Download as pdf»

Many important political issues can no longer be succesfully tackled at the national level. The greenhouse effect, for example, is affecting people all over the world. Which international bodies are there that can deal with matters of this transnational kind? Here we shall:

• use the chart of alternative forms of rule (see Three basic issues) to examine some intergovernmental and global organisations that have been set up for this purpose
• consider the EU countries as an example of mixed rule – certain matters are decided at the national level; others are referred to the regional level
• study the extent to which some global organisations in the FN family meet the criteria for democracy

Binding rule at the global level

Ongoing globalisation is leaving its mark everywhere. Googling for ‘global’ in December 2007, for example, gave 79 million hits. Even so, the prevailing world order is still primarily an international system whereby more or less independent countries try to settle their common concerns by diplomatic means in voluntary negotiations. This political system has been dominated for centuries by wealthy, powerful countries in the North and West. In the 20th century, their failure to reconcile their differences resulted in two world wars. There was no generally accepted and binding procedure for resolving disputes.

Towards the end of World War Two, the victorious powers took initiatives that resulted in the World Bank (IBRD), the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the United Nations (UN). The aim was to supplement traditional international diplomacy with a system for making binding decisions in matters to do with economic reconstruction and development, peace and security, and human rights. The United Nations’ charter was adopted in 1945 and some years later the member states agreed on a detailed Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Meanwhile, twenty or so member states concluded a free trade agreement (GATT) that did not include sanctions; it has been superseded by the World Trade Organisation (WTO), which has a more ambitious agenda and is also authorised by its member states to impose sanctions on countries that fail to comply with its rules and decisions. The chart of alternative forms of rule gives this picture:

With the anarchic alternative, countries negotiate on the basis of prevailing power relationships. If one party disagrees, there will be no solution. A market economy functions in a similar way – suppliers of goods and services negotiate with potential users – except that power here is measured in money and failure to reach an agreement is less likely to lead to violence.

With the collective alternative, countries try to create conditions for a solution in advance by transferring the power to decide certain matters – sanctions, for example – to a regional or global body. They relinquish some of their sovereignty. If the regional or global body is also to be democratic, power has to be redistributed between the member states. A small country like Sweden therefore wants the UN to be stronger and more democratic; that would give Sweden more influence at the global level. Dominant countries, such as the United States, with vast economic and military power, take the opposite view; they have an interest in carrying on with the UN’s relatively weak and undemocratic institutions and prefer to use the intergovernmental arena, which gives them greater freedom of action and the best possibility of deploying their resources to suit themselves.

This was evident soon after the UN had been founded. By 1949, East-West relations had deteriorated sharply and when it became clear that the Soviet Union would soon test an atomic bomb, thereby breaking the US monopoly of nuclear weapons, an international defence alliance, Nato, was formed by the Unites States, Canada and ten West European countries. The Cold War between East and West sidelined the UN as the leaders of the two power blocs resorted to nuclear rearmament to keep each other in check. Global peace under UN auspices was replaced by a terror balance – a doomsday threat that a whole generation had to put up with.

EU – mixed rule on the regional and national level

The European Economic Community, forerunner of the European Union (EU), was set up in 1957 – without a comprehensive charter or detailed declaration of intent – as an arena for intergovernmental negotiations between a handful of West European premiers and foreign ministers with a view to integrating their countries’ economies. As of spring 2007 the EU comprises 27 states, of which10 belong to the former Eastern bloc. Over the years, the EU’s agenda has been greatly extended; today it includes security issues and regional policy. In order to perform its enlarged functions, the Union has had to establish a number of new institutions: an unelected Commission with officials that issues directives which are binding for public authorities in the member states; a Council of Ministers that holds ‘summit’ meetings and negotiates overriding issues; a Central Bank; a Court of Justice; and a Parliament with limited powers that shuttles regularly between Brussels and Strasbourg. They amount to an unplanned, complex mixture of forms for rule, based on practical considerations, with power residing with the Council of Ministers and the EU Commission.

In order to get the Union to function after its enlargement to include countries from the former Eastern bloc, in 2004 the Council of Ministers in Rome adopted a constitutional treaty. Perhaps the most important reform was the introduction of a system for majority decisions in the Council of Ministers. When the time came for member states to ratify the treaty, however, opinion polls indicated unexpectedly weak support. Referendums in France and the Netherlands rejected the treaty; in other countries, parties that opposed the EU made strong gains. Voting in that year’s elections to the EU Parliament fell to 30-40 % compared with up to 70 % in the national elections. It was no longer possible to ignore the fact that the EU had been a matter for European élites right from the start. The attempt to equip the EU with a constitution that has popular support had to be put on hold.

