Democracy solely represents the will and interests of the people. A parliamentary democracy is where the party with the majority votes forms the government. The party may be a coalition of smaller parties that have a common goal. The members who run the government are elected from the elected members of the parliament. The leader of the party with the highest number of elected Members of Parliament votes becomes the prime minister or chancellor. The party with the minority votes forms the opposition. The main work of the opposition party is to challenge the ruling party. The party with the majority votes is sought to be representing the will of the people. In The will of the people: Notes towards a dialectical voluntarism, Peter Hallward states that the will of the people means “a deliberate emancipatory and inclusive process of collective self-determination” (Hallward 17). This is a mobilization of the people based on a common goal which is usually within reach. The support from the people is evident from the landslide wins that most parties get during the elections. But putting aside the popularity within the public, parliamentary democracy does not represent the will of the people.
First, in most cases parliamentary democracy requires coalition of smaller parties to join each other and form a coalition. Each party brings their own followers and a landslide win is inevitable. The majority party is a representation of different groups of people with different goals. This is why the majority of the parties do not finish their terms without problems. Some of the problems come from within the party and others constitute dissatisfaction from the public. It is very hard to satisfy the public even when majority came together to put a parliamentary party as the government. The drive towards getting people out there in large numbers depends on the motivation from the party leaders. One advantage that the party leaders use is the common desire from the public which could originate from economic instability, insecurity, high government spending and so forth. The more they strengthen this frustration directed at the government the more they connect with the majority of the public. The politicians understand the rules of the game, politics, and they play it depending on the climate. In The will of the people: Notes towards a dialectical voluntarism, Peter Hallward agrees that “A democratic political will depends on the power and practice of inclusive assembly, the power to sustain a common commitment (Hallward 21).” The goals of the politicians are to make use of the people’s determined aspiration and lead them. Strengthening the people’s frustration assures the political entities of a guaranteed win.
Second, the will of the people does not always mean they all have a common goal. This is where we have a group of people who just want change from their current situation. There are others who know what they need either from unfulfilled promises or concerns of issues like human rights. There are also others who just follow the multitude and they are usually not concerned with politics. The politicians may also use their speech skills to organize the people for a common interest. Historically, Gandhi had a large number of followers who were also seeking independence of their country from the Britain Empire. In Populations and Political society’ in The Politics of the Governed, Partha Chatterjee asserts that “if Gandhi and the movements he led in the 1920s and 1930s were a set of a common events that connected the lives of millions of the people in both the cities and villages of India, they did not constitute a common experience’ (Chatterjee 11-12). In this case, Gandhi could have had good speech skills while on the other hand people were frustrated with the British colonial government. In either case, there is a collective will that was driving the people towards a common goal. People were seeking freedom and Gandhi happened to be someone who could lead them at that crucial time in history. Later in history he was able to lead the republic of India into independence.
Third, parliamentary democracy does not mean a democratic government. Theoretically, a mobilized public could be a drive towards the election of a parliamentary democracy. This does not mean the members of parliament are representing the will of the people. Evidently, there have been many cases of corruption, land grabbing, violation of the codes of conducts, and many more. In most cases, there have never been a government that functioned without this kind of problems. In Democracy, Republic, Representation, Jacques Ranciere declares that “The democratic scandal consists simply in revealing this: there will never be, under the name of politics, a single principle of community that legitimates the actions of those who govern on the basis of laws inherent in the coming together of human communities”(Ranciere 297). The allegations within the governments are major examples of the different goals that the self-interests’ politicians have from their public followers. The collective goals that politicians and the public embody can never represent a long-term oneness for everyone who is involved. When the scandals persist, the opposition parties take the throne on mobilizing the people to come together and put the existing government out. The circularity of politics revolves towards the behavior of the politicians and the public themselves. In Ranciiere’s Democracy, Republic, Representation, he continues to state that:
The word democracy, then, properly designates neither a form of society nor a form of government. ‘Democratic society’ is never anything but a fanciful picture intended to support one or another principle of good government… Government is always practiced by the minority on the majority. (Ranciere 297).
Thus, the politicians who form parliamentary democracy adapt to the climate of the issues people are concerned with. The political parties which represent the opposition tend to become a symbol of change based on the disappointment of the people.
