia. In
Yugoslavia, movements toward democracy are underway in Slovenia and Croatia. The Yugoslav
communist revolution, however, was largely a Serbian revolution, and the prospects for
democracy in Serbia appear dubious. In Cambodia, an extraordinarily brutal revolutionary
communist regime was replaced by a less brutal communist regime imposed by outside force. In
1990, Albania appeared to be opening up, but in China, Vietnam, Laos, Cuba, and Ethiopia,
Marxist-Leninist regimes produced by home-grown revolutions seemed determined to remain in
power. The revolutions in these countries had been nationalist as well as communist, and hence
nationalism reinforced communism in a way that obviously was not true of Soviet-occupied
Eastern Europe.

One serious impediment to democratization is the absence or weakness of real commitment to

democratic values among political leaders in Asia, Africa, and the Middle East. When they are
out of power, political leaders have good reason to advocate democracy. The test of their
democratic commitment comes once they are in office. In Latin America, democratic regimes
have generally been overthrown by military coups d’état. These has happened in Asia and the
Middle East as well, but in these regions elected leaders themselves have also been responsible
for ending democracy: Syngman Rhee and Park Chung Hee in Korea, Adrian Menderes in
Turkey, Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines, Lee Kwan Yew in Singapore, Indira Gandhi in
India, and Sukamo in Indonesia. Having won power through the electoral system, these leaders
then proceeded to undermine that system. They had little commitment to democratic values and
practices.

Even when Asian, African, and Middle Eastern leaders have more or less abided by the rules of
democracy, they often seemed to do so grudgingly. Many European, North American, and Latin
American political leaders in the last half of the twentieth century were ardent and articulate
advocates of democracy. Asian and African countries, in contrast, did not produce many heads of
government who were also apostles of democracy. Who were the Asian, Arab, or African
equivalents of R6mulo Betancourt, Alberto Llera Camargo, Jos6 Figueres, Eduardo Frei,
Fernando Belafnde Terry, Juan Bosch, Jos6 Napolern Duarte, and RatilAlfonsin? Jawaharlal

98
Nehru and Corazon Aquino were, and there may have been others, but they were few in number.
No Arab leader comes to mind, and it is hard to identify any Islamic leader who made a
reputation as an advocate and supporter of democracy while in office. Why is this? This question
inevitably leads to the issue of culture.

Cultural Obstacle to Democratization

It has been argued that the world's great historic cultural traditions vary significantly in the extent
to which their attitudes, values, beliefs, and related behavior patterns are conducive to the
development of democracy. A profoundly antidemocratic culture would impede the spread of
democratic norms in the society, deny legitimacy to democratic institutions, and thus greatly
complicate if not prevent the emergence and effective functioning of those institutions. The
cultural thesis comes in two forms. The more restrictive version states that only Western culture
provides a suitable base for the development of democratic institutions and, consequently, that
democracy is largely inappropriate for nonwestern societies. In the early years of the third wave,
this argument was explicitly set forth by George Kennan. Democracy, he said, was a form of
government "which evolved in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries in northwestern Europe,
primarily among those countries that border on the English Channel and the North Sea (but with
a certain extension into Central Europe), and which was then carried into other parts of the
world, including North America, where peoples from that northwestern European area appeared
as original settlers, or as colonialists, and laid down the prevailing patterns of civil government."

Hence democracy has "a relatively narrow base both in time and in space; and the evidence has
yet to be produced that it is the natural form of rule for peoples outside those narrow perimeters."
The achievements of Mao, Salazar, and Castro demonstrated, according to Kennan, that
authoritarian regimes "have been able to introduce reforms and to improve the lot of masses of
people, where more diffuse forms of political authority had failed. ''3 Democracy, in short, is
appropriate only for northwestern and perhaps central European countries and their settler colony
offshoots.

The Western-culture thesis has immediate implications for democratization in the Balkans and

the Soviet Union. Historically these areas were part of the Czarist and Ottoman empires; their
prevailing religions were Orthodoxy and Islam, not Western Christianity. These areas did not

99
have the same experiences as Western Europe with feudalism, the Renaissance, the Reformation,
the Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and liberalism. As William Wallace has suggested,
the end of the Cold War and the disappearance of the Iron Curtain may have shifted the critical
political dividing line eastward to the centuries old boundary between Eastern and Western
Christendom. Beginning in the north, this line runs south roughly along the borders dividing
Finland and the Baltic republics from Russia; through Byelorussia and the Ukraine, separating
western Catholic Ukraine from eastern Orthodox Ukraine; south and then west in Romania,
cutting off Transylvania from the rest of the country; and then through Yugoslavia roughly along
the line separating Slovenia and Croatia from the other republics2 This line may now separate
those areas where democracy will take root from those where it will not.

A less restrictive version of the cultural obstacle argument holds that certain non-Western
cultures are peculiarly hostile to democracy. The two cultures most often cited in this regard are
Confucianism and Islam.
Democratization in Africa and the challenges
The wave of political transition began in Africa in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s. In Senegal
Leopold Senghor retired voluntarily in 1980 followed by Mwalimu Julius K. Nyerere of
Tanzania in 1985 and Nelson Mandela in 1998 . A number of “founding fathers” such as
Kenneth Kaunda and Hastings Banda conceded defeat followed by “second generation leaders”
who gracefully accepted defeat at the polls. President Diouf of Senegal exited after twenty years
in power. His party lost elections after 40 years of continuous rule. President Moi left office last
year after 24 years in power and the ruling party, KANU lost its reign since independence in
1963 to the NARC coalition led by President MwaiKibaki.

Soldiers formerly from the Barracks who had seen the light included: General Olusegun
Obasanjo of Nigeria (military ruler 1976-1979) was fairly elected as a civilian President in 1999
and Jerry Rawlings who transformed from a brutal dictator to new democrat of Ghana. Two
coups had initially brought him to power.

External developments such as the fall of communism and pressure from the donor community
such as the United States, Britain and the Scandinavian countries were important in opening up
the democratic space. The end of the cold war acted as catalyst for change in many parts of
Africa. African civil society became very vocal demanding political change and an end to single-

100
party rule. Civil associations began to mobilize around political issues, social justice, and
guaranties of human and civil rights.

The experience of democratization on the continent has been mixed. While some countries have
made considerable progress others have suffered setbacks and reversals. A free, fair and peaceful
multiparty election is now widely considered the basic requirement for liberal democracy. For
this to happen, those in power during the transition phase to multiparty democracy must create
the enabling environment for such elections to take place.

The successful election that was held in Kenya in December 2002 serve as an excellent example
of what can be achieved if there is a political will for democratic changes to take place and a
respect for the institutions that permit free, fair and peaceful elections. The successful general
elections were a testimony to the determination of the Kenya people to ensure that democracy
takes root in the country. This was also a sign of political maturity and a shear demonstration by
Kenyans that political change can successfully take place through the power of the ballot box
and not the gun.

One of the major difficulties for African democracy is the historical process that brought together
different nationalities to constitute a nation. Many of the African countries are grappling with the
process of developing a true national identity after years of divisive politics that alienated some
communities and favored others. The zero-sum politics in Africa where the winner takes it all
has been responsible for the development of multi-party politics along ethnic lines. The notion
that the winner will deliver development benefits to communities and regions that supported it
has also been a strong incentive for ethnic based political parties. This has often heightened
ethnic tensions and violence during the elections’ campaign period and has often resulted in
elections that are not free and fair.

One of the major challenges of democracy in Africa is the understanding of the values of
democracy. Africans often value democracy for economic and social benefits rather than for its
political pluralism, human rights, rule of law, and accountability. For many, democracy is seen
as a means to alleviate poverty, get jobs and have access to social services. Once a new
government is elected in office, it has to face the demands of its supporters for material benefits.
Due recognition has not been given to the role of the opposition parties in the enhancement of
the democratic process and good governance.

101
According to Mapuva, 2010, the most prominent threat currently bedeviling the African
continent has been the retention of former dictators mostly within the borders of the African
continent, with some holding on to influential public positions. Information at hand has shown
that out of a myriad of past and present dictators on the continent, only Charles Taylor has been
taken before the courts of law to answer charges against human rights violations in Liberia and
Sierra Leone. The impunity with which dictators (past and present) have regard themselves and
are regarded by fellow incumbent political leaders on the continent leaves a lot to be desired. The
continent does not seem to want to put on record (through its actions) that ex-dictators should be
asked to account for their actions during their tenure of office. This sense of brotherhood that
exists among various African leaders has weakened African democratic institutions. This has
made Africa notorious for being a retirement home for most of its former dictator leaders or for
providing a safe haven for such dictators, with research indicating that “…Africa is the most
popular haven for ex-tyrants, probably because it produced so many former leaders falling into
[the] category of playing host to many former strongmen” (Makuni, 2008).

When it comes to ousted despots, Africa does a good job of looking after its own. In Africa
alone, six cities are known to have welcomed discredited leaders in the recent past or to be still
home to strongmen who have fled their countries. Most recently, Nigeria provided a safe haven
for former warlord, Charles Taylor of Liberia, who is currently undergoing trial for genocide,
war crimes and crimes against humanity, having been extradited from Nigeria where he had
lived in exile for 3 years. Rabat in Morocco similarly welcomed former Zairean strongman
Mobutu SeseSeko in May 1997, after Laurent Kabila’s troops had entered Kinshasa, forcing
Mobutu to go into exile in Morocco, where he eventually died and buried. Harare in Zimbabwe
has been home to former dictator and convicted perpetrator of genocide and crime against
humanity, Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia. Political parties in Zimbabwe has expressed the
view that “Zimbabwe should not be a safe haven or resting place for serial human rights violators
like Mr, Mengistu; we can’t shelter purveyors of injustice”(Fletcher, 2009). Belgian judicial
system, whose courts have universal jurisdiction to try human rights abusers failed to have
former Chadian dictator, Hissene Habre extradited to face trial. Hissene Habre was overthrown
in 1990 and stand accused of human rights abuses, torture and mass killings after the host
country refused to have him extradited to Belgium for trial, thanks to the embrace of the
Senegalese capital, Dakar. For the notorious Idi Amin, it is not clear whether no African country

102
would have had him, but the former ‘Butcher of Kampala’ fled to Jeda in Saudi Arabia after he
was ousted in 1979 and eventually died and is buried there.

In addition to shielding its own ruthless former rulers, Africa has also developed a habit of
opening its arms to ousted authoritarians from other lands. The Shah of Iran, who was ousted by
Shiite leader Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979, went into exile in Egypt where he died in 1980. The
abortive power sharing arrangement in Hawaii led to an armed revolt and subsequent oust of
Jean-Bertrand Aristide who had ruled his country with an increasingly tyrannical hand. After a
concerted diplomatic offensive by former US Secretary of State Colin Powell, ex-President of
South Africa, Thabo Mbeki agreed to grant Aristide and his family asylum and subsequently a
job offer with UNISA where he and his wife are both engaged as researchers. UNISA has since
incurred the wrath of academics who have accused the university authorities of turning the
institution into “a dumping ground for ex-presidents” (Makuni, 2008).

