‘The ultimate check and balance wielded directly by the people comes in the form of the ballot…’
THIS is the title of a book I read years ago, which, if memory serves me right, argues that a lot of the principles of democracy are founded on a basic distrust of human nature, especially when human nature is sprinkled with power and authority.
Now, if my memory of the gist of the book is faulty, then that is my own belief, the pessimistic reverse side of the lofty “power of the people” that orators love to exclaim when praising democracy and its virtues.
We must remember that democracy is indeed empowering the people – or at least those qualified by law to do so – to govern themselves, usually by choosing a select group of men and women who will act as their representatives. This is a representative democracy.
Representatives are chosen for a specific period. That period can be four years, as is the case in the United States, whose political system is most familiar to Filipinos, or three and six years as it is here, with both the US and Philippine systems allowing for more than one term for specific elective offices. Other countries with parliamentary systems have more flexible terms of office because an election may be called upon the behest of the incumbent prime minister, or whenever the incumbent loses majority support. In any of these cases, however, the election process is a matter of allowing the public to choose their representatives who will conduct the affairs of government in their stead.
Representatives imply a certain relationship, one between a principal and an agent. As any law student knows, agents cannot exercise powers outside of what the principal cedes to them. Again, that is another tenet that, in the main, is observed, in jurisdictions that adhere to the democratic and representative system of government
The principle of check and balance has been created precisely because of the distrust of human nature entrusted with power and authority. The check may be in the form of the legislature subjecting the executive to regular “audits” or review – as when a prime minister faces the opposition during question hour – or it may come in the ability of the legislator to oust an incumbent – as when a president is impeached in the US or a prime minister is ousted in a no-confidence motion. The check and balance can also be in the form of the court system subjecting an incumbent official (or as in Trump’s case, one out of office) to legal processes to hold him or her accountable for unlawful deeds and maybe even words.
The ultimate check and balance wielded directly by the people comes in the form of the ballot: worthy representatives are rewarded with second or even third terms; unworthy ones are booted out.
These, of course, are all how representative democracy works in an ideal setting, with distrust fueling the effort of keenly guarding the actions of those vested with temporary, representative authority
But for the ideal to work as it should in the real world requires a level of maturity in the governors as well as the governed, and respect for the rules and traditions of representative democracy as being the best there is despite its flaws and weaknesses.
Flaws and weaknesses of democracy that can be used by the dishonorable officeholders against democracy itself.
Which is why a healthy amount of distrust is truly important in any democracy!
