Voice of Democracy in Modern Governance

Introduction

In contemporary governance, democratic voice is viewed as a platform for public accountability. An intuitive relationship is identified between growing participation in decision-making and the perception of a shift to a bottom-up policy from the traditionally top-down approach. As a result, the role of a public representative has transformed from that of being a trustee to a delegate. This process further legitimized public policies in terms of being a demonstration of the will of the people. The radical notion of democracy carried forward in the twentieth century acted as a vehicle of change as it was dominated by authority.

The relevance of democracy in a civil society is indicative of the moral development within a particular society. The concept of democracy ensures that every member of a given society has an equal share over the resources of that society, and democracy also ensures that voice and decision-making power are present among the general public. Power does not reside among only a few individuals; rather, it is expected to be available among all. The document focuses on the evolution of a democratic society, institutional arrangements, and the dynamic process of political power concentrated on the concept of public participation. In this regard, citizenship becomes a socioeconomic and technological tool for the dynamic and organic shift of democracy. The process of civic participation developed in the city-states with the direct participation of individuals. With the growth of populations and different classes, the participatory aspect of society was interchangeably transferred to representative democracy.

History of the Voice of Democracy

Throughout human history and different eras, voices of the people, citizens, commoners, subjects, and residents have resonated in various forms and magnitudes. Milestones such as the Magna Carta, Petition of Rights, French Revolution, Chartism movement, and the First Labour Representation Committee were important events that influenced electoral reforms in U.K. These events followed the evolutionary transformation of governance by divine-right autocratic monarchies or tyrants towards enlightening democracy, for better of the people. At present, those progressive commitments by our ancestors across centuries allow us to use public consultations, discussions, forums, referenda, petitions, and voting as citizens to keep the march for progress going and hold our politicians and their political parties accountable regarding the decisions they should make on our behalf in the governance.

Voice of Democracy is a contemporary concept of democratic governance. In order to understand it well, we need to know the historical evolution, chronological developments and connections with various tools used for the voices of the people. A brief discussion on autocracy, democracy and public opinion mechanism is also presented, otherwise executive and controlling structures, particularly government and justice figures, may or may not use this information, systems. In Athens, even if the rights were limited to a few, practically elements of modern democracy, the participation of citizens in government was huge compared to present-day democracy. Democratic government means ‘people are the king’, not the representatives of the people are the king. Some of the elements used to understand public opinion are: meetings, citizen initiatives, referenda, poll surveys, online platforms and mass media. Mass media, throughout history, has been shaping the opinions of common citizens in multiple ways. In a democracy, we do have legally operated private or corporate sector news media. They, however, are required to work as an independent and neutral medium to protect the people from the manipulation of the state’s propaganda. The comparison of a just mentioned argument can be well understood from the case of China whose major TV, radio and newspapers outlets are solely functioned by the ruling party.

Theoretical Models

There are several theoretical models to address the voice of democracy in modern governance. In participatory democracy, there is a strong preference for direct citizen consultation regarding public issues. Citizens articulate their preferences to institutions at the local, state, or national level, and institutions, as the voice of the majority, can be heard and recognized, while frivolous or emotional calls may be dismissed. In deliberative democracy, representatives of different groups participate in citizens' consultations, and they talk on behalf of their group. In the discussion, citizens sift their ideas, reduce emotions, and produce rational conversation. The third model, known as pluralism, presupposes that there is a run-out at the end of the bargain. Politicians are the directors who direct active and passive indifferent attitudes; they can give it up if it does not go according to their interests and power. In the deepest form of pluralism, other actors in society also have a voice. Such a pluralist state of governance can be understood from public administration. Is it possible to rebuild and deepen theories to daily municipal life or public opinion?