The retention of authoritarian or inefficient (or both) ex-Presidents has become a trend in many
African states, which in itself has also impacted negatively on the democratization of the
continent. The intended or continued retention of Aristide of Haiti or Mbeki of South Africa
within academic circles raises questions of what impact their continued influence on public
institutions would have, and what perception of democracy they will have on the new generation
of African citizens and prospective leaders. The fact that these very ex-Presidents were rejected
by their own people after it was realized that their style of governance was increasingly
alienating them from their constituencies.

While some people may entertain the notion of demoting the above ex-presidents to the dustbin
of history, there are those who feel that these people still has a role to play in the political,
economic and social development of Africa. The emerging young generation of leaders would
learn many lessons from their predecessors, especially through mistakes made by these
yesteryear servicemen. Therefore it is imperative that the legacy left behind by these political
leaders be improved upon and be bequeathed to the young generation of leaders through
academic institutions like the one Mbeki, a renowned intellectual, has envisaged. While it can be
acknowledged that most of the deposed African leaders had committed evil deeds of misrule and
gross human rights violations within their countries, but not all that they have done during their
tenure of office could be looked at in bad light. There were some things which they did well and

103
from which current and prospective African leaders could take a cue. Given the humiliating
departure of the former President of South Africa due to a vote of no confidence in his leadership
style and his “quiet diplomacy” on the Zimbabwean issue, it is clear that his own people lost
confidence in his leadership. One stands to wonder what new leadership skills he is going to
impart to the youth. Therefore the prospects of Mbeki’s African Leadership Initiative lay in
limbo given that he, as the founder, failed the people of South Africa on leadership. However,
allowing him to open such a school to impart leadership skills to future leaders would not only
be an insult to the people of South Africa or Zimbabwe (where he failed to resolve the political
impasse after more than 4 years of ‘negotiations’), but a threat and insult to the African
democratization project, especially given that the Leadership School is going to be instituted
under the auspices of the University of South Africa (UNISA), one of the oldest distance
education tertiary institutions in Africa and the world.

Chapter Four

Election and Electoral System

Unit objectives

Dear students! Upon accomplishment of the unit, you will be able to:

Describe key attributes of democratic election

Elaborate what electoral system is and its typologies
Describe types of elections that shall be conducted in Ethiopia as per the electoral law
proclamation
Define the meaning of voting behavior
Distinguish factors that determine voting behavior
Explain party system and political party respectively
Figure out main types of political party and party systems

104
Lesson one: The Issue of Election
1.1. Election Defined
An election is a formal decision-making process by which a population chooses an individual to
hold public office. Elections have been the usual mechanism by which modern representative
democracy has operated since the 17th century. Elections may fill offices in the legislature,
sometimes in the executive and judiciary, and for regional and local government. Election
process is also used in many other private and business organizations, from clubs to voluntary
associations and corporations.

The universal use of elections as a tool for selecting representatives in modern representative
democracies is in contrast with the practice in the democratic archetype, ancient Athens, where
the Elections were considered an oligarchic institution and most political offices were filled
using sortation, also known as allotment, by which officeholders were chosen by lot.

Electoral reform describes the process of introducing fair electoral systems where they are not in
place, or improving the fairness or effectiveness of existing systems. Psephology is the study of
results and other statistics relating to elections (especially with a view to predicting future
results).

Focus

To elect means to choose or make a decision, and so sometimes other forms of ballot such
as referendums are referred to as elections, especially in the United States.

When we trace back the origin of election elections were used as early in history as ancient
Greece and ancient Rome, and throughout the Medieval period to select rulers such as the Holy
Roman Emperor and the Pope. In Vedic period of India, the raja (chiefs) of a gana (a tribal
organization) was apparently elected by the gana. The raja belonged to the noble Kshatriyavarna
(warrior class), and was typically a son of the previous raja. However, the gana members had
the final say in his elections. The Pala king Gopala in early medieval Bengal was elected by a
group of feudal chieftains. Such elections were quite common in contemporary societies of the
region. In Chola Empire, in Uthiramerur (in present-day Tamil Nadu), palm leaves were used for
selecting the village committee members. The leaves, with candidate names written on them,

105
were put inside a mud pot. To select the committee members, a young boy was asked to take out
as many leaves as the number of positions available. This was known as the Kudavolai system.
Ancient Arabs also used election to choose their caliph, Uthman and Ali, in the early medieval
Rashidun Caliphate.

The modern "election", which consists of public elections of government officials, didn't emerge
until the beginning of the 17th century when the idea of representative government took hold in
North America and Europe.

Questions of suffrage, especially suffrage for minority groups, have dominated the history of
elections. Males, the dominant cultural group in North America and Europe, often dominated the
electorate and continue to do so in many countries. Early elections in countries such as the
United Kingdom and the United States were dominated by landed or ruling class males.
However, by 1920 all Western European and North American democracies had universal adult
male suffrage (except Switzerland) and many countries began to consider women's suffrage.
Despite legally mandated universal suffrage for adult males, political barriers were sometimes
erected to prevent fair access to elections.

Focus

The modern "election", which consists of public elections of government officials, didn't
emerge until the beginning of the 17th century when the idea of representative government
took hold in North America and Europe.
The question of who may vote is a central issue in elections. The electorate does not generally
include the entire population; for example, many countries prohibit those judged mentally
incompetent from voting, and all jurisdictions require a minimum age for voting for example in
Ethiopia the electorate has to be at the age of 18 and above. In Australia Aboriginal people were
not given the right to vote until 1962 and in 2010 the federal government removed the rights of
prisoners to vote (a large proportion of which are Aboriginal Australians.

Focus

Suffrage is typically only for citizens of the country, though further limits may be imposed.
However, in the European Union, one can vote in municipal elections if one lives in the
municipality and is an EU citizen; the nationality of the country of residence is not required.

106
Though, the modern election has a relatively long history especially in North America and
European countries. In Ethiopia it had been started in near past decades. In Ethiopia during the
imperial/monarchial regime and the Derg government there had no public election guaranteed to
the citizens. However, following the demise of military regime in 1991, the event commenced
the start of democratic system in Ethiopia. As a result of this democratic transition, the FDRE
constitution has guaranteed public election in Ethiopia and so Ethiopians have participated in
elections for the past two decades.

Having the definitions and origin of election and its start in the modern democracy, we will try to
address the meaning of democratic election and what constitute a democratic election.

1.2. Democratic Election

In political theory, the authority of the government in democracies derives solely from the
consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental
authority is the holding of free, fair and regular elections. There is a broad consensus as to what
kind of elections can be considered free, fair and regular. Most American elections are
determined by economic interests, due to the fact that the majority of the voting public will go
with whomever or whatever can afford the best advertising campaign. Jeane Kirkpatrick, a
scholar and former United States ambassador to United Nations, has defined democratic election
as they are not symbolic, rather democratic elections are competitive, periodic, inclusive,
definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens
who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present
alternatives.

The democracy watch (international) website, further defines fair democratic elections as,
“elections in which great care is taken to prevent any explicit or hidden structural bias towards
any one candidate, aside from those beneficial biases that naturally result from an electorate that
is equally well informed about the various assets and liabilities of each candidate”. This was
more formally sated in 2000 by chief justice Murry Glesson of the Australian High Court as “the
democratic and lawful means of securing change, if change be necessary, is an expression of the
will of an informed electorate.”

The apparently simple requirement of an informed electorate is difficult to achieve in modern

electorates with thousands of voters, most of whom have no prospects of knowing candidates

107
other than by information published by third parties. The party with the most immediate interest
in having structural biases is the government conducting the selection. One possible result is the
‘show’ of elections which is described later.

Some other scholars argue that elections are at most secondary to a functioning democracy. They
argue that the rule of law is more important. An example would be pre-unification Hong Kong,
which was ruled by an unelected British administrator (chief executive like a company) but was
generally considered to be a free and open society due to its strong legal institutions.

According to U.S Department of State (2010, p. 4) democratic elections are widely recognized as
a foundation of legitimate government. By allowing citizens to choose the manner in which they
are governed, elections form the starting point for all other democratic institutions and practices.
Genuine democracy, however, requires substantially more. In addition to elections, democracy
requires constitutional limits on governmental power, guarantees of basic rights, tolerance of
religious or ethnic minorities, and representation of diverse viewpoints, among other things.
To build authentic democracy, societies must foster a democratic culture and rule of law that
govern behavior between elections and constrain those who might be tempted to undermine
election processes.

Smooth political transitions after elections are essential. In a healthy democracy, candidates who
lose elections relinquish power gracefully and peacefully. By doing so, defeated candidates can
emerge with their dignity intact and through their example contribute to the strength of their
nation’s democratic traditions, practices, and customs. Likewise, by reaching out to and showing
respect for their political opponents, winning candidates help bridge differences and minimize
the potential for conflict that can undermine democracy and development.

In a true democracy, the rule of law, democratic political institutions, and independent civil
society organizations help ensure respect for electoral outcomes. These institutions and values in
turn bolster people’s faith in their governments and their willingness to support peaceful political
transitions.

108
Here under a brief discussion is given about the role of political institutions and civil societies in
upholding a democratic election. The role of the rule of law is discussed in chapter three as an
element of democracy. In democracies rule of law, political institutions and civil societies have
undeniable role in awaking people and controlling elections and making them democratic.
a) Political Institutions

Well-developed political and electoral institutions similarly increase the likelihood of peaceful
election transitions. Institutions provide the resilience that democracies require to withstand
potential conflicts following controversial or contested elections. Instead of taking their
grievances to the streets, defeated candidates or opposition groups can challenge election results
or the fairness of election procedures through institutional mechanisms, such as electoral
complaint commissions or courts. The broad expectation that these institutions will adjudicate
the disputes fairly makes a peaceful, democratic transition more likely and diminishes the
likelihood of conflict as an avenue for contesting election results. Strong and effective electoral
institutions enhance electoral process credibility and reinforce the public expectation that
electoral results will be respected (U.S Department of State, 2010, p. 5).

b) Civil Societies
Like political institutions and the rule of law, a strong civil society supported by a free press
enhances the legitimacy of democratic practices and reinforces expectations that electoral
winners and losers will respect the “rules of the game.” Civil society organizations can act as a
check on governmental power and deter election losers tempted to thwart the democratic process.
Genuinely independent and broadly representative nongovernmental organizations and other
civil society institutions help ensure that candidates and elected officials respect election results
and democratic processes. They can facilitate important dialogue between citizens and their
government and supply information that democratic, representative governments need. Civil
society organizations can shape government behavior and can help define people’s expectations
of how their government will operate. Internet and social media technologies now provide civil
society groups new platforms from which to organize, exchange information, and push for
greater government transparency and accountability.

