Does Delegative Democracy Exist?
Delegative democracy is a term that arose from the Argentine political Scientist Guillermo O’Donnell. It describes democratic leadership where presidents rule and ensure that courts and legislatures do not decide their powers. Multiple American democracies in the 1980s had polyarchy kind of democracy. However, the polyarchies had no features for the conventional liberal type of democracies, and so O’Donnell argued they constitute a unique regime. O’Donnell argues that these delegative democracies are not fully representative and are not yet to represents an authoritarian regime. Given the characterization of a delegative democracy, the notion has been an indication of an authoritarian regime, and it sways far away from Robert Dahl’s polyarchy definition. Therefore, the notion has been dramatically criticized and considered to be a malicious and misleading concept.
Firstly in,delegative democracy, nationalities institutions cannot work for its citizens based on the voter’s opinions. The president’s agendas are free and secure from interventions from the institutions. O’Donnell says that in delegative democracies, vertical accountability exists entirely, but no horizontal accountability. Vertical accountability occurs when civilians can impose rules to those in charge, while horizontal accountability is when it’s only the government that holds itself accountable. Moreover, this indicates an imbalance in power in the government’s branches, and that the president’s acts are almost free from consequence by other branches. In degelative democracy, the executive branch is in full control compared to the judicial and legislative branches, resulting in a dictatorship. For example, during his leadership, Alvaro Uribe, the president of Colombia, concentrated his power in the executive branch and transformed the country into a delegative democracy.
Furthermore, even if most people elect the president, all power is focused on them and may not necessarily rule the voter’s preferences. The president is in a position to rule as they wish, and he is considered the nation’s embodiment. Besides, whatever the president does while in power must not necessarily match what he promised or said during the election campaigns.
Secondly, freedom of expression is not met in delegative democracy, making it an authoritarian kind of leadership. Freedom of expression usually involves people expressing their opinions through speeches and organization. However, in delegative democracy, voters are supposed to elect, irrespective of their identities, persons most fit to take care of their countries, and after elections, voters are to be passive and cheer what the president does. Furthermore, this indicates that the citizens’ freedom of expression starts and ends with voting. People must have the ability to criticize and disagree with what the government does and express their dissatisfaction when necessary. For instance, during his ruling, Alvaro Uribe organized a referendum with a minimal number of those against the ruling. Also, he removed some political members who questioned his ruling style. Without this kind of expression, people do not necessarily have freedom of expression, even having elected the president democratically.
To conclude, it is not practical for the delegative democracy to exist the way O’Donnell e explains. In any democracy, there is a need for a degree of representation and enough accountability in the government’s branches. Delegative democracy compromises the whole idea of separating power, and power is focused on a single individual. Furthermore, there is a need for the public to be free and to respond differently to those who govern them. Delegative democracies diminish the institutionalization of democracy.