Democracy is a form of government where the people rule, in contrast to monarchies and aristocracies. It entails a political community where there is a form of political equality among the people.
Its etymology came from the Greek demokratia. Its root words are demos (people) and kratos (rule). Hence, its literal meaning is rule of the people. Democracy is categorized by certain fundamental principles, and by a group of institutions and practices through which these principles are realized.
The essential principles of democracy are that the multitude has a right to a compelling influence over decisions of public matter, and that the people must be treated with equal respect and as of equal value in the context of such decisions. Certainly, these are the principles popularly known as “popular control” and “political equality. ” Democracy is based on the principle of equality. All citizens are presupposed, regardless of social status, rank, and other determining factors, as equals. This presumption though does not deny that there exist natural differences among individuals.Some might be smarter; other may possess more knowledge gained from experience.
But still, when time comes that a decision is about to be made, such as on an election, these differences are set aside and all are presumed to be of equal ranks. However, this explanation on equality makes room for contention on how citizens are deemed to be equal and at the same time, the political system concedes that they are unequal. Political scholars had made a distinction on the dichotomy of equality to wit: equality of condition and equality of opportunity.Equality of condition assumes that people ought to live in a manner wherein their differences are minimized. On the other hand, equality of opportunity assumes that all human beings are bestowed with an essential dignity, derived from the qualities possessed by each person.
Despite the theoretical differences on equality, these two are interrelated when applied in practice. Taking for instance the inequality of condition resulting from poverty, this may lead to limited access to education and healthcare hence, an inequality in opportunity. Simply taken, democracy assumes that each and every citizen has equal rights.It is logical to assume then that the right of citizens to participate in making decisions that would affect their lives, on the basis of being equal with others, is the starting point of democracy. Each individual possess rights.
These rights are not enforceable without liberty. The constitution guarantees the rights of an individual under the equal protection of the law and due process. Thus, the concept of democracy cannot be taken separately from fundamental human rights and freedoms, and from the responsibility of respecting these rights and freedoms for others.The core concepts of democracy i. e.
the principles of popular control and political equality need the guarantee of fundamental human rights in order to be realized. In this light, they need further strengthening in order to achieve their full effectiveness. Institutions safeguard political freedom. Suffice it to say, the laws that limit our freedom are the very same laws that guarantee its protection.
Institutions vary in nature. It can either be legal, political, economic, etc. Democratic political institutions are designed to guarantee the popular authorization of public officials, and their accountability and responsiveness to their citizens.Popular authorization can be achieved through habitual competitive elections. In this manner, people elect who will represent them in government. The belief in popular and regular frequent election was not supported by the Americans early on.
They prefer to call their system of government as republican rather than democratic. However, it had gained popular support in the 1860s. Popular sovereignty was reflected in President Abraham Lincoln’s famous definition of democracy as “government of the people, by the people, for the people. ”Elections are considered to be the defining institutions of modern-day democracy.
Elections make democracy possible in states where an actual and direct rule of assembly of all citizens is inherently impossible. In spite of the noble goal of elections to give representation to the majority in government offices, some ridicule it as a device for elites to take control of the population rather than the other way around. Some political theorists opined that democracy is all about the conduct of elections and selection of political leaders.In a seemingly revised form, liberal democracy is construed as a “political system characterized by regular and free elections in which politicians organized into parties compete to form the government, by right of virtually all adult citizens to vote and by guarantee of a range of familiar political and civil rights. ” In essence, the essential elements of a liberal democracy are the political involvement of the citizenry, struggle for office among various political agents and parties, and the giving way of a host of liberties, which are sufficient to ensure the integrity of political involvement and participation.
There are two basic types of democratic government. In the first, confidence of the legislature is needed for the government to exist. In the second type, a head serves in a fixed term and is independent from the legislative. In the first type, the parliamentary system, a legislative majority may remove the government from office through a vote of no confidence or by rejecting a vote of confidence commenced by the government. In the second type, the presidential system, no similar mechanism for removal of office is available.