1.2.1. Featured of Democratic Election

109
Democratic elections are not merely symbolic. ...They are competitive, periodic, inclusive,
definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens
who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism, and to present
alternatives ”U.S Department of State, 2010).
 Democratic elections are competitive. Opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the
freedom of speech, assembly, and movement necessary to voice their criticisms of the
government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply
permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. The party in power may
enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest
must be fair. On the other hand, freedom of assembly for opposition parties does not
imply mob rule or violence. It means debate.
 Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-
life. Elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at
prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office and face the risk of being
voted out of office.
 Democratic elections are inclusive. The definition of citizen and voter must be large
enough to include the adult population. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group
is not a democracy — no matter how democratic its internal workings may appear. One
of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has been the struggle of excluded
groups — whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women — to win full
citizenship, and with it the right to vote, hold office, and participate fully in the society.
 Democratic elections are definitive. They determine the leadership of the government for
a set period of time. Popularly elected representatives hold the reins of power; they are
not simply figureheads or symbolic leaders.
 Democratic elections are free when citizens have the right to choose from several
candidates or parties that can run for the election without any restriction. They must also
be free to decide whether they want to use their right to vote or to abstain from doing so,
if they prefer.
 Democratic elections are equitable when each citizen who can use his/her right to vote
has at his/her disposal a vote and when neither his/her origin nor his/her sex, language,
incomes or possessions, job or social stratus/class, sexual identity, training, religion or

110
 political convictions have an influence of whatever kind on the assessment of the value of
his/her vote.
 In democratic elections, there must be no way of knowing for which political party or for
which particular candidate a citizen has voted. They are then secrete, when each citizen
can put his ballot in an envelope, without having been either watched over or influenced,
in the secrecy of the polling booth, and when he/she is also able, in the same way, to put
his/her envelope inside the ballot box afterwards.
 Democratic elections are, therefore, public and transparent. Which means on the one
hand, that each citizen has the right to attend the counting of the votes when the ballot
box is opened; this also means on the other hand, that it is possible to completely follow
the whole process of the passage of the constituents’ votes: starting from the ballots
inserted into the ballot box till the final counting undertaken to establish the calculation
that will eventually share out.
 In addition to the requirements mentioned above, it is also important to institute elections
on regular basis. Everybody, in that case, has the possibility to know the date of the
coming elections, and to get ready for that ahead of time. It is a way to make sure that the
current government is defined within a time frame and that its people have the right to
remove it from office. The electorate should represent the whole population, which is to
mean that apart from the underage population, no group should be excluded.
And finally, the electorate’s votes should be final, meaning that the election results should be
enforced effectively, which implies that they must be accepted as legitimate.

In a democratic election points like franchised (legitimate) voter, eligible candidate (who can be
eligible to hold an office), nomination, and who is elected must have considered and got legal
definition.

i) Who can Get Franchise to Vote (Who can Vote)

The issue of who may get franchised to vote is a central issue in elections. The electorate doesn’t
generally include the entire population; for example, many countries prohibit those judged
mentally incompetent from voting, and all jurisdictions require a minimum age for voting for
instance in Ethiopia 18 and above.

111
Historically, many other groups of people have also been excluded from voting. For instance, in
the democracy of ancient Athens women, foreigners, and slaves were denied of voting right. The
original United States constitution only guaranteed the right of white male property owners to
vote. Much of the history of elections involves the effort to promote suffrage for excluded
groups. The women’s suffrage movement gave women in many countries the right to vote, and
securing the right to vote freely was a major goal of the American civil rights movement.
Extending the right to vote to other groups which remain excluded in some place (such as
convicted felons, members of certain minorities, and the economically disadvantaged) continues
to be a significant goal of voting rights advocate.

More strongly, in some countries, voting is required by law; if and eligible voter does not cast a
vote, he or she may be subject to punitive measures such as a small fine.

Dear students! In relation to the discussed points above let us see the principle of Universal
Suffrage to help you more concertize the issue of who can vote.

Universal Suffrage

Suffrage or political franchise is a civil right to vote. Historically many groups have been
excluded from the right to vote. This exclusion was based on race or ethnic group, gender,
religion, social class, age or the stay in a prison or mental institution. By the early 19 thcentury,the
first movement toward Universal Suffrage occurred. It mostly concentrated on the removal of
property requirements. In England and Ireland, the disenfranchisement of Catholics was
abolished only by 1892. But until the end of the 19th century, people were mostly concerned with
Universal Suffrage meaning ‘Universal Male Suffrage’. Only late in that century movements
started which demanded the right to vote for women. Even though, the first women’s suffrage
was already granted in 1776 in New Jersey, this was merely accidental, the world people being
used instead of men. It was rescinded in 1807. Various states granted restricted women’s
suffrage in the latter half of the 19th century, starting with South Australia in 1861. The last
western state granting their women the right to vote was Switzerland (1971, though in one
country women had to wait until 1990 to be admitted to vote on cantonal level too) and
Liechtenstein (1984).

112
Today Universal Suffrage means the extension of voting privilege without distinction based on
race, sex, belief, or social status. This however does not mean that everybody is allowed to vote.
In all modern democracies there is an age limit, mostly between 15-21 years. In addition, in
some states offenders serving a prison sentence automatically lose their right to vote, either for
the time of the sentence or for the rest of their life, depending on the gravity of their offence (for
instance United States). In other states, the denial of right to vote is an additional penalty that the
court can choose to impose (for instance France and Germany).

Universal Suffrage exists today in almost all of the 193 countries of the world, the latest entrant
being Iraq in 2005 and Kingdom of Saudi Arabia allowing women to participate only in local
elections in 2015. But still, there are some states excluding women or subjecting them to more
strict requirements than men, such as Lebanon and Kuwait (Bereket, 2016).

ii) Who can be Eligible to Hold an Office

In regard to eligibility and assuming public office through election, normally there is a
citizenship requirement, an age requirement, a residency requirement, and, perhaps, a non-felon
requirement in most democracies in the 21st Century. Based on such requirements eligible
candidate to hold an office is defined.

iii) Nomination
Non-partisan system tends to differ from partisan systems with regards to nominations. In a
direct democracy, one type of non-partisan democracy any eligible person can be nominated. In
some non-partisan representative systems (example administrative elections of the Baha’I faith),
non-nomination (or campaigning, electioneering, etc) take place at all, with voters free to choose
any person at the time of voting- with some possible exceptions such as a minimum age
requirement in the jurisdiction. In such case it is not required or even possible that the members
of the electorate be familiar with all of the eligible persons, though such system may involve n
direct selections at larger geographic levels to ensure that some firsthand familiarity among
potential selectees’ can exist at this level (i.e. among the elected delegates).

As far as partisan systems are concerned, in some countries, only members of a particular
political party can be nominated. Or, an eligible person can be nominated through a petition; thus
allowing him or her to be listed on a ballot. .in the United States, for example, typically party
candidates are required to have fewer signatures on petitions than nonparty candidates.

113
 iv) Who is Elected
The government positions for which elections are held vary depending on the conditions. In a
representative democracy, such as the United States, some positions are not filled through
elections, especially those which are seen as requiring a certain competency or excellence. For
example, judges are usually appointed rather than elected to help protected their impartiality.
There are exceptions to this practice, however; some judges in the United States are elected, and
in ancient Athens military generals were elected.

In some cases, as, for example, in soviet democracy there may exist an intermediate tire of
electors between constituents and the elected figure. In most representative democracies though,
this level of indirection is usually something of a formality. For example, the president of the
United States is elected by Electoral College, and in the Westminster system, the Prime Minister
is formally chosen by the head of state (and in reality by the legislature or by their party).

1.3. Difficulties with Election

As we can empirically observe in the world elections can be manipulated, according to the
political interest of governing parties. Though, countries claim to hold free, faire, and a
competitive election, the practice is contrary to the claim. Especially, in Africa elections are
subject to fraud and found to be pseudo-elections. Among those major factors that put hurdle on
election are discussed below:

I) Show election
While all modern democracies hold regular elections, the contrary is not true, not all elections
are held by true democracies. Some governments employ other ‘behind-the scenes’ means of
candidate selection but organize a shame process that appears to be a genuine electoral contest,
in order to present the façade of popular consent and support.

Dictatorships, such as the former Soviet Union, have been known to hold such show elections. In
the single candidate type of show-election, there may only be one candidate for any one given
position, with no alternative choices for voters beyond voting ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to this candidate. In
the ‘fixed vote’ type of show election such elections may offer several candidates for each office.
In both cases, the government uses intimidation or vote-rigging to ensure a high ‘Yes’ vote or
that only the government-approved candidates are chosen.

114
Another model is the ‘false-diversity’ type of show-election in which there may be several
choices, all of which support the status quo. In theory, ‘false-diversity’ elections would be
recognized by a truly informed electorate bust as noted above this may be impossible, for
example where a government conducting elections also controls the media by which most voters
are informed.

II) Bias and Limited Options

Similar to the false-diversity elections are those in which candidates are limited by un-
democratic forces and biases. The Iranian system of governance is one example of elections
among limited options. In 2004 Iranian parliamentary elections almost all of the reformist
candidates were ruled unfit by the Guardian Council of religious leaders. According to the
Iranian constitution this was fully within the Council’s constitutional rights, and designed to
prevent enemies of the Islamic Revolution from coming to power.

Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. In order for democratic
elections to be fair and competitive, opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the rights to
freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and freedom of movement which are necessary to
voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates
to the voters. In states where these freedoms are not granted or where opposition party politicians
are harassed and their events disrupted, elections may not reflect the legitimate views of the
populace. In states with fragile democracies where there has been a history of political violence
or transparently unfair elections, international election observers are often called in by external
bodies like the United Nations (UNs), and protected by foreign forces, to guarantee fairness.

In addition, elections in which opposition candidates are not given access to Radio, Newspaper
and Television coverage are also likely to be biased. An example of this kind of structural bias
was the 2004 re-election of the Russian president Vladimir Putin, in which the state controlled
media consistently supported his election run, consistently condemned his opponents, provided
virtually unlimited free advertising to Putin’s campaign, and barred attempts by his opponents to
run campaign advertisements. For this reason, many countries ensure equal air time to election
advertisement for all sizable parties and have systems that help pay for election advertising or
limit the possibilities to advertise, to prevent rich parties or candidates form outstripping their
opponents.

115
Some allege that beyond the examples given here, there are more suitable and systemic forms of
‘false-diversity’ in elections which are not generally recognized. In the West and, especially in
the US, powerful corporate interests behind the media act as a filter that, statistically, only lets
preordained views be heard by the public and exclude third parties and alternative viewpoints.
They point out that in the US., the two big political parties are both sponsored by essentially the
same large corporations (such a Microsoft, Coca-Cola, Exxon Mobil, …), there by representing
the interests of a tiny minority of citizens (the richest few) and no political parties representing
the vast majority of relatively poor citizens have any realistic chance of having their political
platforms presented to the public through the corporate controlled media. In this sense, they
argue that the US has what is in practice a two party political system.

III) Corruption of Democracies

The very opens of democracy means that in many states it is possible for voters to vote to get rid
of democracy itself. Democracies have failed many times in history from ancient Greece to 18 th
and 19th Century France (e.g., Second Empire under Napoleon III), and perhaps most famously
in 20th century Germany, when the Nazis initially came to power by democratic means (albeit by
plurality vote) using the Enabling Act. Throughout most of the developing world today
democracies remain un-stable, often collapsing to military coups or other forms of dictatorship.
Thinkers such as Aristotle and many others long believed democracy to be inherently unstable
and to always quickly collapse.

Most democracies have some form of separation of powders mandated by the constitution. This
is a device limiting the power of any specific elected body with the aim of preventing elected
representative from changing some of the characteristics of the government. Changing the
constitution is made difficult in various ways, such as by requiring a 2/3 majority of the two
houses for the change to take effect the - actual requirement s vary by each constitutional system.

