Parliamentary,
or representative, democracy has long been held as the best way to represent
the will of the people and conduct democracy. Citizens of a country vote in
free and fair elections for the political party that they most agreed with or
best represents their political beliefs. After the elections, the most popular
party carries out the will of the majority of people. If the party fails in
correctly carrying out the will of the people, the citizens vote them out of
power in the next election cycle, and install a more suitable party. This
essay, however, disagrees with this pluralistic view of electoral politics. This
essay will argue that states no longer derive their legitimacy through
representing the will of the people, but rather through delivering services to
the people and so they are not concerned with carrying out the will of the
people. This idea draws on Trouillot’s critique of ontological categorisation in which certain
people, usually of the lower classes, are not seen to have the same capacity for
rational thought and agency. Those who are seen to have the capacity, generally the
political elites, then formulate policies to deliver services to the passive
populations and the rise of technocratic rule takes place.
This essay will
argue, along with Zikode, that parliamentary democracy does not represent the
will of the people. It will also use the revolving door argument and it will
use Lukes’ three dimensions of power argument to show how parliamentary
democracy is further undermined. Ranciere argues that parliamentary democracy
has never been intended to represent the will of the people, so in its best
form, parliamentary democracy certainly does not represent the will of the
people automatically.
Chatterjee
argues that people have moved from being subjects to the state or monarchy to
being a population instead of being citizens in a democracy (Chatterjee, 2004:
34). What this means is that people previously belonged to whatever feudal lord
controlled them, but instead of being granted the various rights,
responsibilities and agency of citizens, they have been put into populations
that need to be provided for by the state (Chatterjee, 2004: 34). Policies are
then formulated by the elites to look after these population groups. The state,
therefore, no longer derives its legitimacy from representing the will of the
people, but rather from providing services to the passive population
(Chatterjee, 2004: 34).
This
is problematic because it denies the agency of the people in the “population”.
Citizens are people that can partake in political matters and can influence
society. Populations, however, are passive and can only be provided for, or
acted upon by the state (Chatterjee, 2004: 34). Foucault calls this thinking of
people as populations and not citizens, governmentality, which is all about collecting
information about the population in order to formulate policy and provide for
the population (Chatterjee, 2004: 34). Governance has therefore become more
about administrative policy than about representing the will of the people
(Chatterjee, 2004: 35).
The
view of people as being passive populations has not sprung up out of nowhere;
it can be traced to the ontological categorisation of European thought during
colonialism. Ontology is
the study of being or existence and Trouillot argues that European thought
during the time of colonialism
categorised humanity into different sections of what it meant to be human
(Trouillot, 1995: 73). White males were at the top, or the most superior
beings, and others had their specific locations within this ontological order.
Black people were at the bottom. This categorisation came about, Trouillot
argues, because Europeans needed a moral justification for the slave trade
(Trouillot, 1995: 77). Black people were inferior to their white contemporaries
and therefore could be enslaved while black slaves that misbehaved meant that
they were inferior to white people (Trouillot, 1995: 77). This circular
argument ensured that black people occupied the lowest rung of European
ontological categorisation.
Slaves were also thought to have little or no
agency. They were a passive people that could be told what to do and be acted upon
by their masters. They simply would not, or could not, rebel or make any sort
of intellectual contribution. This is the same viewpoint that the modern day
state has of its people. People must sit back and let the experts come up with
the best policies to look after them and occasionally vote for the best policy
maker if they want to vote at all. People making or influencing economic
policy, for example, outside of trade unions or NGOs, is rare if it exists at
all. Important policies are best left to the experts who know what is best for
everyone concerned. What people want, what the will of the people is, is
entirely irrelevant to the governance of a country. Experts will formulate the
best policies and people will simply vote for the party that can best implement
them.
Contemporary examples of this can be seen in
Greece, South Africa and the United States of America. In Greece, an economist
was appointed to be the Prime Minister of the country. He was not even elected,
he was appointed by the party that had the most votes. He did not run for
election, but because the Greeks (the irrational population that could not
formulate policy or make important decisions) did not want to implement the
harsh measures that would pay off Greek debt, he was appointed because he had
the technical expertise to run the country. He was an expert, and thus knew how
bad the situation was and could do what was best for the country as a whole.