It is certain that these theories, rewritten for modern society, tend to transform it more or less. However, we will see that they sometimes come against becoming. These theories may act as brakes to put the reality of society's life into a dry classification. Theories are abstractions, transferring factual reality into standard categories, moving the idea of universality from the very darkening of the diversity of historical events or the specificity of local institutions. However, these theories are obstacles to our observation of society and are as clear and effective as the requirements of administrative action, sometimes more than descriptive studies. The idea of theory is therefore not at all an obstacle, and scientific knowledge cannot isolate itself from the need. Political scientists who have described the organization of public opinion in pure descriptive studies must admit that this perspective is not what people demand as they contemplate politics because of their profession. Thus, a theory of the nature of democracy becomes a technical and observational device, a positive aid to political conduct when operating as a positive requirement.

Case Studies

Elynia Bravos is a Tatar village on the Kuril Islands that is part of Hokkaido, Japan. It first became part of Japan in 1875 as the result of negotiations between the Meiji government and the government of the Russian Empire. In 2017, villagers approached the local assembly about rebuilding the lighthouse, traces of which are located on one of the Kuril Islands. The local assembly is a formal mechanism in local governance and is recognized in the law as a legitimate platform for official interaction and communication. The assembly passed a resolution supporting the villagers’ project. While on one level, this was purposed to protect the public interest, local politicians believe that the movement will improve Japan–Russia relations and be a harbinger for the return of the Northern Territories. For the villagers, the restoration of the lighthouse is a way to continue to assert the value of Japan and the power of the people.

In post-war Italy, inhabitants in the town of Comunitiamo scheduled play dates for children and told them about the concept of sustainable living. Citizen demands led to the establishment of an ecological council in a French city. Institutions are also beginning to become more aware of the power of the voice of democracy. In Tacen, Slovenia, “The community and the municipality are now beginning to see that we have more done to communicate our activities than what we are doing or even more than what we are not doing,” possibly because of local activities. In the Netherlands, the green left wing of Enschede started with an initiative about the future of a soccer club but ended in local politicking and decision-making about a large redevelopment site instead. In Albuquerque, New Mexico, a task force that was created by the city council has the power to make recommendations related to the schools. In response to this initiative, the Board Chairman pointed out, “The council invited the top two officials, in essence, inviting a district's competition and failure. The six-member task force has a predetermined outcome.” In South Africa’s Western Cape, “community television is established for communities to have a voice in the governance of broadcasting.” In the Malabar region of South Africa, a non-governmental organization is working in partnership with a local university to make available radio broadcast training. “The objective of this training is to help the local community address local tourism agendas by encouraging discussion and the voice of democracy.” For Don Crespi, at one of Italy's largest transport companies, sustainable innovation is led through local public participation exercises and is part of modern governance.

Challenges and Future

One of the most serious threats to the voice of democracy in modern governance is misinformation. As newcomers are actively made to feel like outsiders, so too are marginalized groups growing in number, with many people who vote in elections increasingly feeling muted or that their voices are summarily dismissed. People are voting less in elections and referendums. Alongside this, reports of political parties succumbing to the dictates of their leadership are growing. Centralized power structures are emerging as a result of those in power pursuing particularistic aims based on the aforementioned misinformation, often resulting in a range of decisions that can exclude or further marginalize the voices of the previously discussed individuals or communities. Indeed, today citizens face a number of hurdles on varying levels that prevent them from engaging in democratic processes we once merely took for granted without any real contemplation of why. As technology continues to evolve, it is unknown how the democratic voice, as we understand it at present, may change or need to change. Recent technological advancements and the rapid dissemination of information, true or false, have all shaped the way individuals experience democratic interaction. Emerging threats, ranging from populism to authoritarianism, necessitate our understanding and adaptive addressing. Democratic strength is built to resist penetration against systems, ideas, and individuals that will act to undermine its function. With these findings in mind, one is tempted to ask: can anything be done? While ensuring institutional integrity and preventing insider threats are vital components that deserve further inquiry, some have instead focused on potential futures and ask: what, if we can’t quash or control the threat, can be done to prevent it from occurring? Are there some reforms that we can make in our system or new potential solutions that we as a society can implement? With proper consideration from future governments, this is feasible, and some have seen the potential in reforms already in progress, which can affect voter behavior in a positive way. At the same time, others see educating people, mostly through our schooling systems, as imperative if we are to tackle this matter successfully.

Did you like this example?

244

10