Governance and Public Policy: Different Types of Democracy
By : Romal Uli Jaya SinagaStudent ID. 21025xxDifferent types of Democracy –Implication on accountabledecision making and GoodGovernanceMaster of Public PolicyFlinders University,South Australia16 May 2012
Outline of Presentation Background Representative Democracy Communitarianism Direct Democracy Deliberative Democracy Democracy and Governance ConclusionRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
Democracy Comes from the Greek language and means ‘rule by the (simple)people’. U.S. President Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865) defined democracyas: ‘Government of the people, by the people, for the people’ The former British prime minister Winston Churchill (1874-1965) : ‘No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise.Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form ofgovernment except all those other forms that have beentried from time to time’(Source : http://www.democracy-building.info/definition-democracy.html)Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public PolicyBackground
Contd..Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public PolicyDEMOCRACYKey ElementsGuaranteeBasic of HumanRightsReligiousLibertyEqual Right to Vote(One person, OneVote)Separations of Power:Executive,Legislative, JudicativeFreedom ofOpinion There are three basic models of democracy : (1) Direct Democracy, (2)Representative Democracy, (3) Marxism and One Party Democracy(Held, 1995). Pierre & Peter (2000) argued the challenges of governance by usingscenario 3 such as Communitarianism, Deliberation, and DirectDemocracy. So, the question is related to how the implications of the different faces ofdemocracy on accountable decision / policy making and good governance?Equal beforethe Law
Representative DemocracyRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy Jeremy Bentham (1843 , cited in Held 1995) : Representativedemocracy ‘has for its characteristic object and effect … securingits member against oppression and depredation at the hands ofthose fuctionaries which it employs for its defence’. James Madison (1966, cited in Held 1995) : Representative as achief mechanism to aggregate individuals’ interests and to protecttheir rights. Government as a means for the enhancement ofthese interests. Liberal or representative democracy means that ‘decisionsaffecting a community are taken not by its members as awhole, but by sub-group of ‘representatives’ who have beenelected by the ‘people’ to govern within the framework of the ruleof the law (Held, 1995). Representative democracy, based on voting (general election) in arepresentative to act on behalf of the people. This is applied bymost countries in the world including Indonesia.
STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES• Creating the key institutionalinnovation to overcome the problem ofbalancing coercive power andliberty.(Held, 1995)• Recognising the political equality of allmature individuals, ensuring a securesocial environment and a state would dowhat was best in public interest(political representatives accountable toan electrorate) (Held, 1995).• Covering the big size of nation or statearea (geographical and social spce)(Pierre & Peters, 2000, pp. 141).• Overall impact on policy influence issmall (Hyden et al, 2004). It does notpermit average citizens to exert adequateinfluence over policy decisions (Pierre &Peters, 2000, pp. 139).• Short-Term Focus : Regular electionsencourage short-term thinking by electedofficials and discourage the developmentof long-term public policy solutions toexisting problems. Further, the frequentelections (national, state,local levels) maycause voter fatigue (Hall, eHow.com)• Accountability is low, people are difficultto exercise control over representatives(Hyden et al, 2004)Representative Democracy
Representative DemocracyRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy The findings of the lowest accountability score in countries whichapplied representative democracy (such as Indonesia, India,Chile, Peru and Argentina) are associated with the difficulties ofvoters to control their representatives and general lack of trust inelected representatives (Hyden et all, 2004). Liberals and neo liberals argued that representative democracyprovides a way to enhance governance. But they do not agree onhow democracy should be organised. They debate whether liberalrepresentative democracy is adequate, because voting forpoliticians does not lead to active engagement in civil society andthe scale of large liberal democracies can be such that diversesubgroups or specific interest groups can become alienated(McIntryre, 2011) Representative model is no longer a proper approach to achievethe accountability in policy or decision making and goodgovernance.
CommunitarianismRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy The governance status quo is represented by communitarianism which emerges as politicalphilosophy and a set of more practical recommendation about how to manage publicproblems (Etzioni 1995, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000) The basic tenet of communitarianism is that large-scale society and government have outlinedmuch of their utility and they need to be replaced by smaller units of governing. The moreappropriate basis for governing is considered to be the ‘community’, although this term itselfis open to some interpretation. In this view some of the basic mechanisms of governance bypolitical means are not incorrect; the difficulty is with the scale on which those devices arebeing implemented. Large-scale decision making, it is argued, forces the same sort ofindividualism associated with economic models of policy; individuals need to have their self-interested modulated by less selfish commitments to community (Pierre & Peters 2000,pp.139). Communitarianism based on building social capital, using localized decision making. RobertPutnam (2000) defines social capital as ‘connections among individuals – social networks andthe norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that arise from them’. He emphasised thatnorms, trust, and networks could enhance the efficiency in society. Communitarism can be understood as a movement in opposition to the ‘neoliberalism ofgreed’ (Beck, 1998)
CommunitarianismRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy(Source :http://www.culturemagic.org/Images/Communitarianism.gif)
STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES• Decentralizing government as far aspossible and making smallercommunities for more aspect of publicpolicy.• Public policy making based oncommunity values. A shift fromindividualism to a more collective senseof governing.• Creating mechanism that wouldenhance participation and facilitate thedevelopment of meaning ingovernment.• Human nature is not sustainable(Assumption of people participationand investing a great deal of time andefforts in governing).• The heteregenous / multiculturalsociety and big size area of a state makeit more difficult to deliver publicpolicies accros communities.• In reality, the important problems maynot be solvable in a very small unit, dueto some external indicators such aseconomic, social, and environmental.Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)Communitarianism
Direct DemocracyRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy It is a system of decision-making about public affairs in whichcitizens are directly involved. This was the original type ofdemocracy found in ancient Athens (Held, 1995) Direct Democracy based on people voting on issues , in otherwords the people decide, rather than representatives makingdecision on their behalf Direct voting, initiatives or referendum by the people, who vote onspecific issues. For example, East Timor Referendum in 1999 (public choices ofnationality, whether still be a part of Indonesia or freedom as anew country).
STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES• It is very democratic. People decidethemselves on significant issues that willaffect them.• The people is at least as capable as theirelected representatives of makingdifficult decisions.• The high degree of accountability ofpolicy decision making.• Costly, every policies need to campaignto attract the people attention.• The emphasis tends to be a single –issuepolitics with the majority. This willignore the interest of minority people .• Limited information and discussionthat tend to characterize the campaignof the referendum.• The heteregenous / multiculturalsociety and big size area of a state makeit more difficult to deliver publicpolicies accros communities.Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy (Pierre & Peters 2000)Direct Democracy
Deliberative DemocracyRomal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy The most fundamental practice of deliberative democracy is a process of involving the public in makingdecision through open debate and dialogue (Pierre & Peters, 2000) Deliberative democracy based on public discussion on issues. According to Dryzek (1999, 2000), this enablespeople to think through ―if then ―scenarios and they are less likely to vote selfishly, because they makeconnections with other people and because they see the implications for others (McIntyre, 2011) Some critics argue that traditional, liberal representative democracy needs to be more participatory.Representatives in government are too remote from the people and that they do not necessarily reflectdiversity. The problem is compounded if we are to attempt global governance solutions across nationalboundaries as this will increase diversity and the size of the populations being represented. Others argue thatparticipatory forms of democracy can lead to some voices dominating others and that the data obtained is toocomplex to manage. Participatory democracy proponents advocate and research ways to use socio-cybernetics and informatics to manage policy networks and complex data sets, to ensure better matching ofperceptions, services and resources. (McIntyre-Mills 2006).• Stronger emphasis on the immediate reform of decision making institution – as the answer of the weakness ofrepresentative democracy. Greater public involvement in policy making is essential to enhance democracy.This contributes to create more numerous opportunities for the public to discuss issues and develop morecomplete understanding (“wicked” problems).The lower level of government (local level) is the locus fordeveloping ‘genuine’ deliberative democracy (Pierre & Peters 2000)