To limit this danger political systems used in many states indirectly place limits on how easily
new parties can be formed. First past, the post electoral system makes it hard for new parties to
quickly gain power. In states using proportional representation systems, there is a determined
proportion of the popular vote that must be won before a party can be admitted to p[parliament.
This election threshold may be simply the amount of votes required to get one seat, such as in the

116
Netherlands, but it may also be set higher, to prevent small parties from getting a seat in
government.

1.4. Types of Election

In most democratic political systems, there are a range of different types of elections,
corresponding to different layers of public governance or geographical jurisdiction. Some
common types of elections are:

General election
Presidential election
Primary election
By-election
Local election
Co-election
Reelection
Referendum
Among the above mentioned elections, elections that conducted in Ethiopia are the following:

General election
Local election
By-election
Reelection
Referendum
a) General Elections
In Ethiopia General elections are held to elect members of the House of Peoples' Representatives
or State Councils and conducted every five years. In this regard, General elections shall be
conducted throughout the Country simultaneously. However, where the Board finds it necessary
and decided by the House of Peoples' Representatives, it may be conducted at different times.

According to the Electoral Law, 2007, only a single representative shall be elected to the Federal
House of Peoples' Representatives from a constituency. The number of representatives elected to
state councils shall be decided by the Constitutions of the respective States. If State Councils
decide to change the number of their members, they shall give political parties sufficient time for
preparation.

117
 b) Local Elections
Electoral Law, 2007, defined Local elections as elections to zonal, Woreda (district), city,
municipality and sub-city or Kebele councils conducted in accordance with the law. The number
of representatives elected in a constituency for a local election shall be determined by laws of
Regional States on the basis of the type of election and the number of seats in each council. The
time to hold local elections also shall be determined in accordance with the laws of Regional
States. Local elections shall be conducted based on regulations and directives issued by the
Board in accordance with the Proclamation No. 532/2007.

c) By-election
This type of election will be conducted if the councils at different levels request the Board to
replace council members whose mandates are terminated due to various reasons. Therefore,
according to the law The Board shall hold by-election in three months from the receipt of the
request.
d) Re-election
The amended electoral law of Ethiopia asserted circumstances under which reelection may be
required and conducted. According to the proclamation Reelection may be conducted for one of
the following reasons:
a) where the Board decides in accordance with Article 7 sub-article 10 of the Proclamation;

Article 7 sub-article 10 of the “Electoral Law of Ethiopia Amendment Proclamation

No.532/2007”, asserts that, the electoral board investigate, cancel election results, order
re-election or order injunction of the act and bring perpetrators before the court of law
where it has received information about violation of law in the election process,
fraudulent act or disturbance of peace and order of such magnitude and type which would
determine the outcome of the election from political organizations running for election,
private candidates, observers, electoral officers or any other source and has verified its
tangibility through investigation or has been convinced that an offence has been
committed;

b) Where candidates receive equal votes in accordance with Article 76 (3) of this
Proclamation and where it becomes difficult to determine the winner.

118
 According to Article 76 sub article 3, reelection will be conducted “Where two candidates
receive equal votes and the constituency electoral office is unable to determine the winner,
reelection shall be conducted only between the candidates who have received equal votes
at a later date to be fixed by the Board”.

While conducting reelection:

a) only those voters who had been registered in a constituency or polling stations where
irregularities occurred shall be eligible to vote without the need to conduct new voter
registration;
b) where it has been decided to conduct reelection, only those candidates who had been
registered earlier shall be eligible to run for the reelection without the need to conduct
new candidate registration;
c) Campaigning shall be prohibited.
Particulars of reelection shall be decided by the regulation or directive to be issued by the
Board.
e) Referendum
1. Referendum is conducted to assess public interest or make decision when decided by a
competent body in accordance with the Constitution.
2. The Board, in accordance with the directive given by the body that authorized the
referendum, shall hold the referendum by organizing polling stations in a way convenient
to execute the referendum.
3. Particulars shall be determined by the regulation to be issued by the Board.

Lesson two: Electoral System

Lesson Objectives

Dear trainees! After completing this lesson you will be able to:

Elucidate the meaning of electoral system

119
 Conceptualize how electoral system determines how many votes and what kinds of votes
are necessary to award seats
Distinguish the major types of electoral system
Describe various types of electoral system
Figure out which electoral system is widely used in the world
Identify which type of electoral system is used in Ethiopia

1.5. Electoral System Defined

Electoral system refers to the detailed constitutional arrangements and voting systems which
convert the vote into a determination of which individuals and political parties are elected to
positions of power.

An electoral or voting system is how votes are translated into seats. It determines how many
votes and what kinds of votes are necessary to award seats to candidates and parties in an
election. Different electoral systems produce different kinds of results, and give voters different
kinds of choices. The electoral system determines the “exchange rate” between votes and seats -
that is, how votes are translated into seats. How many and what kind of votes are needed to get a
seat varies from system to system. As a result, different electoral systems give politicians
incentives to organize and campaign in different ways. Some electoral systems may even create
barriers for certain types of candidates. Different electoral systems give voters different kinds of
choices, which can then affect the decisions voters make.

Focus
A voting system or electoral system consists of the set of rules which must be followed for
a vote to be considered valid, and which set out how votes are cast, counted and aggregated
to yield a final result of an election or a referendum. Common voting systems are majority
rule, proportional representation and plurality voting, with a number of variations and
methods such as first-past-the-post and preferential voting.

The first step is to tally the votes, for which various different vote counting systems and ballot
types are used. Voting systems then determine the result on the basis of the tally. Most systems
can be categorized as either proportional or majoritarian. Among the former are party-list

120
proportional representation and additional member system. Among the latter are First Past the
Post (FPP) (relative majority) and absolute majority. Many countries have growing electoral
reform movements, which advocate systems such as approval voting, single transferable vote,
instant runoff voting or a Condorcet method.

While openness and accountability are usually considered cornerstones of a democratic system,
the act of casting a vote and the content of voter’s ballot are usually and important exception.
The secret ballot is relatively modern development, but it is now considered crucial in most free
and fair elections, as it limits the power of intimidation.

Focus

How many and what kind of votes are needed to get a seat varies from system to system.

Electoral formula determines how votes are counted to allocate seats. There are four main types
of electoral system:

Majoritarian formulas (including plurality, second ballot, and alternative voting

systems);
Semi-proportional systems (such as the single transferable vote, the cumulative vote, and
the limited vote);
Proportional representation(including open and closed party lists using largest
remainders and highest averages formula); and,
Mixed systems (like the Additional Member System combining majoritarian and
proportional elements).

1. Majoritarian Electoral Systems

A worldwide survey found that 83 out of 150 countries were found to use majoritarian systems
(Inter- Parliamentary Union 1993). This is the oldest electoral system, dating back at least to the
12th Century, and also the simplest. This category can be subdivided into those requiring
candidates to win a plurality, or an absolute majority (50+ percent) of votes to be elected.

121
 a) Plurality Elections
Plurality systems, otherwise known as 'first-past-the-post, is used for election to the lower
chamber in 43 countries including the United Kingdom, Canada, India, the United States, and
many Commonwealth states. The aim of plurality systems is to create a 'manufactured majority',
that is to exaggerate the share of seats for the leading party in order to produce an effective
working parliamentary majority for the government, while simultaneously penalizing minor
parties, especially those whose support is spatially dispersed. In 'winner take all', the leading
party boosts its legislative base, while the trailing parties get meager rewards. The focus is
effective governance, not representation of all minority views. The basic system of simple
plurality voting in parliamentary general elections is widely familiar: countries are divided into
territorial single-member constituencies; voters within each constituency cast a single ballot
(marked by a X) for one candidate; the candidate with the largest share of the vote in each seat is
returned to office; and in turn the party with an overall majority of seats forms the government.
Our country Ethiopia is also among those countries who have adopted plurality majoritarian
electoral system.

One feature of this system is that single-member constituencies are based on the size of the
electorate. The United States is divided into 435 Congressional districts each including roughly
equal populations with one House representative per district. Boundaries are reviewed at periodic
intervals, based on the census, to equalize the electorate. Yet the number of electors per
constituency varies dramatically cross-nationally: for example India has 545 representatives for a
population of 898 million, so each member of the Look Samba serves about 1.6 million people,
while in contrast Ireland has 166 members in the Dial for a population of 3.5 million, or one seat
per 21,000 people. The geographic size of constituencies also varies substantially within
countries, from small, densely packed inner-city seats to sprawling and more remote rural areas.

Under first-past-the-post candidates usually do not need to pass a minimum threshold of votes,
nor do they require an absolute majority to be elected, instead all they need is a simple plurality
i.e. one more vote than their closest rivals. Hence in seats where the vote splits almost equally
three ways, the winning candidate may have only 35% of the vote, while the other contestants
get 34% and 32% respectively. Although two-thirds of voters supported other candidates, the
plurality of votes is decisive.

122
In this system the parties share of parliamentary seats, not their share of the popular vote, counts
for the formation of government. Government may also be elected without a plurality of votes,
so long as they have a parliamentary majority. In 1951, for instance, the British Conservative
party was returned to government with a sixteen seat majority in parliament based on 48.0
percent of the popular vote, although Labour won slightly more (48.8 percent) of the vote. In
February 1974 the reverse pattern occurred: the Conservatives won a slightly higher share of the
national vote but Labor formed the government. Moreover under first-past-the-post governments
are commonly returned with less than a majority of votes. No governing party in the UK has won
as much as half the popular vote since 1935. For example in 1983 Mrs. Thatcher was returned
with a landslide of seats, producing a substantial parliamentary majority of 144, yet with the
support of less than a third of the total electorate (30.8 percent).

Focus

Under first-past-the-post candidates usually do not need to pass a minimum threshold of

votes, nor do they require an absolute majority to be elected, instead all they need is a
simple plurality i.e. one more vote than their closest rivals. Hence in seats where the vote
splits almost equally three ways, the winning candidate may have only 35% of the vote,
while the other contestants get 34% and 32% respectively.

For minor parties, and for minority social groups, the spatial concentration of votes in this
system is critical to the outcome. Parties like the Greens with shallow support spread across a
wide range of constituencies do far less well than those like nationalist parties with a strong
concentration in key regions. Hence, for example, in the 1993 Canadian elections the Progressive
Conservatives won 16.1 percent of the vote but suffered a chronic meltdown to only two MPs. In
contrast the Bloc Quebecois got 18.1 percent of the vote but a solid phalanx of 54 MPs. The New
Democratic Party won even less votes (6.6 percent) but emerged with 9 MPs, far more than the
Conservatives. In a similar way social groups who can concentrate their support spatially, like
African-American or Latino voters in urban areas, can prove relatively more effective in getting
their representatives into the US Congress than groups which are widely dispersed across
legislative districts.

