Avoiding majoritarianism
Prof. Rajiva Wijesinha
The idea that the winner takes all after an election has caused
tremendous problems in many democracies. It reduces the need for
constant consultation that will contribute to continuity of policy. It
also leads to neglect, in pluralistic societies, of the needs and
aspirations of minorities.
This means most obviously racial and religious minorities, but full
power based on a parliamentary majority arising from a limited
proportion of the vote can also lead to neglect of particular regions
and social groups, even though they are part of the majority in a
country.
Constitutional safeguards, in the form of entrenched provisions, go
some way towards ensuring that actual discrimination is limited.
However, in order to positively satisfy the needs of all these groups,
constitutional safeguards alone will not suffice. Increasingly therefore
States have begun to realize that positive empowerment in the form of
regional structures of governance are necessary, if the particular needs
of segments of society are to be addressed.
United States Senate US Senate Library photo |
Role of the central government
A central government cannot appreciate and respond actively to the
special needs of regional areas with a devotion that an administration
concentrating on that unit alone can supply.
The argument that devolving power to smaller units will cause
problems cannot be sustained if the process of devolution is systematic.
Certainly there are issues that are best handled centrally, and those
must remain the prerogative of the central government. But assuming all
issues are best handled centrally is clearly nonsense. And the argument
that devolution can lead to separation is no more valid than the
argument that failure to devolve also leads to separation. Historically
indeed the latter has caused separatist movements more often than the
former.
The argument that devolution suits only large countries also makes no
sense, since what rational devolution supposes is that authority is
devolved in accordance with convenience rather than abstract principles.
Larger units may require more powers, but smaller units can also
exercise some powers in a manner that will benefit their peoples. One of
the most successful examples of a country that has remained unified
despite marked differences amongst its people is Switzerland, one of the
smaller countries in the world, which allocates considerable powers to
the several cantons which constitute it.
The Swiss in fact evolved a principle called ‘subsidiarity’, which
means that no unit exercises powers that can more appropriately be
entrusted to a smaller unit.
If we go back to the functions of government that we discussed in the
second chapter, this would mean that the main function of government,
which we termed security, would be exercised for the most part by the
central government. National defence obviously has to be organized
centrally, as have the main points of justice and finance. However, when
it comes to issues of welfare and infrastructure, local agencies are
likely to understand and respond better to the actual situation. Schools
for instance, or roads, are better administered by units directly
responsible to those who use them.
Religion and culture
We can even go further and note that issues involving individuals are
best left to those individuals, or families, to decide. Religion and
culture, sports and art, marriage and sexuality, are matters for
individuals, provided they do not harm other members of society. So are
matters of food and drink, housing and schooling. This does not mean
that governments, local or central, have nothing to do with such
subjects.
Providing essentials to those who do not have them, facilitating
developments in those areas where people necessarily interact,
regulating behaviour in a manner that ensures the freedom of others as
well, are necessary adjuncts to permitting freedom of choice and action
to individuals in these areas.
Maximizing representation
But the idea that government should have powers of control in these
areas goes against the very basis of democracy, which is the empowerment
of people. The power over themselves that people have handed over to
government should be limited to those areas where such powers are
necessary for the smooth functioning of society.
Devolving power in appropriate areas to local institutions should
then be an axiom of democracy. Which areas are appropriate, the extent
of devolution, the areas where national policy needs to be centrally
formulated while being implemented locally, are all matters to be
decided through study and discussion. But reserving powers to the centre
as a matter of principle is a throwback to the days of autocratic
government, which modern democracies should avoid.
However, in any State, there must necessarily be some matters that
are reserved for the central government. And since these will be the
most important of the powers of government, it is also necessary, even
while practicing devolution as to other matters, to ensure that
decisions in these reserved areas are not the prerogative of the
majority alone.
It is for this reason that, in many successful states, there are dual
systems of representation in Parliament. The main part of Parliament, or
the First Chamber as it is often called, consists of representatives
chosen from the country as a whole. But many Parliaments also have a
Second Chamber, which is selected on quite another system altogether.
In most such cases this Chamber is weighted towards the regions. The
most extreme instance of such weightage is the United States Senate, in
which each State, however big or small, has two representatives. But
even elsewhere, as in Second Chambers in India or Germany or Australia,
though we do not find such absolute equality, the smaller states or
provinces have a greater presence than they do in the First Chamber.
Balance of power
The balance of power between the two chambers varies from country to
country, though generally the First has much more power, and in
particular power with regard to finances.
However, where constitutional matters are concerned, or matters
concerning devolution, the Second Chamber has a vital role to play.
Apart from the principle involved, that on matters concerning
particular segments of society, the views of those segments should be
given weight, the institution of a Second Chamber also contributes to
promoting the unity of a State. Representatives from regions who would
be overwhelmed in the First Chamber have a status in the second that
will facilitate their active participation in debate and discussion.
Recognition of their role also enhances appreciation of the
activities of Parliament as a whole in the regions they represent. And
their involvement in decision making at the center increases the sense
of involvement of all regions in the State as a whole.
Switzerland indeed prescribes that the central Executive should
include representation of all regions. Though that may be difficult to
implement in larger countries, it should be a goal of government to
maximize participation of all stakeholders.
Forming cabinets that consist, as far as the important portfolios go,
of Ministers representing a few regions or a single community is a
recipe for disaster.
Democracy means the power of the people, and power therefore should
be seen as being shared by representatives of a wide cross-section of
the people. |