STRENGHTS WEAKNESSES• Creating more numerous opportunitiesfor the public to discuss issues anddevelop more complete understanding• Deliberative democracy is associatedwith participation and constructdiscussion among the people (expertsand ordinary people with experiences,considering the interest of the life ofthis generation and the next, with social,economic, and environmentalaccountability.• More selective of participants. This willprevent the full range of opinion frombeing heard and tends to biasoutcomes.• The ideal deliberative process is difficultto achieve in a real world. It requiresmuch time and other resources• The more heterogenous communitymakes it more difficult to effectivedialogue• How final decision can be reached indeliberative process if there is noconsensus.Deliberative Democracy(McIntyre-Mills &de Vries, 2011 ; Pierre & Peters 2000)
Governance Framework – Six Indicators per Arena based on Principles(adapted from Hyden et al, 2004, p.188)Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public PolicyEconomicSociety /MarketStateCivilSociety1. Participation : Freedom of Association2. Fairness : Society free from Discrimination3. Decency : Freedom of Expression4. Accountability : Respect for Governing Rules5. Transparency : Freedom of the Media6. Efficiency : Input in Policy Making2. Fairness : Adequate Standard of Living for Citizen3. Decency : Personal Security of Citizens4. Accountability : Accountable for their actions5. Transparency : Provides Accurate Information6. Efficiency : Best use of available Resources1. Participation : Intragovernmental Consultation1. Participation : Consultation withPrivate Sector2. Fairness : Equal Regulationsapplied to all Firms3. Decency : Respects Property Rights4. Accountability : Regulating PublicSector in public interest5. Transparency : FormulatingEconomic Policy6. Efficiency : Free from Corruption
Democracy & Governance Governance and democracy have to deal with three optionspertaining to truth (McIntyre-Mills, 2006): a) One truth (monist)responses defended by grand narratives or conflict, b) No truth(postmodernist) approached defended by relativism, c) Mediated(harmonized) responses based on stewardship. Democracy is currently increasingly criticized for notrepresenting the interests of citizens (Institute of Governance2005) or not taking into account the social justice andenvironmental concerns that span national boundaries(McIntyre-Mills et al 2006) Systemic approach to governance and democracy should ensurethe engagement of the people in decision making process withrespectful and transparent manner (McIntyre Mills & de Vries,2011, pp. 65)Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
Conclusion Governance provides a broader and more diversified approach than democracy does.Civil society appears to be the potential engine for improvement in governance(Hyden et al, 2004). Different types of democracy results on different result of policy makingaccountability and good governance. Deliberative democracy tends to be the bestapproach because it is associated with participation and discussion of the people(experts and ordinary people with experiences, considering the interest of the life ofthis generation and the next, with social, economic, and environmentalaccountability. Good governance lays the foundation for a liberal form of democracy. This is aprerequisite for progress toward democracy and a sustainable form of development(Hyden et al, 2004) Democratic governance : To govern appropriately, a democratic political system mustbe capable of linking the demands and wishes of the citizens directly to policies(Rose 1976, cited in Pierre & Peters 2000)Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy
References Beck, U 1998, Democracy without Enemies, Polity Press, Blackwell Publishers, Oxford, UK. Fung, A & Wright, EO 2001, ‘Deepening Democracy: Innovations in Empowered ParticipatoryGovernance’, Politics & Society, vol. 29, no. 1, March 2001, pp. 5-41 Held, D 1995, Democracy and the Global Order: From the Modern State to CosmopolitanGovernance, Polity Press, Blackwell Publisher, UK. Hyden, G, Court, J & Mease, K 2004, Making Sense of Governance: Empirical Evidence from 16Developing Countries. Boulder, Colorado, Covent Garden, London. McIntyre-Mills, J & de Vries, D 2011, Identity, Democracy and Sustainability: Facing up toConvergent Social, Economic, and Environmental Challenges, Emergence Publications, USA. McIntyre-Mills, J 2006, Systemic Governance and Accountability. Working and Re-Working theConceptual and Spatial Boundaries, Springer, New York. McIntyre-Mills, J. 2003. Critical Systemic Praxis for Social and Environmental Justice:Participatory Policy Design for a Global Age. Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publisher, SpringStreet, New York. Pierre, J & Peters, BG, 2000, Governance, Politics and the State, Macmillan, Chpt 7. Scenario 3:Communitarianism, Deliberation, Direct Democracy and Governane, pp. 137-159 Putnam, RD 2000, Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Simon &Schuster, New York, 2000.Romal Uli Jaya Sinaga/Governance and Public Policy