Representative democracy claims to operate for the people, exercising power under their authority and in their name. Originally conceived to rectify historical imbalances stemming from the societal dichotomy of “ruling” and “ruled” segments, this model entrusts power to an elected elite, chosen through the democratic process. The distinctive characteristic of the representative system lies in the fact that a singular element – the public interest – serves as the source of both its authority and legitimacy. The legitimacy of representative governance is established through the conscientious consideration of public interests, resulting in a freely made choice. Its legitimacy is upheld when it operates within these interests. However, contemporary scholarly literature frequently discusses the crisis within this model. This crisis, arising from multiple factors, is most distinctly manifested in two key areas – firstly, the crisis of voter representation (who is left outside the political processes and who is included within), and secondly, the crisis of safeguarding the voter’s interests.
The crisis of representation is not only a problem of emerging states. However, it has different foundations and forms in fragile and stable democracies. We will examine this matter through the example of Georgia, concentrating specifically on safeguarding voters’ interests.
Why should I be interested in this topic?
Recent developments in Georgia and public opinion surveys affirm that the parliament does not act in the best interest of the people. Instead, it operates according to its own agenda, primarily driven by the motive to safeguard the interests of the elites.
Our comment
Georgia is facing a crisis of representative democracy, exacerbated by the existing political system and the resulting polarization. People do not trust constitutional institutions and do not believe in them. To overcome this crisis, we need transition towards a more constructive approach in political activity and re-evaluation of the fundamental structure of our political system.
What causes the crisis of representative democracy?
The crisis of representative democracy is manifested in the alienation between the electorate and the ruling class. The system shifts its focus from the general population to the elites, prioritizing the satisfaction of their interests above the needs of the people.
One approach delves into the crisis of the representative system by scrutinizing the efficacy of democracy itself. This evaluation encompasses various components, including (1) voter activity, (2) party affiliation, (3) interest in political events, and (4) confidence in politicians. Democracy's effectiveness is sustained through meeting and implementing these criteria, and any weaknesses in these areas can trigger a crisis. Notably, this contemplation is particularly evident in traditional systems. However, it attributes the crisis of representation to citizen passivity, while these factors are not the root cause but rather consequential outcomes.
The outlook that seeks the root causes of a crisis directly within the framework of the system, specifically within the flaws of representative democracy, is a fairer approach. These shortcomings are particularly evident in fragile democratic systems. This perspective questions the democracy's capacity to accurately represent and be accountable for the political implementation of the electorate's aspirations. Therefore, it would be appropriate to commence the discussion by exploring the relationship between the citizen and the political system. Liberal democracy has transformed the classical concept of the active citizen diminishing it into a passive consumer of public services. Within this system, the citizen is no longer the creator but rather an observer of policies implemented by the elite. This shift has been facilitated by capitalism. It has transferred political and economic power to the affluent elite and politically weakened the citizenry. The resultant weakened citizenry, coupled with limited accountability and control, paves the way for unregulated wealth accumulation among the elite, thereby fortifying their influence. Consequently, the unequal distribution of power has evolved into an intrinsic feature of representative democracy. From a certain perspective, democracy pledged collective possession of power to humanity, yet it has fallen short in equalizing the voices of the populace with those of the elite.
What is the situation in Georgia?
The aforementioned reasoning is pertinent to our context. However, an observation of the ongoing political developments in Georgia compels us to conclude that additional factors are exacerbating the crisis in the country. If we delve into the core aspects, it becomes evident that the crisis stems from the majoritarian rule, leaving space for those in the political minority. Majoritarianism facilitates the elite in obtaining a major position within decision-making institutions, primarily in the parliament. Consequently, the elite possesses enhanced leverage to influence the processes and safeguard their interests.
These elites easily managed to seize all the power, subsequently formulating a political agenda driven by personal rivalries and benefits. Majoritarianism has contributed to the exacerbation of the polarization between political groups in the country. The rivalry among those in power has escalated to the extent that opposition, a fundamental aspect of political dynamics, has been equated to personal conflicts. This has effectively halted the functioning of political institutions and practically vanished the responsibility of addressing public needs from the agenda. Analysis of public opinion surveys and observations of parliamentary activities distinctly reveal that the legislative body is falling short in addressing public demands or the needs of the people. Not only does it neglect endeavors to fortify democratic values or enhance social well-being, but it does not consider a priority to have discussions on issues such as the physical security of the population.
The political elite fails to correctly select mechanisms for crisis resolution. Or it seems more precise to assert that it does not engage in purposeful efforts toward this matter. It benefits from a system in crisis, as it becomes evident that factors undermining democracy contribute to the fortification of the elite. Instead of establishing a robust framework to address the crisis, it appears that the prevailing approach supports populist movements within the country. This tendency is the symptom of the crisis itself. Through this methodology, it attempts to cover up the outcomes of polarization, sustain confidence for future elections, and present the populace with a reliable alternative.
What could be the solution?
The crisis of democratic representation has complex foundations and the solution should be sought in complex, comprehensive changes. The context of Georgia is peculiar and the problem does not only lie in the mere representative form of democracy. Although reevaluating this model is a crucial element in overcoming the crisis, it is only the final stage of the solution. Prior to that, a systematic analysis is needed, necessitating the identification of the logical chain of the problem – what precisely causes the crisis? We have to start the search for a solution again by changing the political system. Contemporary critiques of representative democracy, emphasizing the shortcomings of majority rule, prompt contemplation that the potential solution could be the reinforcement of consensual governance. While this concept requires further in-depth research and reflection, one aspect is evident: in a consensual democracy, the country is not solely shaped by the elites. Instead, through the involvement of multiple parties in governance, it fosters the formulation of policies centered around universal participation and establishes mechanisms to shield society from detrimental political polarization.
The material was prepared within the framework of the project “Supporting an inclusive and consensus-based political environment in Georgia" financed by the Heinrich Boell Foundation Tbilisi Office - South Caucasus Region. The opinions expressed in the material belong to Komentari and may not reflect the views of the Foundation.
