Recently, I attended the “Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy 2023” international conference.
Held in Mexico City on 1-4 March, the event was organised by the Global Forum on Direct Democracy. One of the co-chairpersons is a well-known American journalist Joe Matthews, who also directs the Zocalo Public Square based in Arizona State University. The other co-chairperson is Bruno Kaufmann, a Swede attached to the Swiss Democracy Foundation.
Global Forum has focused its attention on the liberal democratic countries in the West, which are being captured by professional politicians with close ties to big business and industry. This development has led to popular disillusionment with politics and declining rates of participation in elections.
A related consequence is the rise of populist anti-liberal, sometimes racist and anti-migrant, so-called “nationalist” movements. The Republican Party today and the presidency of Donald Trump in the US epitomised this tendency. But the same trends have occurred in many other Western countries too, including the UK, Netherlands, Austria and Italy among others.
In response to such anti-democratic populist sentiment and declining political participation, a so-called “direct democracy” movement has emerged. Apparently, the countries of Latin America have also taken to direct democracy, as the discussion below shows. This is less apparent in Asia and other parts of the Global South.
What is direct democracy?
- Sign up for Aliran's free daily email updates or weekly newsletters or both
- Make a one-off donation to Persatuan Aliran Kesedaran Negara, CIMB a/c 8004240948
- Make a pledge or schedule an auto donation to Aliran every month or every quarter
- Become an Aliran member
One of the panels in the conference provided some answers. The presenters discussed the revocation of the president’s mandate in Mexico while he was still in office, the recent constitutional referendum in Chile, the plebiscite on the peace accords between the government and the rebels in Colombia to put an end to the decades-long conflict, Uruguay’s long history with stable referendums, and Peru’s recalls at the local levels of government and referendums.
As the list suggests, direct democracy is about participating in the decision-making process in between general elections every four or five years. It includes revoking the president’s mandate, voting to amend the constitution, or supporting or rejecting a major initiative like ending a conflict with rebels like in Colombia. Such initiatives provide opportunities for ordinary people to take part in important political and policy decisions, apart from casting their crucial vote every four to five years to elect, say, a president or members of the legislature.
Put another way, direct democracy methods are tools for the government and citizenry to promote greater participation by ordinary people so that they do not get alienated by electoral or representative democracy, which has been captured by the professional politicians, often acting on behalf of big business and industrial interests.
Direct and participatory democracy exercises, it is argued, can lead to increased citizen confidence and reduced polarisation and contribute to the sustainability of the democratic system.
Such exercises allow the people to express their opinion and influence public affairs through referendums and plebiscites, popular initiatives, courts and popular assemblies, deliberative committees, beyond the usual elections.
At the very least, direct democracy allows ordinary people the opportunity to exercise their rights in a different way.
Mexico and Malaysia
In this regard, one of the panels explored how direct democracy might have helped to reform and consolidate Mexico’s electoral democracy.
From 1929 to 2000, the country had been dominated by a single party, PRI (the Revolutionary Institutional Party), which won the elections time and time again.
When PRI was finally defeated, predictably political instability set in. New parties appeared and new coalition governments had to be formed. Yes, and much horse trading or compromises had to be resorted to, to form workable governments. But the new centre was not as much in control of political developments as before.
Doesn’t this sound familiar? PRI’s long domination can be likened to Barisan Nasional’s six decades of one-party rule in Malaysia.
The instability that Mexico experienced with PRI’s “passing” was not unlike what we are witnessing here in Malaysia now – an elected government lasting only 22 months before it was ousted by a backdoor coup. Then, two prime ministers were appointed in a period of two years. And in the recent 2022 general election, we ended up with a hung parliament with no coalition gaining a majority of seats. So, the largest coalition had to cobble together a makeshift government made up of former sworn enemies. Why, this minority government includes several individuals facing corruption charges too.
But there are also clear differences. In Mexico, amid such uncertainty, serious measures to promote decentralisation to state and local governments have occurred. Devolving powers from the centre to the state and local governments has led to decentralisation in decision-making. This can open up and lead to new opportunities for ordinary people to take part in local politics in sustained fashion.
