INTRODUCTION
Democracy is one of the most popular concepts in the field of political science. The popularity is at the same level in the real political arena as well. Both scholars and the political actors at different levels spend an endless effort to define, comprehend, express, reach and sustain a democratic system. In essence, it is this effort itself which merits explanation and understanding comprehensively.
Is it convenient to use the word “democracy” for the all the polyarchies which hardly have a common denominator and contain only one or two indicators referred in the definition of the term or should we draw a line and exclude once and for all the ones which fails to meet all the aspects of the definition? Is there a one stable definition of democracy to label the countries as democratic or nondemocratic? Why it is so important to define a political regime as democratic and to what extent can the definition of the concept be broaden? The answers, I think, is very closely related to the answer to another question: To what end of which political actor is the concept of democracy supposed to serve? In order to understand the practical need for the concept of democracy in the contemporary world via these questions, I would firstly like to brief the efforts to find a proper definition to the word “democracy”. Meanwhile, I will try to compare the components of the concept as used in the definition in theoretical level with the understanding of them in the actual political field. I also argue that the components of the definition is connected with the social culture as well. Hence, in the end I will reverse the view and try to see the effects of the culture to the definition of democracy.
CORE DEFINITION OF DEMOCRACY
In the simplest way, we can label a socio-political order as democracy if the governing bodies are established by the officials elected by the people through a voting procedure. In that sense, there are a few countries left in the world which are ruled by a nondemocratic government. However, the components of the definition are needed to be expanded in order to determine the common features of the systems on one hand and the authentic attributes changing from one country to another on the other hand.
The indicators of democracy are determined by Robert Dahl as elected officials, free and fair elections, inclusive suffrage, competition for governing, freedom for disseminating the ideas regarding the political system, chance to access alternative and accurate information and freedom for gathering and association. Some other requirements connected with those basic components such as the governing power and authority of the elected body, the sustainability of the multivocality, etc can be added to this rough definition. (O’Donnell, 1996) In other words, a range of variables can be derived to be included in or excluded from the definiton in line with the aim of the research or the political ideal. (Collier and Levitsky, 1997).
ELECTIONS AS THE MAIN CONCEPT IN THE DEFINION
Once we accept the country-wide elections are at the core of the definition of democracy, we automatically conclude that the ruling power is at the disposal of an authority which is not predestined to govern but required to compete and succeed in a rivalry to take the office. On the other hand, if an election system is to pave the way for a democratic order, it is expected to have certain qualifications. Firstly, the elections should be fair and free. If the aim is to learn the choices of the people, the voters reflects their opinions about politics free without feeling any threat to their physical, social or economic safety. Moreover, each person should has one vote, in other words every vote should be counted equally. Secondly, the suffrage is expected to be determined inclusively in a democratic order. The criteria for suffrage can be set according to age, gender, social status, position in the public service, criminality, nationality etc. For sure, the constraints regarding the political rights varies from one country to another due to the potential of the society. In this respect, the broader the proportion of the society allowed to take part in the electoral process is, the more the preferences of the majority of the people to be governed is reflected in the political arena and the system converges to the ideal definition of democracy. Thus, we can say determiningthe lower ages for voting and including the people in the elections regardless of their economic conditions and social status may contribute the democratic character of the system.
On the other hand, the effect of the votes on the outcome of the election is as important as the suffrage rate. The rules of electoral system may be defined concerning different aspects of the political life ranging from the political stability and rapidity in the decision making process to the comprehensiveness of the various fractions of the society regardless of how marginal they are. Hence, the countries may adopt different rules for counting the votes and set a certain level of threshold also effecting the distribution of votes in line with the political priority (Norris, 1997). In that case, one can say the more votes are valued and taken into account for establishing the governing office, the more democratic the political system gets. The general perception is that the small fractions in the government might diminish the effective decision making process, undermine the political stability at a certain level and thus emerge a weak impression in both the domestic and international arena. Hence, expecting the reflection of the votes on the composition of the governing body perfectly would be too much idealistic.
