The Reflection of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Deficiencies of Democracy in Inefficiency

Document Type : Original Independent Original Article

Authors

1 Associate Professor at Tehran University

2 Public Law PhD.

Abstract

Democracy is one of the most renown political systems and one of the most valuable assets of human being.However almost all democracies contain deficiencies which impairs their efficiency and can cause deviations in their path toward the optimum purpose.Such deficiencies can be seen in the path of any political system known as democracy and can in turn lead to vulnerabilities of such democracy or delegitimization thereof.It is such risks that necessitate the study of the reasons behind such vulnerabilities. However, considering the variety and differences existing among democracies, any research with a limited subject needs to be focused only on specific types of democracies.The present research addresses the question of identifying those deficiencies based on the hypothesis that such deficiencies can be categorized into two types of intrinsic and extrinsic deficiencies.The research availing itself of analytical-descriptive methods with the support of library and internet resources indicates that the intrinsic deficiencies stem from the citizens who lack a tendency toward public actions, lack the sufficient knowledge and literacy and support those elected authorities who ignore and deviate from the public will and those bureaucrats who prefer their administrative interests to the public interest.As to the extrinsic deficiencies, one can refer to interference by certain stakeholders and deviating the decision making and decision building from the public will as well as the deciations in the public services expected from democracies. Therefore, improvement of democratic life in the framework of democracy through known methods can result in resolution of such deficiencies.

Highlights

Introduction

Democracy is the most revered form of government and one of the most valuable achievements of human society. Nearly all political systems endeavor to portray themselves as democratic.  The theoretical and practical superiority of democracy over competing philosophies and systems of governance has increasingly elevated global fascination with democracy to the extent that even the most undemocratic regimes find it expedient to label themselves as democratic. Varying readings and models of democracy has produced divergent forms of self-proclaimed democracies in terms of background, application, depth, extent, method, and interpretation. Nevertheless, all democracies, however formed, share certain characteristics. One such common traits is inefficiency in terms of divergence from the ideal path which has led to varying degrees of deficiencies including efficiency and legitimacy deficits: hence producing a fundamental problématique. It is thus imperative to address these deficits. This research focuses on such deficiency and its causes. The main question of the study is “what deficiency/deficiencies lead to sub-optimal efficiency in democracies?” The hypothesis of this study is that “a realistic ontological assessment elucidates intrinsic and extrinsic deficiencies contributing to inefficiency.” Any analytical assessment of democracy requires explicit statement of theoretical foundation to indicate which form of democracy is being considered. The approach of this study is to consider democracy as a desirable form of modern governance based on social contract, and founded on a positive assessment of human nature, and on liberty and pragmatism.

 

Methodology

The methodology of this research is analytical descriptive.

 

Results and Discussion

 Democracies have intrinsic and extrinsic deficiencies that lead to their inefficiency. Intrinsic deficiencies occur in a two-way relationship between the populace and the authorities. At the level of the populace, despite the fact that there has been a continuous endeavor to expand the possibility of exercising the right to vote and to maximize the role of citizens in the public arena, the general reluctance to participate in public affairs and aversion to politics for various reasons—including euphoric democratic passivity—are pervasive phenomena. Weakness of public awareness—as one of the old challenges and fundamental historical criticisms of democracies—should also be considered as another deficiency attributable to the populace, which has always been the subject of fundamental criticism of the theory and practice of democracy, especially from the past and cotemporary elitists. Also, there is always the possibility of electorates’ personal interests in public action and prevalence of individual interest over societal interest. In other words, influenced by the theory of social choice, the analysis of the voting behavior of the electorates shows that there is always the possibility of profiteering from the right to vote to give priority to individual gains over public good. In this regard, even the possibility of rational irrationality—or deliberately ignoring the truth and settling for realities—is not negligible, leading to the external costs of undesirable group decision-making. The second level of intrinsic inefficiencies relates to the officials of democratic governments, which includes both elected politicians and non-elected bureaucrats. Elected politicians, due to negligence, fault, ill-intention or lack of knowledge, experience or ability to reach the desired outcome, divert the path of democracy and instead of pursuing the interest, values and demands of the people, impose their own values and whims on the society. In addition, they may take advantage of their legislative and executive power and the resulting privileges to achieve personal gain by shaping laws conducive to corruption and illegitimate advantages. The non-elected bureaucrats in democracies may directly or indirectly cause damage to democracies, because of the weakness in the bureaucratic system or their own personal inefficiencies, including illegitimate personal gain, over-expansion of the bureaucratic system and its legal apparatus, conflictual bureaucratic culture and resistance to change. The second category of deficiencies of democracies are extrinsic and are imposed from outside. This category includes both the influence of pressure groups as well as the services that democracies must provide. Pressure groups, with the goal of gaining social influence through exerting influence over the dominant power, try to exploit political tactics to maximize their own gains at the expense of public interests or the desires and objectives of the electorate, by influencing public affairs and enacting laws conducive to their own objectives. This happens especially through pre-election support and its transformation into post-election deals, which prioritizes the interests of a few over the collective interests, thus leading to the inefficiency of democracies. The other level refers to the services that democracies, like any other political system, must provide based on any theory of the government. The failure of democracies in recognizing and providing such services and the various reasons that cause this in a synergistic way make democracies face a crisis of efficiency.

