The Assessment Framework - Section-by-Section Guide
For guidance, here is a section-by-section guide to some basic principles and issues to be considered while assessing democracy and freedom in any given country:
|
1. Nationhood and citizenship
Democracy as rule of the people pre-supposes agreement on who constitutes "the people". Such agreement must necessarily distinguish between those who enjoy the rights of citizenship and aliens. For the most part this distinction is made on the basis of the borders of the state in which people live and agreement on those borders.
The basic decisions on citizenship, then, necessarily have an externally exclusive dimension. At the same time, democratic principles require that citizenship should be internally inclusive. That is, there should be mutual respect between the different communities or identities that make up the nation; and all citizens must enjoy effective equal rights under the law. How a country manages the potential tensions between the requirements of equal citizenship and the distinctiveness of its different communities, and between internal inclusiveness and external exclusivity, is an important indicator of the quality of its democracy. This is especially so in its immigration procedures, rules governing asylum and the processes for acquiring citizenship - all of which are issues of intense public debate in the UK and western Europe as a whole. Also of democratic significance are a country's procedures for resolving disagreement about the state borders and its constitutional arrangements, and how inclusive these are.
Back to top |
2. The rule of law and access to justice
The idea of the rule of law is a long-standing one, predating the advent of democracy. It expresses the powerful idea that law, not the arbitrary will of particular people, whether in government or not, should rule society. The idea comprises the following distinct elements:
- no one should be above the law, whatever their position or social standing, and everyone should be equal before it;
- all public officials should be subject to the law, and act within the terms of legally prescribed duties, powers and procedures;
- parliamentary law-making should itself conform to constitutionally defined procedures and limits;
- the judiciary should be institutionally and personally independent of both the executive and legislature, so that it can interpret and enforce the law without fear or favour;
- all law should be certain, and its provisions and penalties known in advance;
- no one should be punished without a specific charge and a fair hearing before a duly-constituted court.
These ideas form the cornerstone of democratic government. However, citizens in a contemporary democracy also expect more from the "rule of law" than this traditional understanding implies: for example, that parliamentary legislation should uphold the rights fundamental to democratic citizenship; that the police should enforce the law effectively and fairly; that no one should be denied the protection due them under the civil or criminal law because they cannot afford the cost, or because of gross delays in the administration of justice.
Back to top |
3. Civil and Political Rights
Democracy cannot work without effective civil and political rights. Citizens must be able to join together in associations and to meet freely to discuss their aspirations and needs, their concerns and possible remedies. They must be able to express their views freely. They must have access to uncontaminated information from government and a variety of independent sources. Open government and free media are essential underpinnings of these rights.
Moreover, citizens must be equal in their enjoyment of such rights, whatever their gender, race, religion, ethnic origin, sexual orientation or economic or other status. Minorities of all kinds must feel secure in their freedom to use their own language and practise their own religion and culture. Otherwise there can be no political equality to ensure that the needs and views of all sections of society are given voice and taken into account.
Above all, all citizens must be free from intimidation and violence, and the fear and threat of violence. Physical security of the person is the basis for the exercise of all other rights.
Back to top |
4. Economic and social rights
Economic and social rights are relevant to an audit of democracy for a number of reasons. Most people assess the value of democratic government by its ability to secure their material as well as physical security. Then the democratic principle of equal citizenship requires that no one should be allowed to fall below a minimum acceptable level of economic and social existence. Without the personal and economic empowerment brought by access to health, education and economic security, many civil and political rights cannot be effectively exercised - the right to vote, to access the law, to enjoy personal and political freedoms, even to know and understand one's rights to begin with. Economic and social exclusion is not only personally damaging to those directly affected, but has indirect consequences which affect the quality of public life for all, through the wider insecurity that accompanies increased levels of crime, the loss of social solidarity, and the spread of social resentment that provides a fertile breeding ground for exclusionary political movements.
