| Login |
This one-time registration is for participation in this blog.It
also enables you free access to all newnations.com reports and to receive newsletters.
If you are already registered with newnations all you now need to do is log-in.
Click Here to login/register
|
|
|
|
|
| Mission |
We tell
the world about the world
Our mission is to further the promotion of liberal democracy and the safeguarding
of the environment by the actions of accountable governments. To advance this
cause we report, without fear or favour, the affairs of nations that are in
transition, their politics, economics, business, finance and human rights -
and we tell it how it is, consistently, calmly, and objectively.
 |
|
|
Other Topics: Essentials of democracy |
Posted on Saturday, January 12, 2008 - 08:21 AM
|
|
|
TOPIC: "ESSENTIALS OF DEMOCRACY"
In the current edition of www.WorldAudit.org our
Publishers Overview makes the following observations:
ESSENTIALS OF DEMOCRACY
We find the term democracy being consistently misused by people who should know
better, particularly in the current middle-eastern context, as merely the opportunity
to register a vote.
Without the depth of the other key democratic criteria, that just makes no
sense. What kind of choice is possible for a democratic citizen, when the only
available decision is between a repressive military government and a religious
party seeking to turn the clock back to the seventh century. (Egypt and Algeria
were recent examples of such a stark choice, Iran's version is that all candidates
have to be approved by the religious authority, (just as in the USSR all candidates
had to be communists). Iraqi elections, with the addition of an ethnicity (Kurds),
became effectively a census between Shia and Sunni Moslems, with secular parties
nowhere.
The essentials to create a platform for democratic choice are: Justice for
all: uncontaminated by special interests, clan loyalties or bribes; with judges
at all levels independent of the nation's executive arm.
Freedom of Speech: as exemplified by media activities - and we would still
value the Sharansky test (of Condaleezza Rice).
Human Rights: expressed by the absence of arbitrary arrest and confinement;
the superiority of due process, the illegality of torture and to avoid semantic
hair-splitting, similar "maltreatment".
Public Corruption: most nations have laws against corruption but only in genuine
democracies are these enforced against the bigger players - and not always then,
as shown by the recent British example of arms sales to Saudi Arabia, which
had an investigation of big-time corruption arbitrarily shut down by UK government
fiat.
The Political Right to Vote is only meaningful in transparently honest elections,
with genuine voter choice of parties and people. The stakes are obviously very
high in national elections and at any level 'power undoubtedly corrupts', but
the more developed democracies have an even higher duty to make certain that
elections are fair, and honestly reflect the will of the people who have recorded
their vote. We observe that the most mature democracies ensure that the administration
of the electoral process is out of the control of party political officers.
The 1999 US presidential elections in Florida in particular failed to meet
these specifications, being under the ultimate control of a politically partisan
governor, the brother no less, of one of the two main presidential candidates.
Since the outcome of the whole 2000-2004 US national election pivoted on this
one state's result, it is not surprising that there was widespread concern at
the scandalous way in which the electoral administrative procedures seemed to
be grotesquely distorted in favour of the State Governor's brother, who indeed
won by this process. When challenged at the level of the US Supreme Court, the
politically appointed highest Justices in the land, 'voted the party-line,'
and supported the candidate of the party that had nominated them. This whole
sequence of events inevitably shocked America's friends and admirers, and sadly
brought the US electoral, and inevitably its independent justice process, into
disrepute.
We assert that the term democracy is abused and improperly used, unless obligatory
high standards are at least the objectives genuinely striven for, and that nations
so described can be seen to make a clear effort to achieve these interlocking
institutions of democracy.
It can be summed up by the ultimate test of genuine accountability - the unrestrained
ability if needs be, for the citizens of any country "to throw the rascals
out."
|
|
|
|
|
Comments
The flexible use of the term 'democracy' is well illustrated but, as has often been said, words mean what we wish them to mean, and even if we agree the criteria of democracy, few would agree which would take priority. For example, freedom of speech might be regarded as more important than justice for all. We might get indignant over arbitrary arrest but shrug our shoulders resignedly as we hear of yet another instance of public corruption.
Whatever the 'essentials' of democracy may be, the topic rightly illustrates that they are under constant threat. The current UK government's assault on legal aid will deny justice to many of limited means. The temptations to use the 'terrorist threat' or fear of immigration as reasons for arbitrary arrest and confinement are ever present. Scandals over the funding of political parties and 'cash for honours' undermine the democratic process. Perhaps we in the UK should be more hesitant in enjoining democracy on others when our own is so defective.
The UK would perhaps be better employed lecturing others on the case for feudalism, saddled as it is by an heriditary monarchy and an unelected House of Lords. Cris
Only logged in users are allowed to comment. register/log in