Sacred cows

Are there sacred cows in democratic politics? Ideas, institutions, procedures that may not be questioned, criticised or challenged? The answer is yes, however surprising that may be, seeing that democracy is the grandchild of the Enlightenment and the Enlightenment stands for the questioning of everything. There can be no privileged knowledge, no special status, no opt-outs from ongoing enquiry. Or so goes the theory.

In reality, the reality that is constituted by the current assumptions of the EU, the US, the IMF, NATO, Council of Europe etc., the democracy agenda in other words, as well as the ideas that have grown up around it, seem to be exempting an ever wider area of power from scrutiny.

The result, of course, is that an area of democracy thereby becomes depoliticised, that in turn means that the bodies in question are not open to questioning and those disadvantaged by this exercise of power have to live with their frustration. Frustration, as we know all too well or should, breeds resentment and that gives heart to those labelled as populists, extremists and others placed in that category.

What institutions, then, fall into this category? A broad-brush list would certainly include constitutional courts, national banks, civil society and, increasingly, the international guardians of democracy, all too often the self-appointed guardians. Note that there is nothing new in certain institutions being sacralised in this way. In the 1970s, it was the state and the working class that enjoyed this status, buoyed up by the legacy of Marxist, Marxisant and sub-Marxist thinking.

As far as the international guardians are concerned, the question of reciprocity, transparency, accountability – legitimacy at the end of the day – really does not apply and does not do so in spades. Their right to tell other states how to run democracy is decidedly precarious, especially if that right is exercised in one direction only. The international treaties that are generally the reference point seldom provide a carte blanche for intervention. The right to intervene, though it may be wrapped in the sweet-paper of “advice”, is never open to the challenge on the part of the citizens of the state that is the recipient of the sweet-paper wrapping, even although the “advisers” are supposedly acting on their behalf.

Is this intervention desired? No one knows. Some lobbies may welcome it, especially if the intervention serves their interests, but the majority? Doubtful. Is the power that is exercised by “advisers” democratic? Hardly. Does the intervention strengthen resentment and increase support for non-democratic and semi-democratic forces? Certainly. Is it counter-productive? Is the Pope Catholic?

What really angers public opinion in the countries at the receiving end of “well-meant” advice about democracy and democratic behaviour is that there is no come-back. The critics may be Arcadian shepherds living in glass houses (to merge my metaphors), but no country is and should be beyond reproach. The proposition that a country pulled by the scruff of its neck by a self-appointed repository of democratic virtue can tolerate this without, at least, the capacity to respond in equal measure to its critics is simply not true. It does not and cannot happen. The outcome is a double standard and there is nothing like a double standard to erode trust, credibility and democracy itself.

As far as the sacralised domestic institutions are concerned, the problem is a little different. They acquire their political legitimacy via the elected parliament and are thus an emanation of popular sovereignty, but the parliament in question then must abandon all right to any say as to how these bodies work. The assumption, tacit for sure, is that these institutions will work with Platonic objectivity, will have no personal or institutional interests that distort this objectivity and will invariably know best. On this assumption, they quite likely have access to perfect knowledge, the philosopher’s stone and Harry Potter’s mobile phone number.

There is a counter-argument to all this, that these bodies are a necessary part of the democratic infrastructure and constitute the vital checks and balances without which democracy inevitably defaults into majoritarian tyranny. This is a genuine point and must be addressed. Without intermediate institutions a democracy is not worthy of the name and given that popular sovereignty can never be expressed as the views of the entirety of the people, minorities must enjoy protection of their rights as citizens are to be addressed and safeguarded.

The problem, however, is the growing sacralisation of these bodies, their exemption from criticism, their being under no particular obligation to exercise their functions with due attention to self-limitation and to transparency. If these trends continue, then the clash between popular sovereignty and the system of checks and balances will only intensify and democracy will be the loser.

Sch. Gy.