Democracy but which one?

Yuba Nath Lamsal

Democracy has become a global lingua franca in the present 21^st century. The democratic upsurge has swept all over the world either forcing the dictators of various kinds to bow down before the power of people or has simply toppled the regime and replaced it with the government of people’s representatives. Many countries in the world have now democratic dispensations, while in some countries this process is intensifying. But there is one stark reality the world has witnessed at present that is despite such a marvelous global popular upsurge in the march for democracy, the genuine democratization process has yet to take place in many of the countries in the developing world.

The people in various countries have overthrown the authoritarian regimes and installed a new one that claim to be democratic and vow to work for the greater interest of the people. Democracy is still in fragile state in the newly emerged democracies especially in the developing countries. The democratic institutions are so weak and the parties and persons in power are hardly interested to institutionalize and strengthen democracy, democratization process and democratic institutions.

Once gone to power, one often tries to remain power for ever and personalize politics. As a result, institutional development takes a back seat even when the so-called democratic system is in place. The problem begins with the fear of losing power because once in power no one wants to be out of power. To remain in power, the party and person resort to all kinds of tactics and method to retain power. This is the real culprit that has hindered the process of democratization and institutionalization of democracy in the world.

The other issue is the definition of democracy. The western countries often tend to have the authority to certify whether or not a particular political system is democracy. The western capitalist countries recognize only the political system and regimes that follow the capitalist model of liberal democracy. Any other political model that does not reconcile with the values and principles of western capitalist system is dubbed as authoritarian and undemocratic system. So this ideological divide has also cost heavily on democracy and political systems in the world.

As the world is diverse with different countries having their own unique history, culture, traditions and value systems, they also have different perception on political model and governance. They have their homegrown and time-tested system that is more suitable to their country. In these countries, imposition of alien system and values in the name of democracy has often boomeranged.

In fact democracy is collective self-rule which implies that people oversee their affairs on the basis of collective consent. This is more possible in direct democracy which used to be practiced in ancient Athens. During the early days of democracy, Athenians would gather in the city center where they would collectively take decision on each and every issue of national significance. These decisions used to be binding for authorities and they had to implement without any question. In this self-functioning type of system or democracy, each electorate directly participated in the decision-making process and governance. This was called a direct democracy, which is the mother of democracy in the world.
With the march of time, the social fabric, demographic pattern and society itself underwent phenomenal change and transformation. With the demographic pressure, social structure and relations got complicated. The old systems that had been in practice for years, decades and centuries were replaced by the new and improvised ones to cope with the new changes in the social, political and cultural spheres and challenges as direct democracy is not possible in the present complicated world. This was later replaced by representative democracy in which people would choose their representatives through periodic election and the elected representatives would rule and decide on behalf of the people. This is the democracy we are practicing in the world at present.

The liberal democracy is being portrayed as the only legitimate political system of the people. The system of governance or liberal democracy was born and nurtured in the Western capitalist countries and was later put in test in other countries of the world, as well. Since it is their brain child, the Western countries champion, advocate and defend liberal democracy and try to establish and institutionalize it in the world as the best democratic system of governance. To them, any other form of political system challenging liberal democracy is tantamount to authoritarian system devoid of popular legitimacy. However, all other forms of system are not authoritarian and all political system based on Western political values alone may not necessarily signify genuine democracy.
Given the great debate going on in the global level, it seems that the dispute is focused not on the form and fashion of the political system but on values it champions. It is the clash between two value systems— the oriental and western values. In other words, the row is between individualism and collectivism and between the person and the community or society. The countries in the Western World are the advocate of individual rights and they have based quality and class of democracy on the level and extent of individual rights and freedom. However, the oriental countries focus more on community rights and interests than personal pursuit. This is the fundamental difference on the model and definition of democracy in the world.
On the definition as well as priority of rights, too, there is a marked difference. Western and Eastern societies are far apart on what should be the priorities of individual rights. Should the civil and political rights or right to life be the priority for an individual and government? The Eastern and the Western worlds are divided on this issue. The Western countries are of the view that individual freedom and rights make one free and ensure freedom and democracy. However, in the definition of Eastern countries, right to life, which includes access to and availability of food, housing, and clothes, are more important for individuals than the civil and political rights. One has first to remain alive and grow healthy to enjoy other rights including the civil and political rights. In the absence of right to life, other rights become meaningless. This is what the socialist and communist countries and people also tend to believe. This divisive definition on democracy has led accusation and counter accusation between the supporters of Western liberal democracy and socialist/communist followers. The advocates of liberal democracy call the communists and socialist as tyrants because they deny civil and political rights in the name of guaranteeing right to life or economic and social rights. However, the socialists and communists deny the charges and instead dub the Western democracies as the mockery of democracy. They call the Western liberal democracy an exploitative system under which a handful of elites rule over the large majority of the people under the façade of democracy because the majority of people are deprived of basic necessities.
Both the views and thoughts have their own logics, which may or may not be true in real sense. But what is true is that an individual first needs to survive, grow and develop to enjoy other rights. An individual would be able to enjoy his or her democratic rights only when he or she is alive. In this sense, the right to life should be the paramount concern for every individual. The conditions that ensure one’s survival includes food, housing and cloths, which are the most fundamental human rights of every individual. Once the basic necessities for survival are guaranteed, one needs the right to access to health care facilities and education for his or her growth and development. These rights are required to be guaranteed in order to enable a person to exercise and enjoy one’s own freedom and civil and political rights. In contrast, however, those who champion individual freedom and rights are of the view that one is born free and must remain free irrespective of his or her economic background. According to them, freedom is an essence of humanity and one can prosper and progress only when one enjoys his or her free status and right. This debate has given rise to a struggle between the two different sets of ideologies which can be categorized into two groups: pro-right group and pro-life camp. Capitalists are pro-rights and socialists or communists are generally known as pro-life groups.