One of the Economist’s leaders this week is entitled “Zombie democracy” and essentially discusses the concept of majoritarianism. Modern democratic governments are elected by popular suffrage and are formed on the basis of majority rule (cue the discussion on representation, majority government and coalitions). Once an election is over it is assumed that the party obtaining the majority of support will govern. Of course the essence of liberal democracy does not stop there. There are in place numerous institutional and systemic checks and balances to ensure that the government does not get too drunk with power. At least in theory this should work.
In Malta we have recently segued from a government that enjoyed a relative majority to one that enjoys a gulf of majority – at least poll wise. the first hundred days of Muscat’s government have betrayed an arrogant confidence that is cushioned by the implied thought that the massive majority cannot be wrong. Can it?
When last Thursday I voiced my agreement with what Caruana Galizia had to say on Simon Busuttil’s statement that “36,000 people cannot be wrong” I provoked quite a discussion on facebook. For the record here is the clip from Caruana Galizia’s article on the Indy:
Simon Busuttil said a few days ago at a party event that “36,000 people can’t be wrong”. Of course they can. A hundred thousand people can be wrong; a hundred million can be wrong. Rightness and wrongness do not derive from popularity of belief or opinion. To correlate whether people are right or wrong to how many people did or think the same way is a logical fallacy. Some of them already know they were wrong. They are able to see it, some even to admit it.
Do elections really give you an idea of what is wrong or right? Of who is wrong or right? Votes are won (or “bought“) for many different reasons and more often than not being right has little or nothing to do with it. A campaign such as the Taghna Lkoll campaign can act as an opiate for a large number of people and once it is combined with the accumulation of disgruntlement at the incumbent it is a sure formula for success at the polls. Alas it has little to do with that formula being a formula for success at good democratic government.
The success at the polls projected TaghnaLkoll to the dizzy heights of power and within the first hundred days we have a clear picture that the hopes of the voters were not to be matched. The latest dismal move is the dismantlement of a diplomatic set-up in order to make way for lackeys, travel consultants and comperes to be the face of Malta abroad. Also the earliest cabinet reshuffle in history was the result of Labour not having stuck to its original position (separate ministries for justice and home affairs). The musical chairs in cabinet is all about keeping friends close and enemies closer. It’s obvious. Power broking for the sake of power broking is what is going on with no place left for the national interest. Add to that the not too transparent dealings with the Chinese government and what you get is a Joseph Muscat government bulldozering over any semblance of liberal democrat checks and balances.
Here’s the Economist on how this happens:
“BUT I’ve won three elections!” Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s embattled prime minister, growls at his critics. On the face of it, his case is compelling: surely, many people in Turkey and beyond would agree, popularly elected leaders can govern as they please? That’s what democracy means. Well, no. Majoritarianism—the credo of an expanding group of elected but autocratic rulers around the world, which holds that electoral might always makes you right—is not true democracy, even if, on the face of it, the two things look alike. It is worth explaining why.
The solution is in the mind of the politicians themselves. Gonzi’s government did cause much damage to the already flawed concept of democracy that existed in the popular mindset. The clinging to the seat of power was not an educational step forward and sowed the seeds for the abuse of democracy by Muscat and the TaghnaLkoll crowd. As his government became weaker and weaker Gonzi clung to the relative majority in parliament and played the actors sufficiently to last the whole legislature. At times it takes a conscious step in the mind of leaders themselves to recognise the limits that are accorded to majoritarian power – again the Economist:
Beyond documents and institutions, the difference between crass majoritarianism and democracy resides in the heads of the mighty. Democrats have a bedrock understanding that the minority (or often majority) who did not vote for them are as much citizens of their country as those who did, and are entitled to a respectful hearing; and that a leader’s job is to deliberate and act in the national interests, not just those of his supporters.
This leader could have been written for Muscat. Instead the Economist is probably still not alerted to the goings on in the European Union’s smallest member so it uses Erdogan, Lukashenko and Hungary’s Orban as examples. The adaptation of these leaders to democracy has been simply to ensure that come election time they get that crucial bulk of votes that puts them into the driving seat for the next legislature. Practices to obtain such votes may be illegal (vote-buying, vote-rigging) or borderline legal (jobs, amnesties promised). In time we have seen how even parties in the more classical of democracies have morphed into election winning machines that have no clue how to make use of power democratically once elected. They groom the zombies to vote them into power… then stick to it with no regard for the wider community. The Economist concludes:
The basic idea of a democracy is that the voters should pick a government, which rules as it chooses until they see fit to chuck it out. But although voting is an important democratic right, it is not the only one. And winning an election does not entitle a leader to disregard all checks on his power. The majoritarian world view espoused by Mr Erdogan and leaders of his ilk is a kind of zombie democracy. It has the outward shape of the real thing, but it lacks the heart.