The will of the people was entirely irrelevant in the running of the country.
In
South Africa the situation is slightly different. There is no technocratic
president, but policy is again formulated by the experts and then presented to
the people. The National Planning Commission, the Trade Policy and Strategic
Framework and the Industrial Policy Action Plan (while of debatable economic
worth) are all certainly top-down policies created by the experts and presented
to the passive people without taking into account the will of the people. Furthermore,
the two main parties, the ANC and the DA, both frame the national debate in
terms of service delivery. Neither even attempt to argue that they represent
the will of an active citizenry; they present themselves as the most efficient
deliverer of services. Vote for them and you will get a better, cheaper method
of service delivery. Again, it is all
about implementing a policy upon a passive population.
In
the United States of America, it is again slightly different, but in essence
the same. The choice is between one party that is pro-government intervention
and policy-making, and the other that believes that the free-market will best
look after the people. In both cases, it is not about representing the will of
the people, but rather doing what is viewed as best for the people by
technocratic experts. Parliamentary
democracy, whether in Greece, South Africa or the USA, no longer makes any
claim that it represents the will of the people. It is open in saying that it
does what is best for the people and that this is not necessarily what the
people want.
With
Trouillot’s claim about ontological categorisation filtering down into
modern-day discourse, Zikode, the President of Ababhlali base’Mjondolo, a
shackdweller’s movement in Kwa-Zulu Natal, confirms several of Chatterjee’s themes and
arguments. Zikode argues that by being a poor, black person in South Africa
means that you are not treated as a full citizen (Zikode, 2009:11). Your views
are not taken seriously and you are not treated as somebody with the capacity
of full agency. A poor, black person falls into a passive population group that
can be acted upon by the ‘correct policy’ of service delivery.
Zikode
also argues that such policy is not generated from below, but from a top-down
system where any ideas are transmitted downwards from the experts (Zikode,
2009: 11). Policy, therefore, does not correspond with the view of the people
(Zikode, 2009:11). What the people want is irrelevant. In fact, Zikode argues
that the parliamentary democracy we currently have in South Africa has become
so distorted from representing the will of the people that the only way to
truly show the will of the people is to take action outside of electoral
politics (Zikode, 2009:20). It is clear then that parliamentary democracy does
not represent the will of the people.
Naomi
Klein writes extensively in her book The Shock Doctrine about another
way in which the will of the people is being undermined in parliamentary
democracies, namely the concept of the revolving door. Essentially, the
revolving door describes the process whereby business leaders can move at will
through a “revolving door” into the government and government employees can
then move back through the door into the corporate sector. Klein does however
say that the idea of a revolving door still does not quite describe the ease at
which people can pass into the other sector; she suggests that it is so easy
and so accepted that a better description would be an archway (Klein, 2007:
308) with there being literally no impediment to movement between the two
sectors.
Why
is this a problem? How does this fit into parliamentary democracy and the will
of the people? This is a problematic situation because when a politician is in
government, he or she will enact policies and legislation that helps big
business or even individual companies. When their political term is over, they
will simply move into big business or that individual company and reap the
benefits of the laws they drew up. Politicians,
therefore, do not follow the will of the people; they do what is in their own
personal best interests. However, this may not be a problem for some people.
Those
who believe in the neo-liberal doctrine will argue that what is good for big
business and the wealthy elite is also good for the masses as the wealth of the
elite will trickle down to the masses, benefiting everyone. Legislation and
policy that benefits big business will increase their profit margins; with this
increase in profit, businesses will hire more people, increasing employment
rates and benefiting everyone. Any form of restriction on the business elites
will not only hurt the elites, but also hurt everyone else down the line. Whether
or not this argument is true is not the point of this essay. If it is true, it
is just another example of elites formulating policy for the benefit of the
passive population. Once again the will of the people is irrelevant, showing
that parliamentary democracy does not represent the will of the people.
