The Democratic Play

By John Mulaa

13. July 2006

Democracy has become a watchword in international debates about political progression in various parts of the world. Lack of democracy is widely viewed as the root of ills that plague some societies. In international diplomacy, democracy is advertised as an end that all societies should strive for or should be compelled to strive for in case they cannot figure out how to themselves. Which begs the question: is democracy a means or an end or both? 

Inherent in the concept of democracy is the certainty that people should be allowed to participate in making decisions about how they are governed --the ends conception of democracy-- because they have certain fundamental rights and freedoms—the means approach—and a society is democratic to the extent that these concepts reinforces each other. Another way of looking at it is in terms of freedom: freedom from a coercive state and freedom to exercise certain rights.

In practice, democracy is a whole lot more complex r than its theoretical postulates imply. Take the idea of democracy as an end. Immediate definitional difficulties arise about concepts such as “people”, “decision-making” and “governance.” Is “people” synonymous with the majority? Moreover, how can particular “wills” arising from segmented population conflate with the “general will?” On the means side, what rights supersede all others?

All societies that describe themselves as democratic have at one time or another had to grabble with these questions. They have devised answers appropriate to their situations without undermining the notion of participatory forms of government. In any event, the rights held by citizens of the systems impose limits on what the government can do or take away.

Grab any newspapers and you will become acquainted with governance related difficulties in many democratic societies: an overbearing and rights disrespecting government in the United States, a rights curtailing Big Brother government in Britain, a dysfunctional political process system in Italy, a risk averse and mob scared government in France, etc. In contrast, authoritarian societies appear deceptively orderly and more natural. It is deceptive because we know that the order and peace in these societies is the outcome of coercion and intolerance.

Given what might be termed the problems of mature democracies—mature in the sense that they have practiced the system of government much longer—it is not strange that relatively young democracies are sometimes faced with seemingly intractable challenges that at times threaten to unravel their very basis.

Kenya readily comes to mind as a country faced with innumerable but surmountable governance problems. It is evident that some notion of democracy as an end has wide and popular support in Kenya. Most Kenyans probably believe that the legitimacy of government is a function of the participatory space it allows. The question becomes how best to shape popular wishes into a functioning system without glossing over the problematic of various “wills” that make up the overall “general will.”

Because of the conflicting demands and expectations the component parts sometimes make on the system, the one insurance against the overriding of weaker or minority components lies in the second sphere of democracy—the means-- represented in the protections and rights that are guaranteed to every citizen.

The two spheres must work in tandem with and sometimes as checks against each other. For instance, because Kenya has a majoritarian representative system of government along the lines of the British first-past-the-post system, there is risk that the majority might ride roughshod over the minority. However, if minority rights and protections are strongly entrenched, the chances of this happening are few because permanent disenfranchisement is impossible. A temporary minority can work its way to a majority and would influence policy accordingly, and vice-verse.

Democracy neither is static nor is it a zero-sum game. A tolerably functioning democracy does not tolerate permanent winners or losers. Today’s losers are tomorrow’s winners. Winners can lose, albeit with a hope of turning tables at the next contest.

Viewed thus, democracy is not a war to the finish but rather a continuous play (not Kabuki!) that thrills and upsets but that can only happen if every player subscribes to the rules of the game. It takes a whole lot of practice to play the game well. Even then, it takes eternal vigilance to guard against those who would never abide by its rules and will always seek shortcuts. Democracy is a work in progress unlikely to ever to be complete.