Regarding this issue, the heated debate about the height of the electoral threshold in Turkey constitutes one of the most relevant example. On order to be represented in the parliament, each political party should pass the %10 of the nation-wide votes. The current electoral system is inherited from the 1980 military coup. Since there had experienced the instability resulted from inability of the small parties to form a stable government, after the coup the electoral system has changed and the high threshold was adopted in order to exclude the marginal political parties and obtain a certain level of stability. However, especially in the last decade, the threshold began to undermine the fair representation of the public interests in the parliament. In the 2002 general elections in Turkey, only two parties out of 18 which ran in the elections could manage to enter in the parliament. At that elections, he victorious Justice and Development Party and the Republican People’s Party took the 66% and 33% of the seats in the parliament despite having only 34% and 19% of the national votes in fact. Moreover, the smaller parties which could not pass the national threshold were able to gain the landslide majority of the local votes. Then the small parties applied a different strategy and they dissolve themselves as party and form a loose and informal association among themselves to enter the elections independently since the independent nominees were allowed to race by only local votes and not required to pass the national threshold. This strategy was succeeded and the formation of the assembly has changed in the later elections. Nonetheless, the underrepresentation issue remained to be a problem regarding the comparison of the level of the threshold in Turkey and its one of the main political partner the EU to which it is the candidate member. The unrest is evident from the criticism coming from the various domestic institutions as well as the international ones. (Alkin, 2011) Thus, we can conclude that if we further analyze the government formation systems, the qualifications that the electoral system is bearing might pull down the level of democracy in the country.
At this point, we should elaborate the competition in the elections. In a democratic system, people expect to be provided the right to vocalize their opinions regarding the polity, especially when they are entirely different from the ones belonging to the current political power. Moreover, they expect to have the liberty to second the similar thoughts, engage in a joint action to promote these opinions and finally establish an organization to act collectively and formally to run for the office. Thus, the political parties and the pressure groups are indispensable parts of an electoral system.
On the other hand, in a broader perspective, the association is not limited with the political parties running in the elections. Particularly in the recent years, parallel to the developments in the information technologies, there emerged some the civic associations who are specialized in monitoring the voting and counting processes during the elections so as to ensure the transparency and fairness of the elections. For example, “Oy ve Ötesi Derneği” (Vote and Beyond Association) founded by the volunteers to monitor the electoral process during the municipal elections in 2014 in Turkey is one of such initiatives. The aim of the organization is to prevent the miscalculations of the votes that might be resulted either from an error while processing the data or a fraudulent motive. (http://oyveotesi.org)
Once we set the free and fair elections as the basic distinction between an authoritarian and a democratic ruling, we may assess the democracy level of the system by analyzing the formation of the electoral system in connection with the other liberties as explained above. Nonetheless, if the democracy is to be sustainable, the authority, even if it has been shaped through elections, should be allowed to exercise the power within certain set of rules.
DEMOCRACY BEYOND THE ELECTIONS: RULE OF LAW
In order to establish a democratic governing system, the transparency in the decision making process and the predictability of political and legal results of the decisions are expected. The key concept to ensure the transparency and also the legitimacy is considered to be the rule of law. Although the term also needs to be defined thoroughly, here it is used as the predictability and the generality of the rules that each and every person constituting the society should be bound with equally as long as the cases on which the norms are to be applied are showing equal features. Considering that the sustainability of the democratic order depends on accepting the plurality and the equal chance for joining in the electoral competition, the rule of law is the insurance the democratic system.
Institutionalizing of the electoral system guarantees the viability of the democratic order. Determining the eligibility of the people or associations that are competing in the elections is the first aspect of the proper functioning legal system. As the level of codification of rules regulating the elections is expanded, the transparency and the credibility of the elections are increased.
On the other hand, identifying the duty of the legal mechanisms as protecting the rules of the game of democracy has two symmetrical sides. One is to protect the governing power of the elected body vis-a-vis the other formal institutions such as military and bureaucracy or the informal ones, such as a religious sect or private company which might gain excessive influence in time. These structures have a certain degree of power in the sociopolitical system. However, in a democratic order, the people’s choice, which is the elected governing body, is expected to reign over the other fractions. In other words, in a democratic system, the elected body owns a true governing power (O’Donnell, 1996).
Second duty of the proper legal system is the mirror image of the first one, which is the protection of the government. The governing authority, even if it is established by the popular vote, should be allowed to exercise the power in certain boundaries. There is needed additional checks and balances system, other than the regular elections, to prevent the excessive arbitrary attitude of the governing authority between the election terms. This aspect of the legal system is also prevents the In order to assure the democratic rights, a properly functioning judiciary system should be established.