There
are many examples of this revolving door or archway between government and big
business. In the USA, Donald Rumsfeld, though required to resign from all
businesses that had anything to do with National Defence, since he had been
appointed the Defence Secretary, nonetheless refused to resign from the company
that made Tamiflu (Klein, 2007: 312). Tamiflu is an anti-viral used to combat
avian flu, a massive outbreak of which is undoubtedly a defence issue; the
Pentagon did after all buy $58 million dollars of it during Rumsfeld’s reign
(Klein, 2007: 313). When he left office, the company’s stocks had risen by 807%
(Klein, 2007: 313). He clearly was not worried about the will of the people;
only his own interests. Another example is Dick Cheney and Halliburton. Dick
Cheney was CEO of Halliburton before becoming George W. Bush’s vice president. Halliburton
is a major construction company that was awarded dozens of contracts in the
rebuilding of Iraq after America’s invasion (Klein, 2007: 314). Halliburton’s
stocks had risen by 300% in three years after the invasion and the war itself
has been Halliburton’s single most profitable event in its history (Klein,
2007: 314). Ninety-four Bush Administration officials that pushed for the wars
in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Patriot Act and other national security issues are
now employed in homeland security industry; an industry that they helped create
(Klein, 2007:315). They were not in government to represent the will of the
people; they were in government to make sure they had profitable jobs after their
terms in office. Klein says that there is no longer a distinction between being
in government office and working for big business; both Cheney and Rumsfeld
tried their best to keep their interests in business while working for
government (Klein, 2007: 313).
In
South Africa, this phenomenon is even greater. There is no pretence at leaving
business interests while working for the government. It is not seen as
problematic except when a corrupt tender gets awarded. There are many examples
of this from Helen Zille to Julius Malema. Zille owns shares in Pick n Pay
while being the Premier of the Western Cape (Mail and Guardian, 2012: 1). How
much influence she has over the board of directors is unclear, but she is
unlikely to do anything in her premiership to hurt the profits of a company
that she has shares in. After all, she does not have shares in Pick n Pay to
lose money. Malema, on the other hand, saw no problem in being head of the ANC
Youth League and being on the board of directors of several companies (Mail and
Guardian, 2012: 1). Despite his political rhetoric, it is again unlikely that
he would have adopted or pushed for any policies that hurt his own business
interests. The will of the people is irrelevant to the desire for personal
profit; undermining the parliamentary democracy in South Africa.
Lukes
offers a radical critique of the way power is exercised in society in his book
about the three dimensions of power. In doing so, he also gives us a critique
of parliamentary democracy and how it represents the will of the people. Lukes
argues that the two main ways of looking at how power is exercised is not
sufficient and that there is a third way in which power is exercised through
society. The first way or dimension of power is the pluralist view of society
(Lorenzi, 2006: 89). It is essentially the same way of thinking if one thinks
that parliamentary democracy represents the will of the people. The government
is an unbiased mediator between different sections of society. If there is a
dispute between labour and big business about, for example, the minimum wage,
government will rule in favour of one of the two and when the next dispute
comes about between the two, the government will rule in favour of the other. Policy
is the government’s output of all the various interest groups’ inputs. Major
decisions are openly discussed in government, by the people and the various
interest groups such as labour and big business (Lorenzi, 2006: 88).. In the
context of this essay, government policy is the will of the people.
The
second dimension of power is a critique of the first. It argues that major
decisions are not made through a democratic process (Lorenzi, 2006:91). They
are made behind closed doors by the elites of society without any consultation
with the people. This links to Chatterjee’s argument that policies are made by
technocratic elites, ignoring the will of the people. These decisions will also
favour the elites of society as they are being made by the same elites. The decision
to invade Iraq was not made through democratic processes and was in conflict
with the will of the people who showed their discontent through massive
protests. The decision also favoured the elites; Cheney and Halliburton have
already been mentioned in this essay. This second dimension of power shows how
parliamentary democracy has been undermined to favour the elites of society.
Lukes
argues that there is a third dimension to power. He argues that society’s
perceptions can be manipulated and changed (Lorenzi, 2006: 92). Important
issues can be sidelined through this and just not be discussed on any level. Whether
capitalism should be continued or not after the financial crisis of 2008 is not
discussed by the majority of people; all discussion is how to get things back
to the way they were. The media can play a key role in this shaping of the
debate. If they deliberately or even innocently ask the wrong questions, then
people, as well as the government, can be misled as to what the real issues
are. Advertising can also influence peoples’ view on what the good life is. You
will be happy if you have a nice car, nice house and latest I-pad. It does not
matter that millions of people live in poverty in your country; your
individualistic, consumerist lifestyle is the way to go. The will of the people
can be subverted or distracted from important issues.