Back to top |
5. Free and fair elections
Free, fair and regular elections stand at the very heart of representative democracy. They are the chief means by which the principles of popular control and political equality may be realised. It is through the ability of citizens, at regular elections, to retain or dismiss their elected representatives and the political parties - or government - that they stand for, that the principle of popular control is made flesh.
Political equality demands that every vote should be of equal value. At its simplest, every elector's vote should count for one, and none for more than one. It is possible to measure how far an electoral system deviates from this goal, known as the Deviation from Proportionality index. It is also important that electors should have a range of choice at elections which broadly reflects the most significant political preferences and needs of the whole electorate - and that the choices electors make are effective.
There are three ways in which a legislature could be made representative of the electorate:
- according to each party's share of the votes cast;
- according to geographical distribution; and
- according to social characteristics.
The three modes are all important. The first, because elections nowadays are primarily about choosing a party or parties to form a government. The second because voters should not be disadvantaged and unrepresented because they live, say, in the country rather than in a town, or the north rather than the south. The third because a popular chamber biased towards one social group, or groups, or gender, will be limited in experience and focus and more likely to lose trust or legitimacy.
Back to top |
6. Democratic role of political parties
Political parties are among the most unpopular institutions in public life, and their memberships are generally in secular decline. Yet, if parties did not exist, we should be compelled to reinvent them. In a large society people can exercise little public influence as individuals, but can do so in association with others. Political parties bring together those who share broadly similar views and interests to campaign for political office and influence. In doing so they perform a number of functions that are essential to a representative democracy. For the electorate they help simplify the electoral choice by offering broad policy positions and programmes between which to choose; they also make clear who is accountable in the event of policy failure. For governments they provide a reasonably stable following of political supporters in Parliament to enable them to achieve their programmes once elected. For the more politically active, they provide an opportunity for involvement in public affairs, a means of political education and a channel for influencing public policy.
There is, however, a reverse side of the coin to their positive features. Simplifying electoral choice can readily lead to a loss of genuine pluralism as significant voices are marginalised and new parties find it hard to gain a foothold. This loss of pluralism may be exacerbated if election costs are high, and parties are tempted to subordinate themselves to the special interests of wealthy donors. The reverse side of a predictable parliamentary following is that party loyalty comes to take precedence over independence of view, even when a government's policy is widely recognised as misconceived.
Back to top |
7. Government accountability and effectiveness
Two goals - accountability and effectiveness - represent the two sides of democratic government; which is why we consider them together. A government must be organised and resourced to carry out (or at least begin to do so) the pledges in the election manifesto of the party or parties which form it, as well as to act generally in the public interest. It is equally important that a government should be accountable; and accountable between elections as well as at them. Accountability is vital to satisfying the basic democratic principle of popular control. It means that government, ministers and state officials are bound to "render account", either directly or indirectly, to citizens and the media, their representatives and "watch-dog" bodies or officials (such as a national audit office or information commissioner) about their conduct and performance. Citizens are then in a position to judge not only how well government has performed, but also its honesty and other qualities. Making government accountable is also vital to making government effective. Policies and decisions are all the better for being made transparent and subject to checks and balances, through a legislature, public audit, the media, interest groups, and the like.
Back to top |
8. Civilian control of the military and police
The first duties of the state are to defend the realm against foreign aggression and other external dangers, and to maintain law and order within its boundaries, so that citizens are protected as far as possible against physical dangers and criminal activities. A state must usually maintain armed forces to deter potential enemies and organised terrorism from abroad; security and intelligence agencies to keep watch over and counter potential aggressors, terrorists, criminals and other threats, from outside and within its territories; and police forces to maintain order and investigate crimes. The coercive forces and agencies are vital to the well-being of the country and its inhabitants. But it is equally vital to democracy that they should be kept under strict civil control and surveillance to ensure that:
- they do not take charge of the state, as military and police do either openly or covertly in many states;
- they are kept under democratic scrutiny; and
- the police are open and accountable to their local communities.
