Recently, I read an interesting article on participatory democracy.
You can read it here: http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Démocratie_participative. It contains many references on the subject.
For me there will be no 21st century Africa without democracy. But what kind of Democracy are we talking about?
I could find two definitions of Democracy on the net.
One in French (Translated):
Etymology: from the Greek demos, people, and kratos, power, authority.
Democracy is the political system in which power is held or controlled by the people (the principle of sovereignty), without distinction due to birth, wealth, competence ... (principle of equality). In general, democracies are indirect or representative, the power exerted through designated representatives in elections by universal suffrage.
http://www.toupie.org/Dictionnaire/démocratie.htm
The other in English:
Etymology: Middle French democracy, democratia from Late Latin, from Greek demokratia, from demos kratia-+-cracy
Date: 1576
1 a: government by the people, especially: rule of the Majority b: a government in Which the supreme power is vested in the people and Exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/democracy
Both definitions are essentially the same. They include the principle of the « sovereign People ». It is the etymology of the word.
However, both definitions say that "democracy" is generally a government where power is exercised through representatives elected at elections (universal suffrage in the case of the definition in French).
Is there a contradiction between popular sovereignty and representation of people by individuals?
Consider the analogy of the lawyer and his client. The lawyer represents his client in court. However, his client remains fully sovereign, at least regarding his relationship with his lawyer. The customer can change lawyers when he decides. He may even decide to represent himself.
The sovereign people are represented by elected officials.
Can the people do without elected officials?
In the African context the peoples of so-called democratic governments have very little effect on the policy debate once the elections are over.
I would not talk about so-called democratic governments of other continents, but I think the problem is not only African.
By definition a representative democracy seems an oxymoron. Not that representation and sovereignty are mutually exclusive, but rather in its implementation, representative democracy may threaten the sovereignty of citizens.
I speak primarily of Africa here.
Indeed, what are the institutional mechanisms to ensure that, once elected, the people representatives simply continue to represent it?
How to ensure that the elected officials do not transform in an omniscient and paternalistic elite?
The myth of the enlightened guide ...
Finally, can the people afford to make decisions? Does it need leaders?
Are the people inherently unfit to lead?
I answer no to these last two issues. I have the intuition that by the proper organization of the forces of nations and the adoption of efficient processes, the people can govern itself, by itself, with or without leaders.
Leader and representative are not synonyms.
In « Le Petit Larousse » we read this definition (Translated):
leader,
masculine noun,
Person who is the head of a political party, movement, trade union: The leader of the Socialist Party.
Person who, within a group, makes most of the initiatives, leading the other group members, holds the command: He is the leader of the band
.
And this one for the word "representative":
representatives,
name
Person or thing taken as a model, such as a class, category: Being a good representative of the middle class.
Person who has been empowered to act on behalf of someone who performs an act in the name and on behalf of someone; agent representative.
Source: http://www.larousse.fr/dictionnaires/francais/representant
We see that the French definition of the word democracy accords with the second sense of the word "representative" here.
Compare the following two definitions:
Leader: A person who, within a group, most often takes the initiative, leading the other group members, holds the command: He is the leader of the band;
Representative: Person who has been empowered to act on behalf of someone who performs an act in the name and on behalf of someone; agent, representative
.
Thus, although the representative may act on behalf of a person or group of persons, it is not said that he initiates the action. This is not the case of the leader. He takes the initiative, and the group follows.
The nuance is huge.
Are our Presidents our representatives or are they our leaders?
Indeed, the ideal would it not be that, in a democracy, those who are the people's representatives be sensitive to their needs and aspirations?
Shouldn't the People be able to dictate their agenda to its representatives if it is true that the representative is acting on its behalf?
Let's go further ...
Should we not be wary, in a democracy, of representatives who claim to be leaders?
If the People, by definition, hold the command in a democracy, it should only have representatives, not leaders.
Otherwise, we are not talking about a democracy.
This is what the definitions say.
Of course, my argument is based on my interpretation of those definitions and is therefore arbitrary.
Yet, it is also based on my experiences as an African citizen. I would ask the following question to the African reader:
In your country whom of the citizens or the President (or your Prime Minister, Minister, etc. ..) initiate political action?
In other words, who decides on matters of health, education, government, etc ... ?