123
Bangladesh, Botswana, Canada, Congo (Kinshasa), Democratic Republic of Congo
(Brazzaville), Egypt, Ethiopia, Gabon, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,
Ghana, Gambia, India, Jamaica, Kenya, Comoros, Liberia, Marshall Islands, Burma (Myanmar),
Malawi, Malaysia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Seychelles, Singapore, Sierra Leone, Swaziland,
Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda, United States of America, British, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe,
Zanzibar, are some among around 63 countries that follow pluralist electoral system.

b) Second Ballot Majority-runoff System

Other systems use alternative mechanisms to ensure that the winning candidate gets an overall
majority of votes. In France the second ballot 'majority-runoff' system is used in elections for the
Presidency. Candidates obtaining an absolute majority of votes (50 percent+) in the first round
are declared elected. If this is not the case a second round is held between the two candidates
who got the highest number of votes. This system is used in 15 of the 25 countries with direct
presidential elections including Austria, Columbia, Finland and Russia. In the 1996 Russian
Presidential election, for example, 78 candidates registered to run for election, of which 17
qualified for nomination. Boris Yeltsin won 35.3 percent of the vote in the first round, with
Gennadii Zyuganov, the Communist candidate; close behind with 32 percent, and Alexander
Lebed third with 14.5 percent of the vote. After the other candidates dropped out, and Lebed
swung his supporters behind Yeltsin, the final result was a decisive 53.8 percent for Yeltsin
against 40.3 percent for Zyuganov (White, Rose and McAllister 1996). A majority-runoff is also
used in legislative elections in Mali and the Ukraine, and a plurality-runoff is used for the French
National Assembly. The aim of runoff elections is to consolidate support behind the victor, and
to encourage broad cross-party coalition building and alliances in the final stages of the
campaign.

c) Alternative Vote
Another majoritarian system is the Alternative Vote, which is used in elections to the Australian
House of Representatives and in Ireland for Presidential elections. Australia is divided into 148
single member constituencies. Instead of a simple 'X', voters rank their preferences among
candidate (1, 2, 3...). To win, candidates need an absolute majority of votes. Where no one gets
over 50 per cent after first preferences are counted, then the candidate at the bottom of the pile
with the lowest share of the vote is eliminated, and their votes are redistributed amongst the other
candidates. The process continues until an absolute majority is secured. In the 1996 Australian

124
elections, for example, there was a close call on the first preferences, with both the Australian
Labour Party and the Liberal party getting 38.7 percent of the vote. In the final preferences
however the ALP won 46.4 percent compared with 53.6 percent for non-ALP candidates. Again
this process translates a close lead into a more decisive majority of seats for the leading party.
This systematically discriminates against those at the bottom of the poll in order to promote
effective government for the winner.

For instance, Australia, Korea, and Guinea, are countries that use alternative vote electoral
system.

2. Semi-Proportional Systems

Semi-proportional systems provide another option, including the cumulative vote where citizens
are given as many votes as representatives, and where votes can be cumulated on a single
candidate (used in duel-member seats in 19th Century Britain and in the State of Illinois until
1980). The limited vote is similar, but voters are given fewer votes than the number of members
to be elected (used in elections to the Spanish Senate). In Japan, until 1994, voters used the
Single Non-Transferable Vote where electors cast a single vote in a multi-member district.

Single Transferable Vote

The system in this category, which continues to be used, is the ‘Single Transferable Vote’ (STV)
currently employed in legislative elections in Ireland, Malta, and the Australian Senate. Each
country is divided into multi-member constituencies which each have about four or five
representatives. Parties put forward as many candidates as they think could win in each
constituency. Voters rank their preferences among candidates (1,2,3,4...). The total number of
votes is counted, and then the number of seats divides this total in the constituency to produce a
quota. To be elected, candidates must reach the minimum quota. When the first preferences are
counted, if no candidates reach the quota, then the person with the least votes is eliminated, and
their votes redistributed according to second preferences. This process continues until all seats
are filled. Ireland and Malta are known with this type of electoral system.

Focus

Each country is divided into multi-member constituencies which each have about four
or five representatives. Parties put forward as many candidates as they think could win 125
in each constituency. Voters rank their preferences among candidates (1, 2, 3, 4...).
 3. Proportional Representation

Party Lists Systems

Where majoritarian systems emphasize governability, proportional systems focus on the

inclusion of minority voices. Proportional electoral systems based on Party Lists in multimember
constituencies are widespread throughout Europe, and worldwide 57 out of 150 countries use PR
(Inter- Parliamentary Union 1993). The principle of proportional representation is that the seats
in a constituency are divided according to the number of votes cast for party lists, but there are
considerable variations in how this is implemented in different systems. Party lists may be open
as in Norway, Finland, the Netherlands and Italy, in which case voters can express preferences
for particular candidates within the list. Or they may be closed as in Israel, Portugal, Spain and
Germany, in which case voters can only select the party, and the political party determines the
ranking of candidates. The rank order on the party list determines which candidates are elected,
for example the top ten to fifteen names. Party Lists may also be national as in Israel, where all
the country is one constituency divided into 120 seats. But most Party Lists are regional, as in
Belgium where there are seven regions each sub-divided into between 2-34 seats.

The electoral formula varies among systems. Votes can be allocated to seats based on the highest
averages method. This requires the number of votes for each party to be divided successively by
a series of divisors, and seats are allocated to parties that secure the highest resulting quotient, up
to the total number of seats available. The most widely used is the d’Hondt formula, using
divisors (such as 1,2,3 etc). The 'pure' Saint-Laguëmethod divides the votes with odd numbers
(1,3,5,7 etc). The 'modified' Saint-Laguëreplaces the first divisor by 1.4 but is otherwise identical
to the pure version.

An alternative is the largest remainder methods, which uses a minimum quota, which can be
calculated, in a number of ways. In the simplest with the Hare quota, used in Denmark and Costa
Rica, the total number of valid votes in each constituency is divided by the total number of seats
to be allocated. The Droop quota, used in South Africa and Greece, raises the divisor by the
number of seats plus one, producing a slightly less proportional result.

126
 4. Mixed Systems
a) Additional Member System
Lastly many newer systems, such as those recently adopted in Italy, New Zealand and Russia,
use mixed systems, although with a variety of alternative designs. The Additional Member
System used in Germany combines single member and party list constituencies. Electors have
two votes. Half the Members of the Bundestag (328) are elected in single-member constituencies
based on a simple plurality of votes. The remaining MPs are elected from closed party lists in
each region (Land). Parties, which receive, less than a specified minimum threshold of list votes
(5 per cent) are not be entitled to any seats. The total number of seats, which a party receives in
Germany, is based on the Niemeyer method, which ensures that seats are proportional to second
votes cast for party lists. Smaller parties which received, say, 10 per cent of the list vote, but
which did not win any single member seats outright, are topped up until they have 10 per cent of
all the seats in Parliament. It is possible for a party to be allocated 'surplus' seats when it wins
more district seats in the single-member district vote than it is entitled to under the result of the
list vote(Saint-Jacques, 1997).

Lesson Three: Issues of Voting Behavior

Lesson Objectives

Dear students! Upon accomplishment of the lesson you will be able to:

Define the meaning of voting behavior

Differentiate what ‘voting’ and ‘voting behavior’ mean
Describe the distinguishing features of political party
Compare and contrast political party and interest or pressure groups
List major roles and functions of political party

127
 4.5. Voting Behavior Defined
“Voting” is one of the most commonly used terms in contemporary age of democratic politics.
The ever increasing popularity of democratic theory and practice has even made this term a
household name. In democratic systems, and their number is quite large and even increasing,
each adult citizen uses „voting‟ as a means for expressing his approval or disapproval of
governmental decisions, policies and programmers of various political parties and the qualities of
the candidates who are engaged in the struggle to get the status of being the representatives of
the people. In a limited way voting refers to the function of electing representatives by casting
votes in elections. However, in broad terms, voting covers as many as six important functions:-

1. It involves individual’s choice of governors or major governmental policies;

2. It permits individuals to participate in a reciprocal and continuing exchange of influence
with office- holders and candidates;
3. It contributes to the development or maintenance of an individual’s allegiance to the
existing constitutional regime;
4. It contributes to the development or maintenance of a voter’s disaffection from existing
constitutional regime;
5. It has emotional significance for individuals; and
6. For some individuals it may be functionless i.e. devoid of any emotional or political
significant personal consequences.

Focus:

The study of voting behavior has come to be regarded as an important aspect of

contemporary political research and theory.

The term, voting behavior is not new. But it has been used of late to describe certain areas of
study and types of political phenomena which previously had either not been conceived or were
considered irrelevant. Voting behaviors is not confined to the examination of voting statistics,
records and computation of electoral shifts and swings. It also involves an analysis of individual
psychological processes (perception, emotion, and motivation) and their relation to political
action as well as of institutional patterns, such as the communication process and their impact on
election. In the words of Plano and Riggs, “Voting Behaviors is a field of study concerned with

128
the ways in which people tend to vote in public election and the reasons why they vote as they
do.” The term voting behavior has recently been expended in meaning and is taken as one major
and board area of study subsumed within the broader designation of political behavior. It
involves a study of human political behavior in the context of voting in elections. Voting
behaviors studies open windows on the minds of the millions of people who are involved in the
political process as voters. These constitute an important area of political science in which theory
can be systematically and qualitatively measured and tested.

Election refers to a process of democratic participation in which all the people express their
opinion about personalities and issues by making on a ballot paper. Elections express democratic
class struggle through voting. Major differences in the political allegiances of different age
groups, classes, education, religious or ethnic groups have been reported by voting survey.
Voting for right or left depends upon a person’s life experiences. The study of electoral behavior
constitutes a very significant area of empirical investigation that takes the subjects of politics
very close to the discipline of sociology with the result that a new dimension of advanced study,
rather a discipline, is becoming more and more popular with the name of political sociology or
sociological politics. Man is a rational creature in the philosophical sense of term; he is not so
rational in the realms of his economic and political behavior. An empirical study of the electoral
behavior displays the astounding fact that the behavior of man is influenced by several irrational
forces. The role of political parties and pressure groups in invoking religious and communal
factors, influence of money or charismatic personality of a leader and a host of other irrational
forces have their definite influence on the minds of the voters. The role of these irrational forces
can be discovered or discerned in case a student of empirical politics focuses his attention on
how the favorable results of an election are obtained. This fact applies to every democratic
system (Hazarika, 2015).

4.5.1. Determinants of Voting Behavior

The behavior of voter is influenced by several factors such as religion, caste, community,
language, money, policy or ideology, purpose of the polls, extent of franchise, political wave etc.
The political parties and groups make use of these variables for the sake of winning the battle of
the ballot box. Despite making their professions for enlightened secularism, politicians can be
found making appeals to the religious and communal sentiments of the people; they can also be
found involved in exploiting the factors of language or money to achieve the purpose of

129
emerging successful in the war of votes. Appeals are issued and canvassing campaigns
conducted in the name of a particular policy or ideology for the same purpose. The interest of the
voters and accordingly their behavior at the time of voting is also influenced by the nature or
purpose of the elections or the extent of the suffrage. The force of charisma has its own part in
determining voter’s behavior.

Focus

Despite making their professions for enlightened secularism, politicians can be found making
appeals to the religious and communal sentiments of the people; they can also be found
involved in exploiting the factors of language or money to achieve the purpose of emerging
successful in the war of votes.

4.6. Party System

4.6.1. Political Party Defined

A political party is a group of people who come together to contest elections and hold power in
the government. The party agrees on some proposed policies and programs, with a view to
promoting the collective good or furthering their supporters' interests. While there is some
international commonality in the way political parties are recognized, and in how they operate,
there are often many differences, and some are significant. Many political parties have an
ideological core, but some do not, and many represent very different ideologies than they did
when first founded. In democracies, political parties are elected by the electorate to run a
government. Many countries have numerous powerful political parties, such as Germany and
India and some nations have one-party systems, such as China and Cuba. The United States is in
practice a two-party system, with many smaller parties participating. Its two most powerful
parties are the Democratic Party and the Republican Party.