Three years later, the Council of Ministers managed to reach an agreement on a new and less comprehensive proposal for institutional reform. Maybe this time it will be approved by the member states’ parliaments. But the task remains of generating popular understanding and acceptance of the EU’s particular combination of expert rule, anarchy and democracy at the regional level, for implementation by national authorities.

Nato likewise began as an intergovernmental alliance between a small group of countries and was transformed in a matter of years into a fairly permanent organisation led by the United States. After the Berlin wall fell in 1989 and the Soviet Union collapsed some years later, Nato was enlarged to include countries from the former Eastern bloc. Nato can be said to be an international interest organisation for countries that are allies of the United States and accept US leadership in security issues. Nato has sent troops to trouble spots in various parts of the world independently of the UN but did not take part in 2003 in the war in Iraq, which the United States started with just a few allies.

World Trade Organisation (WTO)

The WTO has the task of dismantling barriers to world trade and is an example of a global body that is open in principle to any country, though the conditions for admission are tough. It is the same age as Nato but by no means as successful. All members of WTO have an equal vote but the rules are such that a country can veto proposals which are not in its interest. In practice, poor countries come under heavy pressure not to block the rich countries’ proposals.

WTO’s rounds of collective negotiations accordingly verge on anarchy – there is no guarantee that an agreement will be reached. Moreover, the number of member states makes the decision-making process cumbersome. The EU and the United States therefore negotiate bilaterally with certain poor countries, independently of the WTO; these countries tend to get less favourable conditions than in the ordinary rounds of collective agreements.

The chart below shows that even the original organisations in the UN family fail to meet important democratic standards. Their institutions were constructed from the start so that the founders – the victors in World War Two, led by the United States – could maintain their hold by controlling the agenda or having greater voting power. The Soviet Union chose not to join any of them except the UN itself.

Some global organisations and the criteria for democracy

Note that the lower criteria concern formal arrangements while the upper refer to content: the agenda is about factual issues; an equal opportunity of participating and understanding call for reasonably adequate and equal resources.

A lively debate is in progress about ways and means of reforming the UN. Some progress has been made on output – making the administration more effective so that decisions can be put into practice more successfully. Making input – the decision-making process in the Security Council and the General Assembly – more democratic presupposes that even the most powerful members see an interest both in transferring power to the UN and in accepting a redistribution of power within the organisation. But however close the UN got to the criteria for democracy, it would still be primarily an organisation for the interests of states rather than people. At the global level there is still no element of representative government. Whatever its population, every country has one seat in the General Assembly.

The basic issue concerns the level at which collectively binding decisions are to be made as it becomes increasingly hard to solve crucial issues in the framework of a national agenda. No country commands the global flows of information and capital; individual countries have growing difficulty in regulating the mounting tide of cross-border migration; criminality, epidemic disease, environmental damage and climate change are all beyond the control of a single country. These issues need to be tackled at the regional or global level. In the case of security issues, there are only global solutions.

Download as pdf»

• presents a review of international law and the threats to it from the boundless war on terrorism
• describes the UN’s role in an effective system for human rights
• concludes with the role of democracy’s fundamental principles in the work of strengthening the present system of rights

International law and the war on terrorism

International law (see the simplified outline below) has recently been severely strained by spectacular transnational terrorist attacks and the resultant retaliation.

In a matter of weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon on 11 September 2001, the United States managed to obtain the UN’s mandate for a boundless war on terrorism. The US-led alliance achieved its immediate objective of overthrowing the Taliban regime in Afghanistan, which had provided a haven for the perpetrators in the Al-Qaida network.

A police action on a global scale would have been more to the point. Terrorism does not have a fixed territorial base and the terrorists are not officially recognised regimes. They act anonymously and their attacks hit civilians in an unpredictable manner that aims to spread fear and undermine trust in the authorities’ ability to maintain law and order. In that case, however, those who were caught would have been suspected criminals, protected in principle by the UN system for human rights.

The United States chose – and was authorised by the UN – to declare war. At the same time, the humanitarian law that applies in wartime was set aside by a proclamation that the Talibans and anyone who was identified as their allies were “illegal combatants”. The UN found that in practice it had condoned a global state of emergency in which neither wartime’s nor peacetime’s law applied.

Some years later, in 2003, US forces attacked Iraq even though President Bush, despite persistent efforts, had not managed to get the Security Council’s support. Contrary to the UN Charter and thereby international law, Iraq was invaded and its dictator, Saddam Hussein, was deposed. But Bush lost the peace; four years later, US troops were still in Iraq, entangled in a new kind of civil war between Sunnah and Shiah groups, with a constant succession of suicide bombings that mainly killed or injured civilians.