Fourth, since change is slow to come, it is hard to satisfy angry voters on a short term. An outgoing government that is on the verge of being ousted, ceases to concentrate on the important issues, and concentrates on what it can do to sustain itself. The terms limit is one way the circularity of the political system exist. Since the government becomes the one to blame, it is easy for the politicians to forget their main role. The self interest of the politicians becomes a problem in the long run because when the members of parliament realize they may not gain back their parliamentary seats, they start pursuing their goals. The goals may include favoring few groups of people with policies or diverting public money to businesses that will gain the Member of Parliament more wealth. If by suggestion, the term limits was higher, then maybe the elected members of parliament could do something constructive with their time in office without worrying about upcoming elections. On the other hand, if the elected government of the people went astray and broke from their coalitions before the end their term, it could be disastrous for a country. The fear of the government becoming unresponsive towards the public issues looms every now and then after the elections. There are those voters who after voting, fail to support their members of parliament and when their term comes to an end there are no supporters. In other words, prolonging trust from the people is close to impossible. Historically, American president Franklin D. Roosevelt went beyond the known two terms limit. For instance, in the book entitled Would the Welfare of America be endangered by fourth term, by James Mead, McMurray Howard says the following:
Only those who do not understand the democratic processes and democratic government will suggest that re-election of Mr. Roosevelt for a fourth term will in any way endanger our democracy. Democracy in politics, as the famous philosopher, John Dewey, has so well said, is simply a matter of right and ability of the majority to choose its own leaders and to be holding those leaders responsible for their acts. (Mead147).
Plainly, McMurray understood that the will of people embodies the life satisfaction that people uphold when voting. The happiness of the people is within their will and this was evident when President Roosevelt was elected for the fourth term. It is the responsibility of the elected leaders to uphold the wishes and concerns of the people and fulfill their promises.
Fifth, parliamentary democracies usually create tensions within the public from the aggression of the political parties’ supporters. These tensions sometimes lead to conflicts in countries especially where there are self created hierarchies. These hierarchies could be bases on ancestry, tribal, race, traditions and language. The hierarchical system could also exist within the political parties who most of the time ignore the differences when nearing the elections. After winning elections and embarking on addressing the concerns of the people the possibility of anxiety based on the fragile relationship becomes inevitable. This is a sure way of creating friction among the members of parliament of the ruling party. Consequently, this is when the wrangles between the members of parliament divide them and the representation of the public is destroyed. The election time is sacred to the members of parliament and they never try to clean their dirty linens in the public. It when everything has cooled down that those who had been silenced by the election fever rises to the occasion and voices their concerns. These problems are common since it is still hard for the political parties to adhere to a common goal when some of their colleagues have different ideas or opinions.
In conclusion, a parliamentary democracy is initially a representation of the will of the people, but as the evidence provided on this paper shows, the will of the people ends with the election. The will of people could represent the satisfaction and happiness of the people. It is usually driven from a common goal that relates to the actions of the current government. Explicitly, parliamentary democracy is nearly too impossible. A parliamentary democracy largely relies on the will of people, but rarely does it represent it. In The Will of the People: Notes Towards a Dialectical Voluntarism, Peter Hallward declares that “Collective freedom will endure, in short, only so long as the people can defend themselves against division and deception” (Peter Hallward 24). The endurance of a parliamentary democracy is most of the time under the changing perception of the public. The issues that threaten democracy within the political parties usually include: conflict within coalitions, differences within the political parties or public, slow change, and term limits. The self-interests of the politicians are also an issue that has to be dealt with when a parliamentary government is formed.
Works cited
Chatterjee, Partha. The Politics of the Governed : Popular Politics in Most of the World. Columbia: Columbia University Press, 2004. Print.
Hallward, Peter. “The will of the people: Notes towards a dialectical voluntarism.” Radical philosophy. N.p., n.d. 2010.
Mead, James M. “Would the Welfare of America be Endangered by a Fourth Term?CON.” Ebscohost. Congressional Digest, n.d. 2010.
Ranciere, Jacques. “Democracy, republic, Representation.” Wiley Online Library. N.p., 2006.