The coercive forces must be as representative as possible of all sections of society:
- to ensure that they bed well down into society and are capable of understanding the differing needs and customs of its differing sections
- to prevent any one section of society from dominating the force in question and thus possibly the nation or locality.
Back to top
|
9. Minimising corruption
Corruption defined as the abuse of public office for private, corporate or personal gain, whether of the office holder or his or her personal associates, is particularly damaging to a democracy. It undermines the relationship of trust between the people and their elected government. The purpose of democratic government is to serve the public interest, not the private or business interests of office holders, and confidence in government can be quickly eroded if the suspicion gets hold that public officials are using their official position, paid for by the taxpayers, to further their own financial interests.
However, the precise boundaries of what counts as "corruption" are difficult to define with certainty. It tends to cover a range of usually financial misdemeanors: the covert pursuit of corporate interests in government decision-making; the acceptance of bribes; irregular party funding; nepotism in various forms; financial conflicts of interest; privileged access to ministers or officials; and general misconduct in office. More widely, some commentators argue that the subversion or evasion of constitutional principle or practice, or democratic conduct, ranks also as corruption.
Back to top |
10. The media in a democratic society
Television, radio, newspapers and magazines - the main means by which citizens are informed about the issues of the day - seek to satisfy the liberal "fourth estate" view of their social responsibilities and their democratic role to greatly varying degrees.
But at their most basic, these liberal arguments can be collapsed into three fundamental roles for the mass media:
- They act as purveyors of information which citizens need in order to make informed judgements about their political leaders and to participate effectively in the proper functioning of a democracy;
- They provide a public sphere in which citizens can come together, debate and discuss issues of importance to the country, and relay their views to elected representatives; and
- They provide a critical check on governments and the political classes to inhibit the abuse of political power and ensure that decisions and decision-making machinery is open to critical public scrutiny.
The ability of the media to fulfil these roles is often eroded by a variety of political and commercial pressures and the position in any given state requires sensitive analysis. In each of these roles, the mass media have a potentially vital contribution to make; but too often overmighty government, powerful media moguls or major corporations intervene and misuse their influence for political or commercial ends, or both, and damage the quality of democratic debate and civic and cultural life in a country. Licensing and regulatory regimes can exert partisan pressures and censorship or seek to achieve the first two political roles, described above, in an impartial and balanced way.
Back to top |
11. Political participation
We use a broad definition of "political participation", which equates it more with the "public" than simply with "governmental". Thus, participation in a trade union, tenants' association or a community organisation counts as well as more narrowly political activities such as voting, involvement in a political party or lobbying an MP or councillor. The reason for broadening the concept is that a country's democracy lies as much in the vitality of its citizens' self-organisation in all aspects of their collective life - what has come to be called civil society - as well as their formal relation to government. Civil society is both an important arena within which citizens are empowered in the management of their own affairs, and a key agency for making government accountable and responsive.
As to what counts as "participation", some people require that it be independent of government or official activity, and usually unpaid. The point of this stipulation lies in the difference from a democratic point of view between a citizen body that is prepared to take responsibility for its own affairs and to act independently in the public interest, and one which is rewarded or dragooned into involvement in public works or party membership (or mass demonstrations of loyalty). We take the view that a definition of "participation" which excludes paid offices altogether or duties such as, in many nations, jury service in the courts, would be unduly narrow. So we prefer a broad definition, such as: taking part in a not-for-profit activity or group with the potential for affecting public policy, public service delivery, the conditions of community life, or related public opinion.
But is participation always positive for democracy? Obviously, without citizen participation no democracy is possible. Yet this does not make every example of political participation democratic. There is the pseudo-participation of authorities that go through the motions of consultation without any intention of taking notice of the results; there is participation which involves violence or a threat to the basic rights of citizenship of others; there is the dragooned participation of authoritarian regimes, raised in passing above; there is the participation of preferential access for influential or corporate interests, or undue openness to busy-body groups or sectional protest, that forms a threat to the authority and competence of elected representatives.