Enhancing local government is yet another form of direct democracy. In Mexico, the consolidation of an independent National Elections Institute, the equivalent of Malaysia’s Election Commission, has allowed for new groups to get elected and to make a difference, at least at the local level. Apparently, the old style of politics dominated by caciques (local or regional bosses) has been somewhat displaced.
Another session highlighted the importance of “participatory budgeting”, which allows for the exploration of the interests of vulnerable or marginalised groups – such as women, the youth and ethnic minorities – and their participation in preparing and implementing budgets.
We also learned how existing parks could be redeveloped by involving the residents living in the neighbourhood – in other words, make planning participatory too!
The new digital technologies plus the Covid lockdown have also facilitated exploring increased online participation.
Finally, we also learnt how city hall meetings have led to the formation of ad hoc citizens’ assemblies and ultimately to more institutionalised bodies within city councils and state parliaments.
Weak democratic institutions
My session was tasked to consider whether direct democracy allows an autocrat to empower himself or whether ordinary citizens might have greater opportunity to push through their interests.
A Polish academician-cum-human rights lawyer argued that it was more likely that direct democracy tools will be used by the autocrat to serve his own ends, as had occurred in his country.
However, a member of the National Assembly of South Korea believed there was scope for ordinary people to make a difference.
In Malaysia, I argued, it was also likely that the autocrat or ruling coalition would exploit these direct democracy tools to serve his or her party’s ends.
That’s because BN’s six-decades rule had compromised and politicised most of our political institutions – such as the judiciary, the police, even the anti-corruption agency, the civil service including at the level of local government, the Election Commission and the education system.
The recent change of government has not led to the comprehensive reform of our political institutions, at least not yet. At best, the government has replaced some of the people in charge and initiated criminal proceedings against the corrupt, which has proven to be difficult to follow through.
It is for this reason, I continued, that civil society organisations’ push for the creation of an autonomous public sphere that is free from the controls of not just the government and the opposition parties, but also from big business, religious leaders and the mainstream media is important. Only then will there be sustained opportunity for alternative ideas and movements to emerge.
I shared a little about the experience of the Bersih 2.0 movement, a coalition of 62 NGOs, which had found Malaysia’s practice of electoral democracy wanting. So they submitted their “Eight demands for electoral reform”. And when the Malaysian government refused to listen to them, they called for a “Walk for Democracy” on 9 July 2011.
The way the Malaysian government dealt with this call – by resorting to arrests of supporters, banning the wearing of yellow T-shirts, declaring Bersih 2.0 and their proposed walk illegal, banning some 98 Malaysians from entering Kuala Lumpur on that eventful day, and then arresting Bersih leaders and others who took part in the walk – showed that Malaysia’s ‘democracy’ is flawed, and the institutions of democracy feeble.
I observed that the civil society groups in Malaysia have perennially highlighted not only the shortcomings of the electoral system, but coercive legislation – such as the Internal Security, the Societies Act, the Trade Unions Act, the Police Act, the Printing Presses and Publications Act and the Universities and University Colleges Act – that stymies any form of effective opposition.
Fundamental liberties – the right to assemble, to associate and to express oneself – are denied to ordinary people in between elections. Accordingly, the state overwhelms civil society, while within the state, the executive dominates the other branches of government. The mass media do not play a watchdog role either. So we are still denied many basic liberties.
I also shared that local government reform is urgently needed, but we must bring back local government elections first! I explained that we are not yet pushing for the institutionalisation of the instruments of direct democracy as perhaps the Western attendees were subconsciously or consciously promoting at the conference.
Rather, I was arguing for the creation and consolidation of an autonomous public sphere for the sharing and debating of alternative ideas of moving forward politically, economically, and socio-culturally.
Yes, the focus of the Global Forum on Direct Democracy has been on the liberal democracies of the West thus far.