With
the last two dimensions of power in mind, it is clear that parliamentary does
not represent the will of the people. Important decisions are not made through
democratic processes, but rather either by the elites, in favour of the elites
behind closed doors, or they are not made at all and the people are distracted
from the real issues.
Ranciere
takes this argument to the next level. He does not believe that parliamentary
or representative democracy has somehow been distorted over time through the
move from citizens to populations, or that there has been a move from
representing the will of the people to formulating the best technocratic policies
for the population. While he does not dispute that technocratic policies have
come to the forefront of politics, he argues that parliamentary democracy was
never intended to follow the will of the people (Ranciere, 2006:53). From its inception parliamentary democracy
was all about distorting the will of the people in favour of elite rule. He argues that democracy has never truly meant
the will of the people, but has always been a term used by the elites to
justify their power (Ranciere, 2006:52). Societies have been organised through
oligarchies, not through representing the will of the people at all. Parliamentary
democracy is and always has been a façade through which the elite maintain
control. He argues that the phrase “representative democracy” was in fact an
oxymoron when it first came about (Ranciere, 2006:53).
He
further argues that representative democracy was not designed to account for
the growth in human population levels, so parliamentary democracy has become
even more a “representation of minorities who are entitled to take charge of
public affairs” (Ranciere, 2006: 53). Again, elites taking charge of political
affairs while the will of the people is ignored or subverted, exactly as
Chatterjee has argued. Voting in electoral politics is simply the manufacturing
of consent for the elites (Ranciere, 2006: 56). People may have in fact
realised this. Voter turnouts in countries are notoriously low, perhaps people
have realised that change cannot be brought about through the ballot box. No
matter what party is in power, the will of the people will not be implemented.
Parliamentary
democracy does not automatically represent the will of the people. It is in
fact difficult to argue that it ever represents the will of the people, let
alone automatically. States and the political elites that control them, no
longer legitimate themselves by arguing that they represent the will of the
people; the state’s function has become the deliverer of services to a passive
population, regardless of what that population actually wants or how it wants
it done. Political parties and governments no longer justify themselves through
representing the will of the people, it is all about the best technocratic
experts formulating and delivering policy to the people. Important decisions
are not made through democratic processes, but by these elite experts,
politicians or business leaders without consultation of the people at all. The
insinuation of business elites into the political sphere and vice versa has
further undermined parliamentary democracy. Politicians are not concerned with
the will of the people, but rather with their own favourable business
opportunities when they leave office. This subversion of parliamentary
democracy should not come as a surprise. Since its inception, parliamentary
democracy has not been about representing the will of the people; it has been
about legitimating elite control over the masses. Voting is not about the will
of the people; it is about manufacturing consent for this elite, oligarchic
control over society.
List of References
Chatterjee,
P, 2004. ‘Populations and Political Society’, The Politics of the Governed, Delhi: Permanent Black.
Klein,
N, 2007. The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of
Disaster Capitalism. New York: Metropolitan Books.
Lorenzi,
M, 2006. Power: A Radical View. Crossroads,
Vol 6. No. 2. http://www.webasa.org/Pubblicazioni/Lorenzi_2006_2.pdf Date of Access: 30 August 2012.
Mail
and Guardian, 2011. Cosatu to picket Helen Zille’s house over Walmart deal. 10
October, http://mg.co.za/article/2011-10-10-cosatu-to-picket-helen-zilles-house-over-walmart-deal Date of Access: 21 August 2012.
Mining
MX, 2010. Julius Malema linked to R250-million mine deal. 14 March. http://www.miningmx.com/news/markets/julius-malema-linked-to-R250m-mine-deal.htm Date of Acces: 21 August 2012.
Ranciere,
J, 2006. ‘Democracy, Republic, Representation’, Hatred of Democracy, London: Verso.
Trouillot, M, 1995. ‘An Unthinkable History’, Silencing the Past, Boston: Beacon
Press.
Zikode,
S, 2009. To Resist all Degradations and Divisions. Course Reader