 

Conclusion

The political model of democracy and democratic political system is one of the greatest achievements of humanity over many centuries. This political system, with all ups and downs, has today reached its widest global expanse in history. However, the hidden realities behind the facade of this universality should not be neglected. The reality is that the practical inefficiency of democracy is obvious. Yet, other models of government that have appeared in the course of history of human civilization in the form of autocratic governments are certainly more ineffective. The advantage of democracy is its ability to resist against the worst abuses of power and its inherent mechanisms of overcoming it. One of the ways for democracy to excel in this campaign is to assess and analyze the challenges and deficiencies that afflict democracies. These deficiencies can lead to the inefficiency of democracies by diverting them from the desired path and lead to crisis in various spheres. From crisis of efficiency to crisis of legitimacy, the intrinsic and extrinsic deficiencies of democracies damage and weaken this greatest model of governance. The mentioned deficiencies—whether from within or imposed on democracies from outside—can cause democracies to deviate from the desired path; thus, leading to general public discontent or diminished efficiency. As a result, it is imperative to rethink the functioning of democracies in all aspects of the mentioned deficiencies.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

  1. Abdullah, A. (2009). "Saturation in theories of voting behavior", Islamic Revolution Approaches Quarterly, 3(8). 87-104.
  2. Altman, A. (2007). An introduction to the philosophy of law, translated by Behrouz Jandaghi, Qom, Imam-Khomeini Educational and Research Institute Publications. (In Persian)
  3. Ansari, M. (2005). Conversational Democracy, Tehran, Center Publishing. (In Persian)
  4. Araste Kho, M. (1993). Basics of Political Sociology, Volume 1, Tehran, Ghazanesh Publication Institute. (In Persian)
  5. Arblaster, A. (2010). Democracy, translated by Hassan Mortazavi, Tehran, Ashian Publications. (In Persian)
  6. Asgarzadeh, M. (2012). "The role of influential groups in public policy making", Culture and Administrative Behavior, 1(6). ‌30-33.
  7. Balaghi Ghaznavi, h. (1381). An Introduction to Democracy, Qom, Navid Islam Publications. (In Persian)
  8. Bashiriyeh, H. (2008). Lessons of democracy for all, Tehran, Masereh Press. (In Persian)
  9. Beetham, D. and Boyle, K. (1376). What is democracy?, translated by Shahram Naqsh-Tabrizi, Tehran, Qaqnoos Publications.
  10. Beetham, D. and Boyle, K. (1377). Questions and answers about the freedom of democracy and civil society, translated by Reza Zamani, Tehran, third edition. (In Persian)
  11. Bernard, K. (2012). Democracy, translated by Abdolreza Salar Behzadi, Basirt Publications. (In Persian)
  12. Camps, and (1999). "Education of Democracy", translated by Mahmoud Amani Tehrani, Rushd Moalem, Mehr, (18) 143, 50-53.
  13. Caplan, B. (2001). Rational Ignorance versus Rational Irrationality, Kyklos International Review for Social Sciences, 14(54), 3-26.
  14. Caplan, B. (2007). The Myth of the Rational Voter: why democracies choose bad policies, Prinsceton, Princeton University Press.
  15. Castles, F. et.al. (eds.) (2010). Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State, Oxford, Oxford University Press.
  16. Catt, H. (2002). Democracy in Practice, 2th Edition, USA & Canada, Taylor & Francis e-Library.
  17. Dai, T. and Ziegler, H. (1993). The Elites of the Masses and Democracy, translated by Behrooz Najarian, Ahvaz, Khuzestan Publications. (In Persian)
  18. Dalley, P. J. (2011). A Theory of Agency Law, University of Pittsburgh law Review, 18(72), 495- 547.
  19. (2010). About Democracy, translated by Firouz Salarian, Tehran, Cheshme Publishing House.(In Persian)
  20. Dryzek, J. S. & Dunleavy, P. (2009). Theories of the Democratic State, Palgrave Macmillan, China, 2009
  21. Dubnova, A. (1999). Reflections on the foundations of democracy, translated by Bozor Naderzad, Tehran, Cheshme Publishing House. (In Persian)
  22. Elester, J. & Aanund H. (Editors) (1989). Foundations of Social Choice Theory, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  23. Elwani, M. (2001). Decision-making and policy setting, Tehran, Samt Publications. (In Persian)