So, it was heartening that a delegation of 10 Koreans was present. Led by former gender equality and family affairs minister, Dr Lee Jung Ok, the delegation included Won O Chong, the mayor of Seongdonggu, Seoul; Du Dwan Kim, a member of the National Assembly; and several other local government councillors.
Significantly, these people, along with others, conducted a special session discussing how, after having displaced military rule in their country, the Koreans have experimented with direct democracy methods, plus other socioeconomic and cultural considerations over the past two decades.
In what follows, I do not report on the Korean direct democracy methods. Rather, I elaborate on the Korean people’s reflections on “What is democracy?” (I shared a shorter version of these remarks during my presentation.)
Beyond liberalism and direct democracy
Under the electoral and representative democracy introduced in the 1980s after the military was forced to withdraw to the barracks, the former Nobel Peace Prize laureate, Kim Dae Jung, who had been imprisoned by the military authorities for almost a decade, was subsequently elected to office as President of South Korea.
However, the democratic forces were displaced by more conservative parties previously associated with the military regime and with big business in the following decade.
This has forced Korean academics to think vigorously about what democracy and elections mean to them. One of the most succinct and commonsensical definitions comes from Prof Sonn Hochul of Sogang University (‘South Korea and Democracy in Asia’).
There are five dimensions of democracy.
First, there is political democracy, as usually advocated by liberals. Here, we are concerned about civil rights, including the franchise for all adults, for the regular holding of competitive multi-party elections, for checks and balances between the major branches of government, and for the rule of law.
No doubt, free and fair elections are important. For this reason, we should ensure that the electoral rolls are clean, up-to-date and free of phantoms voters. The postal voting system should also be made available to all, not simply those serving in the uniformed units and their spouses. There should also be adequate time allocated for campaigning, equal access to the traditional and new media, and equal access to electoral funds. Of course, the independence of the Election Commission must be upheld, and it should not resort to malapportionment and gerrymandering in the redrawing of electoral boundaries.
A rotation of power between at least two major coalitions would help to deepen our political democracy. The party out of power can prepare better policies, while the party in power will be encouraged to move towards good governance characterised by competence, accountability, transparency, and regular consultation.
A word of warning, however, as political analyst Schumpeter once indicated: for even when the best procedures are put in place to ensure “free and fair elections”, we could end up with a set of elites in power.
Ben Anderson, the late professor of Southeast Asian politics, has referred to these people as “professional politicians”. Perhaps the most representative of this breed of people are the American politicians. They are well-educated, well-dressed, slick talkers and even well-informed about policy matters. They are good at fundraising to ensure their re-election, and they know the ins and outs of campaigning. They cater to the needs of their financial backers by lobbying for particular interests.
They also know how to address the interests of the ordinary voters to ensure their re-election. However, they have little time for reform, let alone enhancing democracy.
As discussed earlier, this system of liberal democracy has become increasingly captured by professional politicians and their backers from big business and industry. Often, we hear that the military-industrial complex now drives US foreign policy, not the president or Congress; certainly not the ordinary people.
It is because of this capture that disillusionment with politics has set in. Alternatively, many have turned to the histrionics of people like Trump.
Second, there is “economic and social democracy“, a basic interest in the idea of social democracy. Compared to civil liberties, this refers to rights such as freedom from poverty, a guarantee of minimum economic and social conditions enabling a person to live in dignity.
More than that, as various social groups compete with one another in a political democracy by mobilising the power resources that they have access to, political democracy is reduced to a non-democracy when wealth is distributed too unevenly. Economic and social democracy, therefore, should always accompany political democracy if we desire meaningful democracy.
Alas, this notion and practice of the “welfare state” has been on the wane as neo-liberal globalisation has penetrated all corners of the globe. (Amartya Sen has argued that political democracy, rather than undemocratic regimes, will also enhance economic and social democracy.)
Third, is the realm of “workers’ democracy” or “workplace democracy” that radicals call for. This form of democracy is nowadays ignored in our neoliberal capitalist society. Hence, we have a situation where all democratic principles and citizenship rights stop at the gate of a factory or firm, where the workers are denied any form of self-management. Alienation sets in. The workers only feel liberated when they leave the workplace to go home, or when they are on holiday.