A president is set to serve for a fix term.The presidential system has a strong chief executive with broad powers relating to both domestic and international policies. The president is independent from the legislature by virtue of its election by the people to whom the president is directly accountable for. Moreover, the constitution grants strong powers to the chief executive in a presidential system. In a presidential power, power is distributed among three coequal branches, namely executive, legislative and the judiciary.
The president and the legislature of the state are voted separately.Also, the president does not possess any power to abolish the legislative body. When it comes to the manner of election, the president is voted directly by the people hence, his accountability resides in the people. One striking characteristic of the presidential system is that it allows checks and balances. This act prevents one single branch of the government from dominating the government. For instance, the president can veto legislative acts done by the legislative body.
On the other hand, the legislature can override a presidential veto by a majority-vote of two-thirds of the members of each house.Lastly, the judiciary can use its power of judicial review on cases brought to them to make sure that the two other branches of the government did not exceed their jurisdictions and that their acts conform to the constitution. The parliamentary form of government is one of the most common types of government in Europe. In this system, the head of the government is called prime minister. People elect delegates to the national legislature and then the national legislature chooses from its ranks the prime minister. So, unlike the president, the prime minister is not directly voted by the people.
The prime minister’s accountability then is to the legislature, who selected him. Also, the legislature has the capabilities of ousting a prime minister. There has existed a dispute over the contemporary meaning of democracy, and this has led to a variety of democratic models: from visions of a technocratic government to social conceptions marked by deliberate political participation. The idea of democracy holds much importance as it does not only represent one value among many, such as liberty, equality, or justice, but it is the variable that would link and intercede among competing concerns.Democracy does not presume agreement on various values; rather, it entails a way of relating these values to each other and offer resolution to conflicting ideas. Democracy as a form of government had achieved global popularity.
Needless to say, it has been the model type of political system among nations across the globe. It is quite noticeable that many states claim to be democratic, or at least in its form of government. The problem arises when we proceed with the social constructs of democracy and not merely dwell on the technical definition of democracy.A rule of the people as evidenced through an election is not tantamount to democracy.
It was shown earlier in this paper the complexities of the social construction of democracy; that democracy transcends mere election. There should be a variable that would qualify what rule of the people is. The next part of this paper will tackle about the fitness of Brazil as a democratic state. Various facets of the Brazilian government will be scrutinized in the aim to determine whether or not it has lived up to the principles of democracy.Brazil became a democracy upon the accession of Jose Sarney to presidency on March 15, 1985, ending twenty-one years of military regime. Thenceforth, the country has embarked on a new stage of experimenting with democracy.
Brazil has evolved through times, illustrating both the ambiguities and opportunities of democratization. Although the military powers have not suppressed the formal democratic processes at the very least, the military have stripped out the processes of their democratic contents. Even during the military times, scholars saw emerging trends supporting democracy.On the frontline of such democratization process was the Partido do Movimento Democratico Brasileiro (PMDB).
This party had shown strong social democratic credentials. Perhaps, it can be said that the election of a president in 1985 is evidential of the birth of a new democratic system. However, some issues are worth pointing off. There was widespread poverty, coupled with erratic distribution of income.
Capping poverty are the unprecedented economic crisis of the 1980s, which include large foreign debts, inflation hikes, inconsistent growth, and diminishing real incomes.More than twenty years had passed since Brazil had steered into the path of democracy. Today is a time worth revisiting the democratic institutions established in Latin America’s largest nation. Whether or not the democratic principles sought upon the the conception of democracy in this country should be answered. An institutional approach is a good yardstick to gauge the performance of the institutions that would serve as guards to the noble concept of democracy.
For the purpose of this paper, several institutions shall be dealt with, to wit: the electoral system and the presidential system as they relate to national policy making.There is a need to revisit Brazilian government as the basic design of Brazilian democracy has always been a matter of contest and relentless debates. In spite of these adversities, policymakers were still able to adjust to their institutional environment and as a consequent thereof, to implement a host of policy reforms. Governability has always been an interesting topic in Brazilian politics and policymaking. It is a concept whose definition is quite difficult to pin down.
However, it involves two political processes. The first one involves efficiency in the executive and legislative branches of the nation in relation to policymaking.The second half rests on the government’s capability to implement such policies. In order to stage an evaluation using an institutional approach, certain concepts should be focused first.
A useful tool in determining the level of democracy in Brazil is to highlight the effects of the formal political structures on the behavior of policymakers and on the end results of the political process. The assessment will start with the electoral process and will proceed to other institutions. The electoral process as a starting point rests on the assumption that it plays a pivotal role in the whole democratic system.The electoral system determines the types of candidates who would compete in an election, strategies to be employed during the campaign and their perceived behavior while they hold office.
Also, election rules influences the number and entry of viable political parties, including their coherence and discipline, to the political arena. Given that, it is shown that the electoral process initially has an influence on the types of people that will be holding offices in government. Election laws in Brazil have evolved substantially through the years of its new republic.In the previous decade or so, voters then had a variety of chances to exercise their rights to suffrage. Direct elections for mayors of major cities were held in 1985 and for all remaining cities in 1988, 1992, and 1996.
The same goes for senators, deputies, governors, and state legislators in 1986, 1990, 1994, and 1998. Also, direct elections for the presidency were held in 1089, 1994, and 1998. There have been changes and various arrangements depending on the type of office in question. Presidents are now being elected in a two-round majority vote system, with the top two finishers elevating to the second round.The legislative elections in Brazil are being conducted under a set of rules known as proportional representation. In this system, legislative seats are allocated to parties in proportion to the percentage of the total votes garnered by the parties.
When it comes to campaign regulations, the Brazilian way is either restrictive or permissive. For instance, candidates are prohibited from buying advertisement slots in radio and television, however, free television airtime is allotted to parties. In this light, parties use their TV airtime in proportion to each candidate’s significance.Permissive spending allows aspirants in the federal legislature to finance the campaign of state assembly candidates.
Since assembly candidates are elected at large, most politicians tie up with federal assembly candidates. The assembly candidates reciprocate the campaign support by telling supporters to cast votes for their benefactor for the national legislature. Such deals diminish the linkage between representatives and their constituents. Brazilian politicians possess enormous capabilities to construct coalitions sizeable enough to elect them into office. This shows the extent of democracy in the electoral process.
However, despite its being democratic, the openness and capability to forge a support base come at the compromise of weak parties and personalized politics. Another problem arises from the apportionment of districts. Each district does not represent the same number of people. This set-up compromises those from big cities. The larger number of representatives representing a smaller populace can block a policy in congress though they do not really represent the multitude. This problem in apportionment weakens progressive forces and strengthens patronage-dependent forces.
Such problems arising from the very institutions that reflect democracy belies the very nature of democratic institutions. Several institutions were established upon the conception of the new republic in order to ensure that democracy is being practiced. The nascence of the Brazilians government may be one of the factors as to why it has not executed democracy efficiently. Drawing from history, politicians during the nascent years of the new republic has exerted too much effort in tearing down and veering away from the ambit of authoritarianism.
They did not anticipate the importance of building sustainable replacements. Having been deprived of political participation, politicians had been eagerly intent of reoccupying state apparatus and manipulating state power. The interests of the players in the political arena made it difficult for the players themselves to reform the institutional environment. The environment had been crowded with personal interests where institutional reforms were likely to be characterized recrimination. The problem of weak institutions in Brazil may be regarded as a “cause in search of an effect.
”It is indeed necessary to find the answers on how problems in the new Brazilian Republic as attributed to political institutions. One could cite the weak legitimacy of democracy in Brazil, which is related to the depressing public image of the political parties and the Congress. There had been a delay in updating agrarian reform and revising social legislation, many of which are attributable to unstable legislative coalitions. A question worth asking is where democracy will yield to. An evident democratic institution is not tantamount to democracy per se.The institutions are there but politicians and policymakers have not explored the full potentials of these institutions whose function is to protect the democracy that they have deservedly acquired more than a couple of decades ago.
Democratization is supposed to give states a higher level of institutionalization. As of now, reforms in the institutional level are needed in order for Brazil to enjoy the fruits of democracy to full extent. It all boils down to the core principles of democracy, allowing the people to enjoy civil liberties in its full extent under the rule of law and with political equality.
