September 2015


Issue Home >>

I’m observing general election campaigning in Trinidad and Tobago for the very first time. As I do so, I am reminded that The Republic of Trinidad and Tobago is a fledgling and immature democracy. I am also reminded of the fact that the concept of democracy itself is flawed and essentially contested. So many of the deficiencies we are witnessing with democracy in this country are also seen in more mature and established democracies the world over.

Winston Churchill once said that “Democracy is the worst form of government except all other forms that have been tried from time to time.” And he was probably spot on. Democracy, or “rule by the people,” is a concept that has assumed a positive normative value. It is very difficult for anyone these days to criticize “democracy” without being stigmatized, especially when one considers the many people around the world who live under dictatorships and who are clamouring for democracy. But not all states that claim to be democratic are actually engaged in the positive norms of the democratic ideal. Furthermore, there is no universal model of democracy.

Let’s begin with what most political scientists consider as the essence of democracy. Democracy for these scholars is essentially “government of the people, by the people, and for the people.” That definition implies that people ought to be at the heart of any democracy. The population of any given country must therefore collectively decide on who should govern them, and those in government should be answerable to the people who elect them to office. On the surface those assumptions seem fairly straightforward. But we all know that societies are generally not uniform. Therefore, the societal interests will mostly likely be fractured along ethnic, racial, economic, religious and social lines. No elected government can fulfil the wishes of all of its citizens. Every political decision cannot be submitted to the masses for their approval. Not every signal citizens in a democracy can have a say on every issue that affects him or her. Not all divergent views can be taken into consideration or given equal weight when decisions on what constitutes the populations’ interests are taken. Thus, determining which societal interest should receive priority is left in the hands of an elite few.

Very few democratic societies can engage in what is called “direct democracy.” The closest model of this form of democracy is practised in Switzerland. But even in Switzerland, the “demos” model of governance is undergoing “opinion-expression fatigue”. There are so many referenda on so many different issues that voter turnout and participation has experienced significant decline. It is just too impractical to consult with the population on every decision that must be taken regarding what ought to be the interests of that population. Direct democracy is therefore quite impractical, especially in countries with large populations. In any event, not everyone will agree with decision reached via the direct democracy vehicle, even if that consensus model of democracy is considered ideal. At the end of the day, the majority rules in democratic societies.

So what we are left with, for better or worse, is representative democracy. The cornerstone of that form of democracy is “elections”. Elections are generally considered the benchmark of truly democratic countries. But in some cases, elections are rigged or otherwise flawed. I’m sure that most people would remember the 2000 American Presidential elections when Al Gore was denied victory because of hanging chads and the vagaries of US Electoral College. Gore lost to George W. Bush, even though the former Vice President had secured a majority of the popular vote. Thus, even in the US – the so-called “beacon of modern day democracy” the votes of the majority can have little or no impact on the outcome of an election.

Elections, and election campaigns, can be very divisive. What I am seeing in the 2015 Trinidad and Tobago election campaign is very troubling indeed. The vitriolic and acerbic rhetoric spewing out of the mouths of some of our politicians is extremely worrisome. The amount of money being spent on advertising by some parties is obscene. One gets the impression that the goal of certain parties is to win at all cost, rather than find ways of truly representing and serving the people. In Kenya, back in 2008, the divisiveness of the election campaign led to violence in which over one thousand people were killed. My fear is that in a very close election, such as the one we are likely to witness here in Trinidad and Tobago, unless cool heads prevail, violence is just seething underneath the surface and could erupt particularly if one party feels that it has been aggrieved or cheated out of victory.

One of the biggest problems with democracy is the “tyranny of the majority”. Whatever the outcome in this election, there must be a renewed level of respect for the loser. The party that forms the government should recognize that they have been given a mandate by the people to govern, and not to obliterate the opposition. The main opposition party needs to be respected as a possible “government in waiting”. Minorities have to be guaranteed that their rights will be protected and not be trampled upon by the majority. If we can adhere to some of those basic principles of civility, then there is hope for this very flawed and fledgling democratic state – the Republic of Trinidad and Tobago.

W. Andy Knight is Director of the Institute of International Relations and the Diplomatic Academy of the Caribbean at The University of the West Indies. He is also Professor of International Relations at the University of Alberta, Canada.