However, continuous citizen participation can ensure that representative government works more democratically: through government being made aware of citizen views and having to be responsive to them; through the testing of a policy against independent sources of information and expertise from outside government; through citizen involvement in the implementation of policy; though the existence of an alert and informed citizen body as a check on government excess. In all these ways citizen participation can contribute to making government more democratic in the long periods between elections.
Thus an active associational life with wide citizen participation helps meet the democratic criterion of popular control. The potential danger is that it may breach the second democratic principle of political equality. Much citizen participation is open to the criticism that, whether individually or collectively, it is unrepresentative of the relevant populations, and tends to favour those already advantaged and articulate. Even where groups are representative, their success in influencing an elected government may involve the triumph of a sectional interest over the wider public interest that governments supposedly represent. Such considerations should serve to temper an uncritical enthusiasm for public participation, regardless of context. But they do not alter the main point that active citizenship and a vigorous civil society are necessary components of democratic life, and help make government work in a more democratic way.
Back to top |
12. Government responsiveness
Responsiveness to the public is a key virtue of democratic government. It differs from accountability, with which it is often confused. Accountability is typically exercised through a process of critical review of performance, whether ongoing or at regular intervals during tenure of office. The ultimate accountability of governments in a democracy is to the people at election times, when they pass judgment on a government's record overall.
Accountability is thus exercised after the event. On the other hand, responsiveness requires governments to listen to the views of relevant publics before policy or legislation is decided, so that as far as possible it takes into account all significant interests that will be affected. This requires systematic and legally-grounded procedures for consultation, as well as more informal mechanisms for ensuring that elected representatives stay in touch with their publics.
In this matter of responsiveness, opposite dangers are evident. On the one hand, governments may give so much attention to special interests that they lose sight of a wider public interest which they are charged with promoting. On the other, the channels of public influence on government may become so constricted that people come to feel powerless, and lose confidence in the democratic process. How these different imperatives are managed needs to be examined.
Back to top |
13. Decentralisation
The territorial dimension of politics is one where our democratic principles of popular control and political equality stand in some tension with one another. From one point of view, regional and local government have many democratic advantages over centralised control: they are closer and more accessible to the people, and can shape policies appropriate to regional and local variations in conditions and political identities. At the same time, differences in policy and priorities between localities can produce unacceptable inequalities in services, which in turn generate demands for more uniformity and central control. Central governments are adept at using these pressures in their own interest to manage the economy, limit the powers and resources of alternative sources of power at regional and local level, and especially to frustrate the policies of political opponents at sub-central level.
In practice, democracies have to find an effective balance between equal citizenship throughout their territory and the demands of distinctive regional and local autonomy. The centre has to act to secure and advance the well-being of the whole people and to make sure that no parts of the territory are disadvantaged by an unequal distribution of resources between them. At the same time, the centre must allow devolved institutions sufficient autonomy in the exercise of their powers and in the use of resources to meet the needs and aspirations of their separate populations.
Back to top |
14. Democracy beyond the state
If the core idea of democracy is that of self-government, of control by the people of the decisions that affect their collective lives, then a democratic audit cannot ignore the ways in which those decisions may be determined by institutions or forces external to the state. A country might have the most perfect democracy internally, but enjoy little real self-government if most of the decisions that matter for the life of its citizens are taken beyond its borders. Such a situation has been called the "hollowing out" of democracy. At the same time the quality of a country's democratic life is also to be gauged by how it treats other countries and their citizens, by whether it observes the international rule of law, and by how far its policies are supportive of democracy abroad. Thus, it is necessary to consider first how far, if at all, a country's policy is determined from outside in ways that are beyond its control; the nature of its power and influence in international bodies; its respect for international treaties and international law; its treatment of asylum seekers; and the consistency of its support for human rights and democracy abroad.
|
|
|
|