Note that on both occasions the United States tried to get the UN to authorise the intervention, which would confer a right to attack. When this failed in the case of Iraq, the United States defied the UN’s authority and took the matter into its own hands. This unprincipled behaviour reflects a dual attitude to international law and human rights.

US domestic policy is based on rights to a greater extent than in most other countries; the right to private property is a linchpin and many political issues are fought as legal disputes over rights. Foreign policy supports human rights activists around the world in their struggle for a transition to a FD government.

At the same time, rights are regarded as a national concern and a global system that limits national sovereignty is not accepted. At the international level the United States does not recognise binding laws, thus abandoning the fundamental principle that no one is above the law. If this were to be the attitude of countries in general, international law would be a paper tiger and global terrorism would have achieved its aim of putting an end to the idea of rule of law encompassing the whole world.

An effective system for human rights

The human rights system is based on the effective interaction of three parties: the United Nations as a global organisation, its member states and individuals. If the parties do not play their parts, the rights will be mostly rhetoric with little legal force.

More specifically, rights are a type of norm whereby someone requires or expects a particular behaviour of someone else. Besides their intellectual or emotional content, they sustain a social structure, as when a parent (the norm’s originator) tells off her child (the norm’s recipient). For rights, the structure involves three parties:

• the originator
• the recipient, who is obligated, and
• the object or holder of the right that the obligation concerns.[1]

In an effective human rights system, the structure can be pictured as follows:

A state that ratifies a UN convention acquires a binding obligation to guarantee its people the rights that are specified in the convention. This can be seen as a contract between three parties where the fine print spells out some tacitly understood conditions:

• the UN gives legitimacy to the state in question

• the state acknowledges the world organisation’s authority in certain matters

• in exchange for their rights being guaranteed by the state, its citizens are expected to meet certain obligations in respect of its authorities, for instance to observe the country’s laws and pay tax

Quite a few countries have neither signed nor ratified a number of conventions and are therefore not legally bound by them. At the same time, all 6 core conventions have been ratified by many of the states that show least respect for human rights.[2] Cynicism is widespread here. Even so, the standing of human rights has been greatly improved since the UN was founded:

• the UN’s machinery for oversight is still weak and bureaucratic but reforms are in progress, for example the reorganised Human Rights Council

• regional law courts have been set up that are in a better position than national courts to superintend human rights: around 20 countries in Latin and Central America have recognised the Inter-American Court of Justice; the European Court for Human Rights has jurisdiction over some 40 countries; a corresponding African Court was set up in 2006

• an international criminal court was established in 2002 to deal with genocide and other crimes against humanity

• Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many other transnational voluntary organisations monitor observance of the conventions and undertake important opinion-forming work throughout the world

• many countries and voluntary organisations such as Oxfam take a rights-based approach to the UN programme for economic development (UNDP), particularly as regards economic, social and cultural rights.

A rights-based approach

A rights-based approach to development comprises two strategies:

1. persuade states to guarantee their citizens’ rights
2. strengthen people’s own possibilities of asserting their rights

The state as the upholder of human rights

The principle behind the first strategy is Equal consideration: if everyone is of equal value, each person’s interests merit equal consideration. Every abuse of human rights goes against this principle. When that happens, the state has failed its responsibility. In many cases the abuse comes from a public authority, which poses a dilemma: how can the authority be persuaded to deal with itself without, as it were, asking the wolf to protect the lambs?

One way is to promote the judicial system’s independence. While it is true that rights abuse seldom results in a conviction in the country where it is committed, there is a better chance of this if a case can be appealed to a regional or global instance.

Another important approach in this strategy is to strengthen the FD institutions so that rulers are exposed to competition for political power (see A Fairly Democratic Country ).

Last but not least, in the work of shaping opinion and superintending rights, it should be born in mind that human rights are universal – they constitute a global system centred on the UN.

Strengthen people’s possibilities of asserting their rights

The other strategy of a rights-based approach amounts to strengthening people’s own possibilities of asserting their rights. This almost goes without saying for those who agree with the view of democracy presented in the section Three basic issues. The presumption of Personal autonomy that is outlined there implies that, in general, people are capable of being the best judge of their own interests.

We live in a world of stark contrasts, with a large majority fully occupied with day-to-day survival and a small minority who can satisfy most of their wishes. It would be unwise to rely on the efforts of the privileged few in building up and distributing resources so that, on a global level, everyone has an equal possibility of pursuing their interests. People must also take matters into their own hands, for instance by acting in their own democratic organisations.

How is this to be done? This variant of a rights-based approach also poses a dilemma: how can one strengthen the possibilities of others without becoming their guardian? By being clear about the alternative forms of rule, about when democracy is preferable, and about how to get there, one is better equipped to face this challenge.

