Voted, Vanished, Vanquished

What is the basis of the claim that 'People, Spaces and Deliberation' are central to how you achieve good and accountable governance durably? One way of buttressing is to step back and reflect on two competing interpretations of governance, really, politics. The first interpretation of governance or politics is that it is purely and simply the business of the elite. Leaders rule, take all the decisions and that is that. Improving governance is about improve public administration, improving what leaders do.  Some technocrats even prefer  this authoritarian view of politics. They like it because they say it is efficient. Leaders are clear, decisions are taken quickly and implemented immediately. I remember that as a young lawyer and journalist in Lagos, Nigeria one and half decades ago, we used to go to seminars and have huge intellectual bust-ups with these technocrats and their love of authoritarian rule. We were told then that the 'modernizing soldier' would save Africa. Well, that did not happen. Military regimes and authoritarian rule ruined Africa.

But it is important to understand that this understanding of governance or politics also affects formally democratic politics. For, on this view, governance is still the business of the elite, even in a formal democracy. Yes, every few years voters vote. Elite factions present platforms via political parties. Voters back one faction or the other and that is it, until the next election. The successful elite faction rules for a few years, its will untrammelled. This is the view of democratic politics that Joseph Schumpeter famously described as 'competitive elitism' (see his: Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy ). On this view, the people vanish once elections are over. They go back to their private concerns and leave governance to leaders. On this view, improving governance is improving the capability and effectiveness of leaders and the state. End of story.

But there has always been a totally different interpretation of governance or politics. This is the view that the people (The Public) are integral to governance or politics. The people cannot and do not disappear. In fact, the people are everywhere. They are watching what leaders do, discussing public issues and other common concerns, and that, above all, public opinion is forming all the time. On this view, the public domain or the public sphere is the supreme arena of politics. It is the political community in conversation. Those who govern are trustees of The Public. But the citizens that constitute The Public are also officers in of the political community. They have the duties of citizenship, chief amongst which is not just to pay taxes but to pay attention to public affairs and the quality of government. They also have a duty to speak up if displeased, and they do not have to wait until election time. They can speak up in many ways, some peaceful, others not so peaceful. For instance, the Economist  reported the other day that there were, according to official records, 60,000 protests by ordinary citizens in China in 2006 ('The New Colonialists', Economist, March 13, 2008).

Lesson: The Public exists everywhere, paying attention, and speaking up even in tough environments. On this view, efforts to improve governance must also include a sustained and serious attempt to help The Public discharge its duties, to help citizens carry out the duties of citizenship. The constitution of the public domain is a crucial component of this effort. The public sphere must help citizens be better informed, must aid debate and deliberation on common concerns, and, above all, must assist in the creation of informed, considered public opinion...a critical force in governance or politics. All this is for the simple reason that the processes that take place in a truly democratic public sphere add up to the surest way of keeping rogues honest, of making rulers accountable.
 
So long!

Photo Credit: Arne Hoel