  24. Gatner, J. A. (1980). In Pursuit of Public Opinion: Politics of pressure Groups, Canadian Parliamentary Review, 1(3), 32-36.
  25. Ghadran Karamelki, M. (2006). "A Half-View of Islam and Democracy", Islamic Government, Fall 2015, 11(41). 148-159.
  26. Ghasemi, A. (2018). Non-elective democracy, Tehran, Legal Publications. (In Persian)
  27. Godin, R. (2010). Sangideh Democracy, translated by Lili Kogash, Tehran, Phoenix Publications. (In Persian)
  28. Gunning, J.P. (2013). Democracy, an introduction to public choice, translated by Hossein Rabiei, Tehran, Duniya Ekhtaz Publications. (In Persian)
  29. Gurji Azandriani, A.A., Mokhtari, M. (2010-2011). An introduction to electoral law and electoral systems, pamphlet on electoral systems, master's degree in public law, Shahid Beheshti University, first semester.
  30. Gutmann, A. (1988). Democracy and the Welfare state, Princeton, Princeton University Press.
  31. Hope, H. (2015). Aristocracy of the Monarchy of Democracy, translated by Suleiman Abedi, Tehran, Dunya Ekhtaz Publications.
  32. http://jayantbhandari.com/downloads/democracy_of_pressure_groups.pdf
  33. Jayant B. (2003). Democracy of pressure Groups, Scientific Report, Available at:
  34. Johnson, P. E. (1998). Social Choice: Theory and Research, thousand Oaks (California). Sage Publication.
  35. Karagozlu, M. (2008). The thought of political democracy, Tehran, Aghah Publications Institute. (In Persian)
  36. Labibi, M. (2009). Liberal Democracy, Tehran, Afkar Publishing. (In Persian)
  37. Lacombe, R. (2003). Crisis of Democracy, translated by Noor Ali Tabandeh, Tehran, Bagh-No publishing house.
  38. Lipset, S. (under review) (2004). Encyclopedia of Democracy, translated by Kamran Fani and others, Tehran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs Library Center and Publications. (In Persian)
  39. Mashaw, J. L. & Harfst, D. L. (1987). Regulation and Legal Culture: The Case of Motor Vehicle Safety, Yale journal on Regulation, 1(4), 257-316.
  40. Moff, Sh., Others (2015). In criticism and defense of liberal democracy, translated by Jafar Mohseni Darehbidi, Tehran, Naqsh Vangar. (In Persian)
  41. Mohed, M. (2005). In the air of justice and justice, Tehran, Karnameh publication. (In Persian)
  42. Najafi Afra, M. (2005). "Islam and Democracy", political-economic information, Mehr and Aban, (20) 217-218, 54-61.
  43. Nelson, and (2005). In justifying democracy, translated by Alireza Parsa, another publication. (In Persian)
  44. Putnam, R. (2012). Democracy and democratic traditions, translated by Mohammad Taghi Delfrooz, Tehran, Sociologists Publications. (In Persian)
  45. Qardaghi, F. (2013). The Legend of Democracy, translated by Kiyomarth Yousefi, Aras Publishing House, Sanandaj. (In Persian)
  46. Reza, A. (1983). Communism and Democracy, Tehran, Novin Publications. (In Persian)
  47. Rowbottom, J. (2010). Democracy Distorted, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
  48. Sarlak, M., Others (2008). "Explaining the trans-bureaucratic organizational model in structural and behavioral environmental dimensions with the bureaucratic organizational model", Farda Management, 8(21), 43-54.
  49. Tabatabai, M. (2013). The perspective of democracy, Samiram, Samaram publications. (In Persian)
  50. Tellis, R. b. (2011). Democracy after liberalism, translated by Asgar Kahramanpour, Tehran, New Design Publications. (In Persian)
  51. Weber, F. (2015). Non-electoral democracy and separation of new powers, translated by Ali-Akbar Gurji-Azandriani and others, Tehran, Khorsandi Publications. (In Persian)
  52. Wolff, R. D. & Resnick, S. A. (2012). Contending Economic Theories (Neoclassical, Keynesian and Marxian). Massachusetts, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
  53. Zakaria, F. (2006). The future of freedom: the priority of liberalism over democracy, translated by Amir Hossein Noroozi, Tehran, Ta-No Publications. (In Persian)
  54. Zierler, D. (2011). the Invention of ecocide: agent orange Vietnam and scientists who changed the way we think about the environment, Athens (Georgia). University of Georgia Press.

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics