Election

Alternative meanings at Election (disambiguation)

An election is a process in which eligible citizens vote candidates into office. It is the mechanism by which a democracy fills elective offices in the legislature, and sometimes the executive and judiciary, and in which electorates choose local government officials. The study of elections is called psephology.

The most common election methods or electoral systems can be categorized as either proportional or majoritarian. Among the former are party-list proportional representation and additional member system. Among the latter are first-past-the-post (relative majority), and absolute majority. Many countries have growing electoral reform movements, which advocate systems such as approval voting, single transferable vote, instant runoff voting or a Condorcet method.

Democratic Elections- Some Prerequisites for Fairness

The Benchmark of Elections

Elections are the central institution of democratic representative governments. Why? Because, in a democracy, the authority of the government derives solely from the consent of the governed. The principal mechanism for translating that consent into governmental authority is the holding of free and fair elections.

The rules by which an election is conducted (especially the voting system used) can have wide-ranging effects on the character and outcome of the election. While all modern democracies hold regular elections, not all elections are held by a true democracies. Some governments that employ other 'behind-the-scenes' means of candidate selection will occasionally invent various electoral systems in which only the appearance of a genuine electoral contest takes place, in order to present the facade of popular support, when in fact the holding of a truly fair election might force those currently holding power to be required to hand over their positions of power against their wishes.

Right-wing dictatorships, and Marxist regimes (see Wikipedia article regarding the former USSR), have been known to hold such 'show-elections'. In the 'single-candidate' type of 'show-election', there may only be one candidate for any one given position, with no alternative choices. In the 'fixed-vote' type of 'show-election' such elections may offer several candidates for each office, but these elections ensure through intimidation or rigging that only the government-approved candidate is chosen. In the 'false-diversity' type of 'show-election' while there may be several choices, all choices come from within the same incumbent party. These are not democratic elections.

What Are Democratic Elections?

Definitions of Democracy

Jeane Kirkpatrick, scholar and former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, has offered this definition: "Democratic elections are not merely symbolic....They are competitive, periodic, inclusive, definitive elections in which the chief decision-makers in a government are selected by citizens who enjoy broad freedom to criticize government, to publish their criticism and to present alternatives."

The Democracy Watch (International) website, further defines fair democratic elections as, "Elections in which great care it taken to prevent any explicit or hidden structural bias towards any one candidate, aside from those beneficial biases that naturally result from an electorate that is equally well informed about the various assets and liabilities of each candidate".

Some Examples of Structural Biases

One example of structural bias towards a candidate or party are the 2004 parliamentary elections in Iran, in which the opposition party was literally wiped out overnight by the arbitrary decision of the Supreme-Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, to disqualify over half of the opposition candidates from running for office. Apparently the Ayatollah reached this decision due to his disagreement with the political leanings of these candidates. Still, according the the Iranian constitution, the Ayatollah was fully within his constitutional rights to eliminate this opposition party using this method. This is a clear example of a structural political bias. Another example of structural bias is the 2004 re-election of Russian president Vladimir Putin, in which the state controlled media consistently supported his election run, consistently condemned his opponents, provided virtually unlimited free advertising to Putin's campaign, while absolutely barring attempts to run campaign ads by his opponents.

The Need for Constant Vigilance

In democratic societies, there often emerges a struggle between those who aspire to build a system of power based on equality, and those who would prefer a system based on privilege and structural bias. In this typical struggle, the working classes usually tend to advocate for a broader based power structure, which would naturally give their class a greater voice, while the monied classes tend to most often advocate for a power structure based more on privilege and structural bias, which naturally gives them a greater voice in the affairs of a country. This perpetual in-built struggle seems to take place in nearly every modern democracy via the open forum of free dialogue that a truly democratic system allows for. In cases where the forces of privilege may occasionally succeed in temporarily gaining an absolute monopoly of power, to the point where working classes no longer feel they have any real voice in national affairs of a nation, this sometimes results in the violent overthrow of those who would rule without regard to the will of the majority. Ironically, often when the forces of revolution are given their own turn at being in positions of power, they prove to be no less arbitrary and deaf to the real will of the majority, than those whom they may have just overthrown.

Human history is littered with the accounts of failed attempts at democracy. Some accounts of attempts at democracy that ultimately failed can be found in ancient Greece, in 18th and 19th century France, and in 19th century Germany and Japan. (In the 1800's both Germany and Japan attempted to create partial democracies in the form of parliamentary/ constitutional monarchies.) During the bloody American Civil War, the American president at that time, president Abraham Lincoln, firmly believed with good reason that the success or failure of that war would ultimately determine the success or failure of democracy in that country. Apparently, the maintenance of a truly fair democratic system is an ongoing process, and is in need of constant vigilance and attention by all as to the levels of fairness and structural objectivity in any given democratic system.

The Need for Fairness In Qualifying Voters

Democratic elections are inclusive. In order for the definition of a citizen-voter to be accepted by a suitable majority of a country's inhabitants as fair, this definition must be broad enough to include a sufficiently large majority of the native adult population, and should not include any racial, ethnic, political or economic requirements for voter eligibility. A government chosen by a small, exclusive group is not a democracy--no matter how democratic its internal workings may appear.

One of the great dramas of democracy throughout history has been the struggle of excluded groups--whether racial, ethnic, or religious minorities, or women--to win full citizenship, and with it the right to vote and hold office. In the United States, for example, only white male property holders enjoyed the right to elect and be elected when the Constitution was signed in 1787. The property qualification disappeared by the early 19th century, and women won the right to vote in 1920. Black Americans, however, did not enjoy full voting rights in the southern United States until the civil rights movement of the 1960s. And finally, in 1971, younger citizens were given the right to vote when the United States lowered the voting age from 21 to 18.

The Need for Balanced Media Coverage

In order for democratic elections to be fair and competitive, opposition parties and candidates must enjoy the rights to freedom of speech, assembly, and movement as necessary to voice their criticisms of the government openly and to bring alternative policies and candidates to the voters. Simply permitting the opposition access to the ballot is not enough. Elections in which at least one opposition national candidate for head of state is not given equal access to radio, newspaper and television coverage, or where opposition party rallies are harassed, are not fair or democratic. The party in power may enjoy the advantages of incumbency, but the rules and conduct of the election contest must be fair.

The Need for Regularly Scheduled Elections

Democratic elections are periodic. Democracies do not elect dictators or presidents-for-life. Elected officials are accountable to the people, and they must return to the voters at prescribed intervals to seek their mandate to continue in office. This means that officials in a democracy must accept the risk of being voted out of office. The one exception is judges who, to insulate them against popular pressure and help ensure their impartiality, may be appointed for life and removed only for serious improprieties.

The Need for Policy Referendums

In order to further enable the will of the electorate to be counted, Democratic elections should ideally not be limited to selecting candidates. Voters should occasionally also be asked to decide local or national policy issues directly through referendums and initiatives that are placed on the ballot. In the United States, for example, state legislatures can decide to "refer," or place, an issue directly before the voters. In the case of an initiative, citizens themselves can gather a prescribed number of signatures (usually a percentage of the number of registered voters in that state) and require that an issue be placed on the next ballot--even over the objections of the state legislature or governor. In a state such as California, voters confront dozens of legislative initiatives each time they vote--on issues ranging from environmental pollution to automobile insurance costs.

The Need For Elections to Determine Actual Power and Not Merely Symbolic Power

A successful democratic election is definitive. It determines the leadership of the government. A successful democratic election must be subject to the laws and constitution of the country, and must determine who the popularly elected representatives who will be who will hold the actual reins of power, both in name, and in actuality, and not merely as symbolic figureheads.

Democratic Ethics and the Loyal Opposition

Democracies thrive on openness and accountability, with one very important exception: the act of voting itself. To cast a free ballot and minimize the opportunity for intimidation, voters in a democracy must be permitted to cast their ballots in secret. At the same time, the protection of the ballot box and tallying of vote totals must be conducted as openly as possible, so that citizens are confident that the results are accurate and that the government does, indeed, rest upon their "consent."

One of the most difficult concepts for some to accept, especially in nations where the transition of power has historically taken place at the point of a gun, is that of the "loyal opposition." This idea is a vital one, however. It means, in essence, that all sides in a democracy share a common commitment to its basic values. Political competitors don't necessarily have to like each other, but they must tolerate one another and acknowledge that each has a legitimate and important role to play. Moreover, the ground rules of the society must encourage tolerance and civility in public debate.

When the election is over, the losers accept the judgment of the voters. If the incumbent party loses, it turns over power peacefully. No matter who wins, both sides agree to cooperate in solving the common problems of the society. The losers, now in the political opposition, know that they will not lose their lives or go to jail. On the contrary, the opposition, whether it consists of one party or many, can continue to participate in public life with the knowledge that its role is essential in any democracy worthy of the name. They are loyal not to the specific policies of the government, but to the fundamental legitimacy of the state and to the democratic process itself.

As the next election comes around, opposition parties will again have the opportunity to compete for power. In addition, a pluralistic society, one in which the reach of government is limited, tends to offer election losers alternatives for public service outside government. Those defeated at the polls may choose to continue as a formal opposition party, but they may also decide to participate in the wider political process and debate through writing, teaching, or joining one of many private organizations concerned with public policy issues. Democratic elections, after all, are not a fight for survival but a competition to serve.

Elections in the world

External links