130
A political party is also defined as an organized group of people with at least roughly similar
political aims and opinions, that seeks to influence public policy by getting its candidates elected
to public office.

Parties tend to be deeply and durably entrenched in specific substructures of society in a

sustainable and well-functioning democracy. They can link the governmental institutions to the
elements of the civil society in a free and fair society and are regarded as necessary for the
functioning any modern democratic political system.

Political parties perform key tasks in a democratic society, such as

1. Soliciting and articulating public policy priorities and civic needs and problems
as identified by members and supporters
2. socializing and educating voters and citizens in the functioning of the political and
electoral system and the generation of general political values
3. balancing opposing demands and converting them into general policies
4. Activating and mobilizing citizens into participating in political decisions and
transforming their opinions into viable policy options
5. Channeling public opinion from citizens to government
6. Recruiting and training candidates for public office

Political parties are often described as institutionalized mediators between civil society and those
who decide and implement decisions. As such, they enable their members’ and supporters’
demands to be addressed in parliament and in government. Even though parties fulfill many vital
roles and perform several functions in a democratic society, the nomination and presentation of
candidates in the electoral campaign is the most visible function to the electorate.

To perform the above mentioned tasks and functions, political parties and citizens need some
rights and obligations guaranteed or ruled by constitution or law. These include:

Freedom of organization
Freedom to stand for election
Freedom of speech and assembly
Provision of a fair and peaceful competition among parties and candidates

131
 Mechanisms to ensure plurality
Inclusion in the electoral process and contacts with electoral bodies
A level playing field and freedom from discrimination
Media access and fair reporting guarantees
Transparent and accountable political finance
The internal functioning of individual political parties is to some extent determined by forces that
are external to political parties, such as the electoral system, political culture, and legal
regulations. However, internal processes of political parties, such as the personality of leaders
and staff, the ideological foundations, party history, and internal political culture are considered
to be even more influential on the internal functioning. If a political party would like the
democratic principles of electoral politics to be applied within the party, they may consider
practices like internal information and consultation processes, internal (formal or informal) rules
and structures for the organization and decision-making within the party, and transparency in the
party’s functioning at all levels. Party members may also take on more formal roles in decision-
making like participating in internal elections for leadership positions or in selecting the party’s
candidate(s) in the upcoming elections. Many parties also work actively to enhance the role of
traditionally under-represented groups in their parties (ACE Project, 2012).

4.6.2. Distinguishing Features of Political Party

(i) They agree on some policies and programmes for the society with a view to promote the
collective good.

(ii) Since there can be different views on what is good for all, parties try to persuade people why
their policies are better than others.

(iii) They seek to implement these policies by winning popular support through elections.

(iv) Parties reflect fundamental political divisions in a society.

(v) Parties are a part of society and thus involve partisanship.

132
 4.6.3. Political Party vs Interest Group
What is an Interest Group?
Interest group is a group of people who try to influence policymakers in order to achieve their
common goals. Interest groups normally work for the interest of the public. They work either to
support a decision taken by the ruling party or to oppose it with great force. Sometimes, they
have nothing to do with any party but are focused on achieving a goal, an issue, that they believe
is worth fighting for.

Interest groups force the government or the elected political party to implement a favorable
decision for the welfare of the society or a particular section of the society. Another important
difference between political parties and interest groups is that interest groups do not position
their representatives in the government. That is because they are not interested in ruling a
country. They are only interested in achieving their goals. They take on the challenges
themselves without having representatives. However, they will support candidates from political
parties if those candidates share the same view they have about a certain issue.

The nature of organization of interest groups differs from that of political parties. In other words,
the organization of interest groups is somewhat loose. They are a group of people working for a
common goal. That does not necessarily mean that they should have a constitution and so on for
their work.

The table below portrays the comparison of political party and interest group based on
representatives in the government, organization and internal politics.

Criteria for Comparison Interest Group Political Party

133
Representatives in the They do not position their representatives They directly position their
government in the government representatives in the government.
This is a big difference between
political parties and interest groups.

Organization Somewhat loose Well knit

Internal politics is not that flexible as they cannot change Internal politics of political parties
their stand without changing who they are are much more flexible. (detailed
explanation for this point
presented in the box below)

Scope of interest -Limited/specific -Have wide interest

- have a single policy that they focus on, -deal with broad range of issues
like the environment, animal rights, (general issues). They provide a
children, women, mother and child health, manifesto that cover broad policy
education, or people with disability. areas, such as health, education,
-represent the interest of marginalized or defense, and infrastructures.
disadvantaged groups - political parties represent the interest
of all groups in the society
Advocacy They work only for the advancement of They try to enlist the support of as
the cause of those groups many members of the polity as
possible

134
Final goal Try to influence policymakers in order to
achieve their common goals. They do not
seek to achieve the political power in a
country.
They struggle to win the governing
power of a state or a country in order
to achieve their common goals.
Political parties put up candidates
and compete in elections to form a
government

Power relationship - Only one political party rules one

country at a time predetermined in the
constitution (ruling party) and others
become opposition parties,
- The ruling party may use its power
and defense forces to suppress other
political parties in fear of being
overthrown.

Source: Authors Anthology

Internal Politics

Political parties are more internally flexible than interest groups are able to be. For example, a
political party's members generally have similar views but do not agree on every issue.
Examples of this can be seen in the Republican Party, as of 2013, with a split over support for
gay marriage and in the Democratic Party with the "Blue Dog" coalition of Democrats who
identify as fiscally conservative. Every four years, parties consult with their members to
establish a new platform based on majority viewpoints, but their identities do not change
because of a change of position. Because interest groups are formed around a single issue, they
cannot change their official position without changing who they are. Members of interest
groups do not necessarily have views in common outside their shared issue.

135
Similarities between Political Parties and Interest Groups
 In modern democracy, political parties and interest groups play prominent roles in
government. Parties and interest groups are similar in many ways: Both are organized
groups of people working toward specific goals in the government and both promote
politicians and raise money to accomplish those goals. Both groups act as intermediaries
between the public and the officeholders, and, for many voters, are the basis on which the
decision of who to vote for is made. Despite their similarity, however, political parties and
interest groups are different organizations that serve different purposes within a country's
political system.
 Both political parties and pressure groups seek to influence the government. They influence
the government policies and alert for changes. For example the opposition political parties
in the parliament raised the issue of abolition of unnecessary “POSHO” (sitting allowances)
to members of parliament or government officials. This issue was joined hand by a number
of non-profit organizations and interest groups. Following public protests against the issue
the government decided to review it and promised to work on it and see the necessary
changes to be made on sitting allowances.
 Both political parties and pressure groups are voluntary organizations. Being voluntary, this
means that people are free to join or leave any political party or any pressure group as it is
not compulsory. However when someone is a member of a political party or pressure group
it is necessary to pay membership fee for funding the organization or the party.
 Both Political parties and pressure groups criticize the government policies. Some of the
government policies may have no benefits to the citizen at all or may favor only the ruling
class. This being the case both Political parties and pressure groups criticize the government
plans, policy and practice and suggest the way forward.
 Both political parties and pressure groups take actions to promote changes and further their
goals. For example they may struggle for advocacy, public awareness programs, policy
reform and so forth to achieve their goals. They may wage demonstrations or public protest
against any social misconduct forcing the government to take measures.
 They both represent the viewpoints of people who are not satisfied with the current
conditions in their societies and often represent alternative viewpoints that are not well

136
 represented in the mainstream population. By forming pressure groups or political parties
people seek to express their shared beliefs and values and influence changes within
communities and social political structures such as government and cooperation.
 Both the political parties and pressure groups may use a variety of strategies to achieve their
goals. These include lobbying the elected officials, the government, media advocacy and
direct political actions (eg. organized protests.).

4.6.3. Political Parties- Roles and Functions

To participate successfully in the political process and to contribute to the consolidation of
democracy, political parties have to demonstrate certain capacities. In political science, these
capacities are called “functions”. Therefore, they can, as they often do, play several pivotal roles
for building and effective consolidation of democracy and democratization process. The major
indispensable roles and imperatives of political parties in democratization and democracy,
among others, are the following:

1. They articulate and aggregate social interests: Parties express public expectations and
demands of social groupings to the political system (= function of political opinion-making).
2. They recruit political personnel and nurture future generations of politicians: They select
persons and present them as candidates for elections (= function of selection).
3. They develop political programmes: Parties integrate various interests into a general political
project and transform it into a political programme, for which they campaign to receive the
consent and support of a majority (= function of integration).
4. They promote the political socialization and participation of citizens: Parties create a link
between citizens and the political system; they enable political participation of individuals
and groupings with the prospect of success. (= function of socialization and participation).
5. They organize the government. They participate in elections to occupy political charges.
Normally in party democracies, a good part of government authorities arise from political
parties (= function of exercising political power).
6. They contribute to the legitimacy of the political system: in establishing the connection
between citizens, social groupings and the political system, the parties contribute in
anchoring the political order in the consciousness of the citizens and in social forces (=
function of legitimating).

137
 7. They organize and coordinate individual interest: Needless to say, individuals or citizens
have different political views and interests though in the meantime the interest of some
individuals are the same. In some cases, political party is important to sum up or to organize
those people who have the same or similar political views. Organizing individual’s interests
is important to handle contradicting views of development.
8. They create political awareness among the citizens: Political parties perform the job of
political mobilization, secularization, and recruitment. In a democratic system, the people
have the right to know about what is going on in their government offices. So, the presence
of such parties is important to expose the doings of government. Besides, it also educates the
people about the democratic measures that should be taken.
9. Political parties widen the base of popular participation: Political parties are one of the most
important attributes of democratic system. In order to implement the very concept of
democracy, effective and persistent participation of people in their affairs is must. In this
regard, political parties are on the front line.
10. Political parties are serving the interest of the people: The very concept of democracy is the
rule of law. In democratic processes, the people are in charge and the government is expected
to implement the interest of the people.

Lesson Four: Party System

Lesson Objectives

Dear trainees! After completing the lesson you will be able to:

Conceptualize the meaning of political system

Distinguish the political characteristics of one party system
Differentiate one party system and dominant party system
Explain the features of two party system
Describe the manifestations of multi-party system

4.6.4. Types of Party System

Party System Defined

138
Party system can be defined as a governing political system of a country. It indicates whether the
nature of political system of the country, is exclusively dominated by one party or have
competitive nature that took place between two or more than two parties.
a) One-party System
In one-party systems, one political party is legally allowed to hold effective power. Although
minor parties may sometimes be allowed, they are legally required to accept the leadership of the
dominant party. This party may not always be identical to the government, although sometimes
positions within the party may in fact be more important than positions within the government.
North Korea, China and Ethiopia (during Derg regime) are examples; others can be found in
Fascist states, such as Nazi Germany between 1934 and 1945. The one-party system is thus often
equated with dictatorships and tyranny.