From this perspective, a capitalist society which privileges private property and profit-making is basically non-democratic. Realising workers democracy is particularly problematic because the top-down authoritarian social relations in the factory or firm are not even recognised to be within the ambit of democratic reform in most societies. No individual rights and no direct democracy are recognised.
Fourth, there is the democracy of everyday life. The question of democracy is not confined to ‘Big P’ power relations involving those in authority in the state or in corporations. It also involves everyday forms of social relations involving ordinary people – including, for example, women, minorities, and people with physical disabilities or with different sexual preferences who are often discriminated against.
Perhaps this dimension of democracy might be called “cultural democracy“. Clearly, our democracy will be deepened and enhanced when we begin to accord ‘others’ the same dignity and respect that we grant ourselves. Also, ordinary people need to be persuaded to engage in politics regularly.
An autonomous public sphere can facilitate a participatory democracy and combat the prejudices disseminated by our schools, religious bodies, cultural organisations and the mass media. Changing attitudes will take a long time, no doubt. All the better if these initiatives can be linked up to local authorities, the lowest tier of formal Big P politics.
No doubt, direct democracy is an attempt to redirect and reorient ordinary people in their everyday politics. However, effective reorientation can only take place if the constraints of the socioeconomic, workplace, cultural and international (discussed below) situation – not just the liberal dimensions of democracy – are taken into consideration.
Fifth, and finally, there is a realm of international democracy. Clearly, we shall only begin to enjoy greater democracy when the global order is no longer dominated by Western powers, particularly the US, which, with their transnational corporations, control the global economy and international affairs. They establish exclusive bodies like the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) and Nato, which set the global agenda. The US and its Western allies also dominate multilateral economic agencies like the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund (IMF), the World Trade Organization (WTO) and even the UN.
Greater dialogue on democracy
It is important to consider the theory and practice of democracy in all its dimensions and as it is understood and reflected on, not just in the West but globally.
Direct democracy in essence elaborates on tools and measures on how to extend participatory democracy within the liberal democratic tradition. It does not yet touch on other dimensions of democracy as the Koreans have reflected on, as discussed above.
Indeed, a long debate has ensued about democracy in all its dimensions in the Global South and non-Western world. This is not because these nations possess any inherent essentialism that determines that their democracies will and must be different. Rather, it is because they have lived for long decades under colonialism, then military, one-party and generally illiberal governments in the post-colonial era.
So their notions of democracy differ from those who advocate liberal democracy as practised in the West. Not forgetting, these new nations in the Global South face challenges to develop rapidly as well.
There must be greater dialogue between all who aspire to live in a more democratic world in all its dimensions – in the political system, socioeconomically, in the workplace, in everyday cultural politics, and in the global system, which envelopes all of us.
(Apart from the Koreans, there were a few participants from Asia, Africa and the Middle-East. Thanks to the Arizona State University for financing the participation of the chief editor of the Asian Democracy Chronicles based in Manila, the founder-lawyer of the Human Rights Institute, Uganda, who also doubles up as the UN independent expert on equitable and democratic international order, a human rights lawyer and feminist from Tunisia and myself from Malaysia. The host organisers included the Universidad Nacional Autonoma de Mexico (UNAM), Universidad Autonoma de Mexico (UAM), the Tec e Monterey, the Instituto Nacional Electoral (Mexico’s equivalent of our Election Commission), while other international sponsors included Democracy International (Germany) and the Swiss Democracy Foundation.)
Francis Loh
Co-editor, Aliran newsletter
25 March 2023
AGENDA RAKYAT - Lima perkara utama
- Tegakkan maruah serta kualiti kehidupan rakyat
- Galakkan pembangunan saksama, lestari serta tangani krisis alam sekitar
- Raikan kerencaman dan keterangkuman
- Selamatkan demokrasi dan angkatkan keluhuran undang-undang
- Lawan rasuah dan kronisme