THE ROLE OF CULTURE ON THE LEVEL OF DEMOCRACY
Sociopolitical culture plays an important role in defining the level and features of democracy in a country. The differences between the systems which are commonly labeled as polyarchy basically emerges from the tools that are used by the political actors to sustain or advance their current status in political life. The selection of these tools are closely connected with the communication style between the governing bodies and the people as well as the one among the people of the country. That leads us to the effects of the overall culture in a country on the political life.
In a country where the government is established through competitive elections, the fractions running for the office are required to address the voters need and expectations. In the conservative countries these expectations are cumulated around the sentimental values while in the more liberal countries where the individualism come to the fore, the economic promises and respect to the private space of the individuals take credits. Thus, the tools of the political actors and the sytle of demanding of the people varies according to the culture.
People’s willingness of participation in political life is another important element that effects the democratic status of the society. The people who separate their personal and social space distinctively are more likely to engage in politics comparing to the people who put the general social order in the first place of their priorities. The former category of people are more eager to defend and advance their private interests. Another component in this issue is the people’s perception of the authority. If a person sees the authority as a superior power with full capacity and capability of handling the problems and needs of the society, in simpler words, has an hierarchical sight about the government, his/her tendency towards engaging in the political struggle is observed at lower levels. By contrast, if the person perceives the governing body as his/her equal in terms of problem solving capacity, then the person’s motivation to express his/her opinions. (Shi, 2015) Thus, the domestic demand for democracy is generated by the interaction among the people who have different types of perception.
PRACTICAL NEED FOR DEMOCRACY
The efforts exerted to define democracy also serve a practical need of the political actors. The political success and occupying the governing office provides an access to the resources exceptionally. However, the authority which has such privilege also needs a legitimate ground. In an autocratic regime, the legitimacy sources from the divine or dynastic codes while in the polyarchies it rest in the people’s choices. The ruling power is expected to take the decisions complying with the people’s will. The continuation of governing power in a democratic system depends on the promise that the democratic order will prevail and people will continue to be at the center of the decision making mechanism. We may put the democracy is a self-generating system and the political actors needs to prove themselves loyal to the system to continue their positions.
There are the domestic and international aspects of the legitimacy issue. (O’Donnell, 1996) Degree of harmonizing the actual behaviors and the formal rules assures the popular support that creates the domestic legitimacy. On the other hand, the governments need the international legitimacy as well to survive in the complex relations of the global society. Since the contemporary world order necessitates the intensive interaction, the level of sociopolitical inclusion is regarded as a positive feature of the regime. Thus the definition is manipulated in terms of including or excluding the variables to fit the term with the political reality in order to create a positive image.
CONCLUSION
As in the “ladder of generality” concept introduced by Giovanni Sartori, the more variables are considered, the less convergence can be found between the actual case and the expected style of democratic order (Collier and Levitsky, 1997). When we simplify the definition and focus on the procedural minimums such as free and competitive elections, freedom of speech and absence of massive fraud, we may include more countries in the democratic club.
Taking into account that the range of variables that should be considered to refer a system as democratic or not, we may conclude that the term “democracy” is rather like a scale that measures the level of participation in the decision making process. According to the aim of the research, one may focus on the level of democracy in the political field or at the social arena or in the economic life to simplify the analysis. On the other hand, they are all interconnected parts of the society. In order to reach the complete picture of democracy in a society, in fact, all the variables at the different fields of the society should be taken into account. One last thing to be underlined is that the inclusion or exclusion of certain aspects in the definition of democracy can occasionally be a political or at least sentimental decision whenever the aim of the analysis is to label an actual system as democracy or not. In the end, the difficulty in finding a fixed definition for democracy is sourced from the complexity of the interaction among the people.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Shi, Tianjian, 2015. The Cultural Logic of Politics in Mainland China and Taiwan. NY: Cambridge University Press. Ch. 6.
Collier, David and Steven Levitsky. 1997. “Democracy with Adjectives: Conceptual Innovation in Comparative Research.” World Politics 49 (3):430-51.
O’Donnel, Guillermo, 1996. “Illusions About Consolidation.” Journal od Democracy 7.2, 34-51. Norris, Pippa, 1997, “Choosing Electoral Systems: Proportional, Majoritarian and Mixed Systems.”
International Political Science Review (Contrasting Political Institutions special issue), Vol 18(3): 297-312.
Sinan Alkin, 2011. “Underrepresentative Democracy: Why Turkey Should Abandon Europe’s Highest Electoral Threshold”, 10 Washington University Global Studies Law Review. Vol. 10(2): 347-369, http://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_globalstudies/vol10/iss2/5
