Democracy’s minimal conditions
06.24.2004The following ran in today's Tiempo Político. Below is the original/English version:
-----
Bolivia's democracy is at risk. First, because Bolivia's state is losing its authority. Second, because social support for democratic values is low. Both factors are among the most minimal social & institutional conditions necessary for a democratic state. W/o either, even the basic territorial integrity of Bolivia is at risk.
Max Weber defined the state as the organization w/ a legitimate monopoly over the means of coercion in a given territory. This is the basic source of the state's authority. Of course, the legitimacy of this authority depends as much on the state's accountability to its citizens as on the way governments choose to exercise their power. The state's authority is only recognized when it maintains its monopoly over the means of coercion.
This means only the state can use punitive force. When groups of citizens kidnap a local authority, sentence him to death w/o due process, torture, and kill him, they're acting outside the boundaries of law. This is a direct challenge to the state's authority. If such behavior spreads, the state's very existence is called into question. And w/o a consolidated state, capable of ensuring the rule of law and individual civil liberties, we can't speak of democracy.
Democracy also requires citizens who respect & uphold the basic individual rights of others. This is especially true since pluralist societies don't have true majorities. A democratic citizen is tolerant of the views of others. Even those views she vehemently opposes.
Democracy recognizes the right of self-expression, even of protest. But that doesn't mean protesters can use force; they too must respect the basic rights of others. If a protester demands the right to march down city streets, he must also respect the right of others to boo him. When protesters respond to vocal opposition w/ violence, then they aren't engaged in peaceful demonstration, aren't defending the right of free expression, and aren't engaged in democratic politics.
When the state has lost its ability to ensure the rule of law & basic civil rights of all its citizens, and when civil society engages in political debate based on force, the democratic state has broken down. When force becomes the arbiter of political action, when citizens begin to accept violence as an expression of "the will of the people" rather than discourse & consensus, they’ve given tacit consent to tyranny.
The Bolivian state is today being slowly torn apart. Both government & citizens are to blame. It'll require the conscious effort of both to restore the minimal conditions necessary for democracy. It'll require the deliberate decision by both to ensure the continued existence of a Bolivian state. The continued existence of any nation-state can't be taken for granted; it's a matter of daily, conscious, deliberate construction.
Posted by Miguel at 11:53 AM
Comments
Great article, I think you left more than a grain of sand of support to bolivian democracy, I hope it is widely read. BTW, I'd like to post it in a yahoogroup of schoolmates, if that's ok with you.
Posted by: Daniel at June 24, 2004 04:54 PM
a nation is a daily plebiscite.
-Hobsbawm
yepper
Posted by: tom at June 28, 2004 07:06 PM
As I understand it Bolivia is in the process of re-srawing a constitution and there are many there that are very committed to this occuring with broad participation from all sectors.
There is a long tradition of public demonstrations, which occur almost daily in La Paz. Mostly these have been noisy, but non-violent. That changed when the police protested and the government tried to suppress them with the army.
Then, in October the government tried to stop the march to the capital that had been going on peacefully for weeks. A number of people were killed then, too. As a result the people demanded and got the resignation of the president.
The new president is trying to find a resolution that will include increased access to the people -- that is democracy.
One of the big problems has been the short sighted strong-arm tactics applied by those famous defenders of democracy - the government of the US.
Posted by: Brad at June 28, 2004 08:38 PM
Brad:
I think you've to look more carefully at what I wrote. And also look more carefully at the events of February & October.
First, the police didn't protest in February. They mutinied. They took their weapons, and laid siege to the government buildings (firing into the office of the president & parliament). That's insurrection; the army was called in to protect the government from a coup.
Second, the protests of October weren't all peaceful. There were kidnappings of about 1,000 tourists, and clashes all along. I'm willing to concede that the government handled October poorly. But to portray it as peaceful protests vs. bloodthirsty government thugs is not fair.
Posted by: miguel at June 29, 2004 01:16 PM