In dominant-party systems, opposition parties are allowed, and there may be even a deeply
established democratic tradition, but other parties are widely considered to have no real chance
of gaining power. Sometimes, political, social and economic circumstances, and public opinion
are the reason for others parties' failure. Sometimes, typically in countries with less of an
established democratic tradition, it is possible the dominant party will remain in power by using
patronage and sometimes by voting fraud. In the latter case, the definition between dominant and
one-party system becomes rather blurred. Examples of dominant party systems include the
People's Action Party in Singapore, the African National Congress in South Africa, the
Cambodian People's Party in Cambodia, the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan, and the National
Liberation Front in Algeria. One-party dominant system also existed in Mexico with the
Institutional Revolutionary Party until the 1990s, in the southern United States with the
Democratic Party from the late 19th century until the 1970s, in Indonesia with the Golkar from
the early 1970s until 1998.

b) Two-party Systems
Two-party systems are states such as Jamaica, Malta, Ghana and the United States in which there
are two political parties dominant to such an extent that electoral success under the banner of any
other party is almost impossible. One right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party
is the most common ideological breakdown in such a system but in two-party states political
parties are traditionally catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive.

139
The United States has become essentially a two-party system, since a conservative (such as the
Republican Party) and liberal (such as the Democratic Party) party has usually been the status
quo within American politics. The first parties were called Federalist and Republican, followed
by a brief period of Republican dominance before a split occurred between National Republicans
and Democratic Republicans. The former became the Whig Party and the latter became the
Democratic Party. The Whigs survived only for two decades before they split over the spread of
slavery, those opposed becoming members of the new Republican Party, as did anti-slavery
members of the Democratic Party. Third parties (such as the Libertarian Party) often receive
little support and are very rarely the victors in elections. Despite this, there have been several
examples of third parties siphoning votes from major parties that were expected to win (such as
Theodore Roosevelt in the election of 1912 and George Wallace in the election of 1968).

Focus

In two party system one right wing coalition party and one left wing coalition party is the
most common ideological breakdown but in two-party states political parties are traditionally
catch all parties which are ideologically broad and inclusive.

As third party movements have learned, the Electoral College's requirement of a nationally
distributed majority makes it difficult for third parties to succeed. Thus, such parties rarely win
many electoral votes, although their popular support within a state may tip it toward one party or
the other. Wallace had weak support outside the South. More generally, parties with a broad base
of support across regions or among economic and other interest groups, have a great chance of
winning the necessary plurality in the U.S.'s largely single-member district, winner-take-all
elections. The tremendous land area and large population of the country are formidable
challenges to political parties with a narrow appeal.

The UK political system, while technically a multi-party system, has functioned generally as a
two-party (sometimes called a "two-and-a-half party") system; since the 1920s the two largest
political parties have been the Conservative Party and the Labour Party. Before the Labour Party
rose in British politics the Liberal Party was the other major political party along with the
Conservatives. Though coalition and minority governments have been an occasional feature of

140
parliamentary politics, the first-past-the-post electoral system used for general elections tends to
maintain the dominance of these two parties, though each has in the past century relied upon a
third party to deliver a working majority in Parliament. (A plurality voting system usually leads
to a two-party system, a relationship described by Maurice Duverger and known as Duverger's
Law.) There are also numerous other parties that hold or have held a number of seats in
Parliament.

c) Multi-Party Systems
Multi-party systems are systems in which more than two parties are represented and elected to
public office. Australia, Canada, People's Republic of Bangladesh, Pakistan, India, Ireland,
United Kingdom and Norway are examples of countries with two strong parties and additional
smaller parties that have also obtained representation. The smaller or "third" parties may hold the
balance of power in a parliamentary system, and thus may be invited to form a part of a coalition
government together with one of the larger parties; or may instead act independently from the
dominant parties.

More commonly, in cases where there are three or more parties, no one party is likely to gain
power alone, and parties have to work with each other to form coalition governments. This is
almost always the case in Germany on national and state level, and in most constituencies at the
communal level. Furthermore, since the forming of the Republic of Iceland, there has never been
a government not led by a coalition, usually involving the Independence Party and/or the
Progressive Party. A similar situation exists in the Republic of Ireland, where no one party has
held power on its own since 1989. Since then, numerous coalition governments have been
formed. These coalitions have been led exclusively by either FiannaFáil or Fine Gael.

Focus

More commonly, in cases where there are three or more parties, no one party is likely to
gain power alone, and parties have to work with each other to form coalition governments.
This is almost always the case in Germany on national and state level, and in most
constituencies at the communal level.

141
Political change is often easier with a coalition government than in one-party or two-party
dominant systems. If factions in a two-party system are in fundamental disagreement on policy
goals, or even principles, they can be slow to make policy changes, which appears to be the case
now in the U.S. with power split between Democrats and Republicans. Still coalition
governments struggle, sometimes for years, to change policy and often fail altogether, post-
World War II France and Italy being prime examples. When one party in a two-party system
controls all elective branches, however, policy changes can be both swift and significant.
Democrats Woodrow Wilson, Franklin Roosevelt and Lyndon Johnson were beneficiaries of
such fortuitous circumstances, as were Republicans as far removed in time as Abraham Lincoln
and Ronald Reagan. Barack Obama briefly had such an advantage between 2009 and 2011.

Lesson Five: Typology of Political Parties

Lesson Objectives

Dear trainees! After completing this lesson you will be able to:

Identify major variables which serve as a parameter for classification of political parties
Describe the nature of elite political party
Point out the characteristics of mass-based political party
Describe the nature of ethnicity-based political party

4.6.5. Typology of Political Parties

Parties that exist in the world are classified based upon some criteria like (structure of party
members and constituency, social origins of constituency, the party’s organizational structure,
the goals of the party, political and ideological alignment, the attitude towards the political
system and party’s claim to power).

According to (WEISSENBACH, 2010), based on members structure and constituency parties are
classified as catch-all-party, class-based-party and interest-based-party; based on organizational
structure mass-based-party, cadre-party, etc.; based on political and ideological alignment
extreme right wing, conservative, Christian, liberal, green, social democratic, socialist and
communist party; and based on claim to power democratic, authoritarian and totalitarian parties.

142
For the sake of this module we try to present the classification of party typology as contributed by
Gunther and Diamond (2003). They identified 15 ‘species’ of party into its proper ‘genus’ on the
basis of three criteria:
1. The nature of the party’s organization (thick/thin, elite-based or mass-based, etc.);
2. The programmatic orientation of the party (ideological, particularistic-clientele-oriented,
etc.); and
3. Tolerant and pluralistic (or democratic) versus proto-hegemonic (or anti-system).

Based upon Gunther and Diamond work we gave attention for the four mother typologies as
presented below:
a) Elite-Based Parties
‘Elite-based’ parties are those whose principal organizational structures are minimal and based
upon established elites and related interpersonal networks within a specific geographic area.
Deference to the authority of these elites is a feature shared by the two species of parties that fall
within this ‘genus’. Whatever national-level party structure exists is based upon an alliance
among locally based elites. In programmatic terms, these parties are not ideological. At the
lowest level within the party (i.e. the linkage between voters and the local candidate) the
principal electoral commitment involves the distribution of particularistic benefits to residents of
a geographically defined constituency or to ‘clients’ at the bottom of a patron–client hierarchy.
Such parties do not have ambitions of hegemony, and are tolerant and collaborative towards one
another within a parliamentary (but not necessarily democratic) regime(Guther R and Diamon L,
2003).

Historically, the first party type to emerge was the traditional local notable party. This early-to
mid-nineteenth century development emerged at a time of sharply limited suffrage in semi-
democratic regimes. Given that the right to vote and hold office was restricted in most of these
countries to males owning substantial property, this competitive game was limited to the upper
socio-economic strata. And given that election to office required appeals to a small number of
enfranchised voters, campaigns did not require an extensive organizational effort. Local notables
could often count on their traditionally-based prestige or personal relationships with their few
and socially homogeneous constituents to secure office. Central party bureaucracies did not exist,
and national-level ‘party’ organizations consisted of relatively loose alliances or cliques linking

143
elected members of parliament on the basis of shared interests or bonds of mutual respect. The
parliamentary factions that dominated the British House of Commons in the first half of the
nineteenth century, French conservative parties in the nineteenth and first half of the twentieth
century, and several conservative parties in Brazil today are examples of this variety of elite
party.

Expansion of suffrage and socio-economic modernization (which entailed the political

mobilization of formerly excluded sectors of society) progressively limited the electoral
effectiveness of such poorly institutionalized and resource-poor parties, while urbanization made
the predominantly rural traditional notables increasingly irrelevant to most voters.
The clientelistic party began to emerge just as the traditional local notable party was subjected to
challenges from newly enfranchised segments of the electorate within societies undergoing
industrialization and urbanization. Indeed, it is reasonable to hypothesize that the emergence of
the clientelistic party was a direct response by local elites to the challenges posed by the political
mobilization of formerly ‘subject’ populations: as traditional deference to local elites began to
break down, electoral mobilization relied increasingly on an exchange of favors or overt
coercion.

The clientelistic party, as defined by Gunther and Diamond (2003), is a confederation of notables
(either traditional or of the newly emerging liberal-professional or economic elite), each with his
own geographically, functionally or personalistically based support, organized internally as
particularistic factions. Such a party typically has a weak organization and places little or no
stress on programme or ideology. Its principal function is to coordinate the individual campaign
efforts of notables, usually indirectly or loosely, for the purpose of securing power at the national
level. Their campaign activities, in turn, are based on hierarchical chains of interpersonal
relationships of a quasi-feudal variety, in which relatively durable patterns of loyalty are linked
with the exchange of services and obligations.

While all clientelistic parties are characterized by particularistic factional organization, in their
heyday in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries – in Southern Europe, Latin America
and North American big-city machines and southern rural politics– the exchange of personalistic
favours also served as a principal tool for electoral mobilization at the mass level. Such
relationships are most common in rural, pre modern societies: under conditions of geographical

144
isolation from a dominant center of government, coupled with low levels of functional literacy
and poorly developed transportation and communications media, a localized patron–client
relationship can be mutually beneficial to both the patron and the client.

In the United States, this variety of politics focused on immigrant populations that lacked
political resources and even some basic skills (such as command of the English language) or
personal connections necessary to thrive economically. As socio-economic modernization
proceeds – as shrinking rural populations become increasingly literate, exposed to mass
communications media, and ‘mobilized’ politically (or as immigrant populations in the United
States learned English, became educated and assimilated into American society) – the utility of
the patron to the citizen declines, and the patron’s attempts to influence voting decisions are
increasingly resisted.

Under these circumstances, more coercive forms of patron–client exchanges tended to emerge,
often involving the threat to withhold economic benefits from the client unless his/her political
support is pledged or overt vote buying displaces the exchange of favors. Over the long run,
however, socioeconomic modernization and the increasing ‘cognitive mobilization’ of the mass
public greatly reduce the utility of clientelism as a vehicle for electoral mobilization.

b) Mass-Based Parties

The second genus of party has deep roots in the literature, as well as in the nineteenth and early
twentieth century history of Europe. The quintessential ‘externally created party’, the mass-based
party, emerged as a manifestation of the political mobilization of the working class in many
European polities. Organizationally, it is characterized by a large base of dues-paying members
who remain active in party affairs even during periods between elections. In an effort to
disseminate the party’s ideology and establish an active membership base, the party seeks to
penetrate into a number of spheres of social life. Affiliated trade union, religious and other social
organizations serve not only as political allies (helping to mobilize supporters at election time),
but for the projection of the programmatic objectives of the party from the electoral-
parliamentary arena into a variety of spheres of social life. Extensive arrays of supportive
organizations are established, including party newspapers and recreational clubs, and networks
of local party branches are established nationwide. These organizational networks not only serve

145
as a framework for mobilization at election time, but also provide side benefits for party
members, such as opportunities for fraternization and recreation.

Two types of distinctions further divide this genus into six different species of party. The first
involves the basic thrust of the party’s programmatic commitments, ideology, and/or unifying
belief system. Most commonly, these have involved varying types of commitment to (1)
socialism, (2) nationalism or (3) religion. The second dimension involves the extent to which
each of these is either tolerant or pluralistic, on the one hand, or is committed to securing a
hegemonic position within the political system and imposing its radical programmatic
commitments on society. Pluralist parties assume that they will always be functioning within a
democratic system; they therefore accept its institutions and rules of the game. Proto-hegemonic
parties, in contrast, strive over the long term towards the replacement of the existing pluralist
society and democratic system with one that is better suited for the achievement of their radical
transformative objectives. Accordingly, they accept existing institutions and rules only insofar as
they are expedient and cannot be replaced over the short run, and their behavior is, at best, semi-
loyal.

c) Ethnicity-Based Parties

Parties based on ethnicity typically lack the extensive and elaborate organization of mass-based
parties. What most distinguishes them; however, are their political and electoral logics. Unlike
most mass-based parties, they do not advance a programme (whether incremental or
transformative) for all of society. Their goals and strategies are narrower: to promote the
interests of a particular ethnic group, or coalition of groups. And unlike nationalist parties, their
programmatic objectives do not typically include secession or a high level of decision-making
and administrative autonomy from the existing state. Instead, they are content to use existing
state structures to channel benefits towards their particularistically defined electoral clientele.

The purely ethnic party seeks only to mobilize the votes of its own ethnic group. Classic
historical examples are the Northern People’s Congress and the Action Group of Nigeria’s First
Republic, and, more recently, South Africa’s Inkatha Freedom Party, the Turkish minority party
(DPS, Movement of Rights and Freedoms) in Bulgaria, the Democratic Union of Hungarians in
Romania and the (Sikh) Akali Dal in India’s Punjab state.

146
Although it may run candidates in other geographic constituencies, or raise larger national or
even ideological issues, these only thinly and half-heartedly mask its true ethnic (or regional)
purpose. As Kitschelt (2001) argues, the defining feature of ethnic parties (which he refers to as
‘particularistic sociocultural parties’) is that they limit their appeal to a particular sectional
constituency, and ‘explicitly seek to draw boundaries’ between ethnic ‘friends’ and ‘foes’. The
principal goal of the ethnic party is not any universalistic programme or platform, but rather to
secure material, cultural and political benefits (and protections) for the ethnic group in its
competition with other groups. As such, ethnic parties have an extremely low level of ideological
or programmatic commitment and coherence. Neither do they typically have a very developed
organizational structure or formal membership base. Lacking any functional interests or
ideological agenda, the ethnic party tends to mobilize pre-existing clientelistic relations, and as
such its structure and internal authority relations resemble the clientelistic party. Given the fact
that ethnic parties mobilize powerfully emotive symbolic issues of identity and even cultural
survival, they are prone to be dominated by, and even organized around, a single charismatic
leader (such as the NPC’s Ahmadu Bello, the Action Group’s ObafemiAwolowo and Inkatha’s
Mangosuthu Buthelezi). The electoral logic of the ethnic party is to harden and mobilize its
ethnic base with exclusive and often polarizing appeals to ethnic group opportunity and threat.
Unlike virtually all other political parties (including nationalistic parties), electoral mobilization
is not intended to attract additional sectors of society to support the party, whose interests are
perceived as intrinsically in conflict with those of other ethnic groups.

Thus, even more than the religious fundamentalist party, the potential electoral clientele of the
party is strictly defined and limited by ethnicity, although within that definitional category cross-
class electoral appeals may lead to the adoption of eclectic programmatic objectives. Because
ethnic parties are, by definition, unable to expand significantly beyond their ethnic electoral base,
they are unable to pursue hegemony unless they attain a demographic majority or quash
democracy. Through electoral fraud and rigging of the census, Nigeria’s NPC sought to do both,
and thereby to achieve ethno-regional domination during the First Republic. The pursuit of such
domination by an ethnic party can lead to violent conflict, and was indeed a contributing factor
to the Nigerian civil war.

147
 d) Electoralist Party

There are three party types in the broader genus of ‘electoralist parties’, the fundamental
characteristics of which are similar to those upon which Panebianco developed his concept of the
‘electoral-professional party’. Parties belonging to this genus are organizationally thin,
maintaining a relatively skeletal existence (the offices and staffs supporting their parliamentary
groups notwithstanding). At election time, however, these parties spring into action to perform
what is unequivocally their primary function, the conduct of the campaign. They utilize ‘modern’
campaign techniques (stressing television and the mass-communications media over the
mobilization of party members and affiliated organizations), and they rely heavily on
professionals who can skillfully carry out such campaigns. The personal attractiveness of the
party’s candidates is an important criterion for nomination at the expense of other considerations,
such as length of service to, or formal organizational position within, the party. We resist the
temptation to regard electoralist parties as of one type, however, because they differ in some
important respects that significantly affect their behavior and, in turn, the quality of democracy.

Accordingly, Gunther and Diamond (2003) defined three different ideal types of parties that fall
within this genus. These three party types all share the organizational characteristics described
above, but they differ with regard to our other two defining dimensions: two of them lack strong
ideological or programmatic commitments, while one does seek to advance a distinct set of
programmes; and two of them are decidedly pluralistic, while the third may or may not have
hegemonic ambitions.

The first of these is the catch-all party. This pluralistic and tolerant ideal type is primarily
distinguished by the party’s shallow organization, superficial and vague ideology, and
overwhelmingly electoral orientation, as well as by the prominent leadership and electoral roles
of the party’s top-ranked national-level candidates. The overriding (if not sole) purpose of catch-
all parties is to maximize votes, win elections and govern. To do so, they seek to aggregate as
wide a variety of social interests as possible. In societies where the distribution of public opinion
(on a left–right continuum) is unimodal and centrist, catch-all parties will seek to maximize votes
by positioning themselves toward the centre of the spectrum, appearing moderate in their policy
preferences and behavior. In an effort to expand their electoral appeal to a wide variety of

148
groups, their policy orientations are eclectic and shift with the public mood. Lacking an explicit
ideology, catch-all parties tend to emphasize the attractive personal attributes of their candidates,
and nominations are largely determined by the electoral resources of the candidates rather than
by such organizational criteria as years of experience in, or service to, the party, or position
within key factions within the party. The Democratic Party of the United States, Labor under
Tony Blair, the Hungarian Democratic Forum and Spain’s Socialist party (PSOE) and Partido
Popular are clear examples of this party type, and

Taiwan’s Kuomintang is completing its extremely long-term transformation from a quasi-

Leninist to a catch-all party. Korea’s principal parties manifest many features of the catch-all
party but remain heavily regional in their electoral bases and identities, giving them some of the
flavor of ethnic parties.
e) Movement Parties

Finally, there is a type of partisan organization that straddles the conceptual space between
‘party’ and ‘movement’. The prominent examples of the German Greens and the Austrian
Freedom Party, however, make it clear that these types of organizations must be included in this
comprehensive typology since they regularly field candidates, have been successful in electing
members of parliament and, in Germany in 1999, in forming part of a coalition government at
the national level and in several Länder. The most prominent examples of movement parties in
Western Europe today are of two types: left-libertarian parties and post-industrial extreme
rightparties. However, this genus of party types should be regarded as ‘openended’, since its
fluid organizational characteristics may be manifested in a wide variety of ways in other parts of
the world or over the course of history.

It is particularly appropriate for newly emerging parties prior to their institutionalization (such as
Labour in Britain at the beginning of the twentieth century and the French Gaullists prior to
1958). Herbert Kitschelt presents the most detailed analysis of the ‘left libertarian’ variety of the
movement party. These he contrasts with ‘conventional parties’ in Western Europe, which are
principally oriented towards winning government power through elected office; have a
professional staff of party functionaries and an extensive party organization; represent economic
interest groups (labour or business); and are mainly concerned with economic distributive issues.
Instead, ‘left libertarian’ parties are quintessentially ‘post-materialist’ in their attitudinal

149
orientation and behavior. They reject the paramount status of economic issues and are
characterized by ‘a negative consensus that the predominance of markets and bureaucracies must
be rolled back in favor of social solidarity relations and participatory institutions’.

Indeed, since there is no consensus in support of a single comprehensive ideology or set of

programmatic preferences, this ‘negative consensus’ functions as the very lowest common
denominator shared by an otherwise heterogeneous clientele, and the party’s agenda revolves
around a multiplicity of issues not limited to a single arena. There are no barriers to membership
in the group, which is open to all who wish to participate, making the social base and attitudinal
orientation of activists even more diverse. The strong commitment to direct participation leads to
the weakness (even rejection) of centralized organization and leadership, and a sometimes
chaotic ‘assembly’ organizational style (as best illustrated by the water-balloon attack on Foreign
Minister Joshka Fischer at the 1999 congress of the German Greens). Organizationally, the
movement party is based on ‘loose networks of grassroots support with little formal structure,
hierarchy and central control’. Finally, the left-libertarian movement party stresses ‘constituency
representation’ over the logic of electoral competition, making it a sometimes unpragmatic and
unreliable coalition partner.

150
 Bibliography
ACE Project. (2012). aceproject.org. Retrieved January 002, 2017, from The Electoral
Knoeledge Network: http://aceproject.org/ace-en/topics/pc/pca/pca01/pca01a

Bereket, B. (2016). Civic and Ethics Studies for Higher Education in Ethiopia. Hawassa: Alpha
Printers.

Gunther & Diamond. (2003). Species of Political Parties: A New Typology. Party Politics V 9.
No. 2, 167-199.

Hazarika. (2015). Voting Behaviour in India and Its Determinants. IOSR Journal Of Humanities
And Social Science (IOSR-JHSS) Volume 20, Issue 10, Ver. IV, 22-25.

Huntington. (1991). The Third Wave: Democratization in Late Twentieth Century. 13-14.

Mapuva, J. (2010). Challenges to the Democratization Process in Africa. Journal of Sustainable

Development in Africa, 383-84.

Oni, E. (2014). The Challenges of Democratic Consolidation In Nigeria, 1999-2007.

International Journal of Politics and Good Governance, 6-7.

S.Guo, G. (2005). Transitional Modes of Democratization and Democratic Outcomes. 9-10.

Saint-Jacques, L. &. (1997). Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed
Systems. International Political Science Review Vol 18(3), 297-312.

United Nations. (1996). An Agenda for Democratization. New York: United Nations Department
of Public Information .

United Natios. (2008). Participatory Governance and the Millennium Development Goals
(MDGs). New York: United Nations Publication.

WEISSENBACH. (2010). Political Parties and Party Types - Conceptual Approaches to the
Institutionalization of Political Parties in Transitional States: The Case of the
Philippines. Makati City: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung.

Yusuf. (2003, April). Retrieved December 30, 2016, from

http://www.bing.com/search?q=democratization+in+africa%2Fpdf&src=IE-
SearchBox&FORM=IE8SRC

151