DEMOCRACY

If you ask anyone what democracy means, you may get a series of
answers that tell you really little. The erudite will tell you it comes
from two Greek words meaning the people and rule. But
democracy in ancient Greece was rather like apartheid in South
Africa: only a small segment of the population had democratic
rights. We might as well break down the word telephone onto its
Greek component parts and look for a Greek origin. The ancient
Greeks knew nothing about telephones. Another answer would be
the trite rule of, for and by the people when we all understand
that any modern state has to go through a process of choosing
people who represent districts, constituencies etc. So we have what
is deemed a representative democracy.
With all our political pundits, averred and assumed, we have not
determined what democracy really is and what constitutes
democracy. It is almost as if Karl Popper never existed, even though
the great man died only a few years ago. We leave democracy to the
realm of the elected government without asking if there is anything
really fundamental to democracy. To my mind, democracy also
entails good governance. In other words, the issue is less the
question of elections and more how the elected (or other)
government functions. Does it truly serve the will of the people? Is it
fair to all the citizens? Is it accountable? In other words, does the
government explain to its citizens why it has taken a particular
action and whether that action really benefits everyone? Do the
people have any real say other than the trip to the polls at
prescribed or summarily determined intervals? Is there really the
rule of law? Does the Constitution, written or otherwise, contain
ample protection for all citizens or others who share our national
space? Is the electoral system fair or simply convenient?
Let us, in our own case (pardon the pun) look at our Constitution
and the practice of law in our country. To begin with, our
Constitution is not something that we determined ourselves- as was
the case of the United States or South Africa, both of which have
readable constitutions. Ours was written by colonial lawyers intent
on maintaining some of the inequities that were part of colonial
government, such as our defamation law or the fact that one can be
charged for looking up at the sky for what is called loitering. Indeed,
in the savings clause which insists that the old body of punitive
laws should not be considered inimical to the newer body of law
dealing with human rights, we have the ultimate absurdity of a
photographer being arrested on a charge of trespassing for taking
photographs in a public hospital. It is interesting that with the
perennially high number of lawyers in our governments no one has
attempted to eradicate the savings clause.
Additionally, we have occasionally had judges who will dare to
overrule the Chief Immigration Officers decision even though his or
her decision, say, on deportation is according to the (our) law final
and cannot be reviewed by the courts. Add to this judges who die,
or worse, retire without having completed their written decisions.
Think too of persons euphemistically said to be on remand (really in
prison) for up to four years, waiting for a trial. Interestingly, only a
special person could escape the CIOs decision and only an ordinary
person could be on remand for four years. What if when he is
brought to trial he is proven innocent? Does he receive
compensation for the hell he has endured? Does the State in any
way apologise to him? Is that not his democratic right?
What about accountability? If that existed, the level of corruption
that has plagued for decades now would have diminished,
assuming that that was accompanied by a Freedom of Information
Act! Without the necessary safeguards how can we possibly boast of
a democracy? Even in the USA, where it seems that there is a
persistent attempt in some states to limit voting opportunities or in
reality to limit the number of Blacks and Latinos who can vote,
there is at least some real effort to allow a limited amount of choice
as to who goes to the polls. There is a primary, where contestants of
the same party compete for the right to represent their party in the
national election. In Barbados, that decision is a right of the Partys
executive. Is that democratic? The primary is therefore
meaningless. Additionally, we have perhaps in the First Past the
Post system of elections, the least democratic of all systems. The
arguments on that issue are vast and must be left for another
article.