[1] See Johan Galtung, Human rights in a new key, Polity Press, 1994

[2] See the website of the Raoul Wallenberg Institute, http://www.rwi.lu.se/tm/ThemeMaps.html

Download as pdf»

Free elections, freedom of expression and other institutionalised rights are usually mentioned as indicators that certain countries are democratic. By the standards of the ABC model, however, even those countries do not match the democratic ideal. Still, these large-scale, representative systems have crossed a crucial threshold and therefore deserve to be called ‘fairly democratic’. Here we consider how this common view of democracy, based on rights, compares with the ABC model. We shall:

• compare the ABC model’s basic criteria for democracy with the usual indicators of a fairly democratic (FD) country
• list the political institutions which the indicators imply. They are based on the human rights that are laid down in the UN Declaration
• arrange the FD institutions around the Lifebuoy and see how they compare with the ABC model’s criteria for democracy. By the standards of those criteria, countries cannot be more than fairly democratic
• consider the political changes that are needed for a successful transition to FD rule and distinguish the FD institutions from a similar set of institutionalised rights that ensures rule of law in a country 

The ABC model represents a community where no one has more influence than anyone else over common concerns. That may be possible in small groups but for a country it is out of the question. Most countries’ political institutions are a product of political struggles; the power relationships behind them have a long and often bloody history. It may therefore be hard to find a link between a national political system and democracy’s fundamental principles, such as Equal consideration and Personal autonomy.

Is it, moreover, meaningful to compare countries that differ in their ownership rules, legal systems, electoral procedures and political institutions?

Yes, it is always relevant to ask: do the citizens have the power to dismiss political leaders that dissatisfy them without resorting to violence? This is the threshold that is generally applied when some countries are seen as democratic and others are not. A wave of peaceful demonstrations rolled across North Africa and the Middle East in spring 2011 in order to pass this threshold. In Libya and Syria the protesters were met with massive violence. But the stone is rolling on and the movements for democracy will continue.

The ABC principles and indicators of an FD country

1. Large-scale communities with representative government

It was not until the American and French revolutions in the late 18th century that people in general began to think of applying the notion of equality to such a large community as a country. There was, of course, no way in which a population numbering millions could assemble to decide matters it had in common. But if the citizens elected representatives instead at regular intervals, the latter could meet in a parliament in order to govern in place of the people until the next election. Representative government was soon regarded as a democratic alternative in a world otherwise ruled by authoritarian elites – this despite objections from Jean Jacques Rousseau, a political philosopher who argued that these representatives were only an elite among all the other elites.[1]

2. Politically equal citizens

The move towards democracy made it necessary to treat most of a country’s adults as politically equal citizens and to have institutions that guaranteed free and impartial elections. That was the core of the struggle from the 19th century onwards to establish a general and equal right to vote. For many years the struggle focused on the interests of men; by the mid 20th century, however, women had also achieved political equality in many countries. The principle of Equal consideration applied to them as well as to men.

3. Autonomous citizens

In an FD country the citizens must be in a position to choose for themselves. To be able openly to resist undesirable rulers and dismiss them peacefully, the citizens must be free to organise themselves as they wish and to form an effective opposition. They must be able to express themselves freely without fear of reprisals and have access to information from various sources. This point is ultimately a matter of believing in people’s ability to think and act independently; of applying the presumption of Personal autonomy and treating people as capable of safeguarding their own interests.

A fairly democratic country

Democracy at national level is usually assessed in a rights-based approach. A country that is fairly democratic will have effective institutions – generally accepted mechanisms and procedures – that impose limits on the actions which public authorities are entitled to take in relation to citizens. The individual is protected in practice by a set of political and civil rights:

• Popularly elected leaders and a right to stand for election make government representative

• Free and impartial elections and a universal and equal right to vote mean that in practice most adults are politically equal citizens

• Freedom of expression, freedom of association and access to alternative sources of information enable people to organise in order to promote their interests without fear of reprisals. They will then be in a position to dismiss their political leaders without resorting to violence. They can vote for alternative candidates they have nominated themselves in elections where the outcome is not determined in advance

When a country is identified as a democracy, it is generally the above characteristics that people have in mind. However, ‘democracy’ is a loaded word and usage varies; other labels are liberal and western democracy. An alternative proposed by Robert A. Dahl is polyarchy. We who have developed the ABC model on the basis of Dahl’s theory of democracy prefer to talk about fairly democratic countries.

FD institutions, the Lifebuoy and the criteria for democracy

The Lifebuoy above illustrates the decision-making process for a term of government in an FD country. It is surrounded by the FD institutions that are necessary – but not sufficient – to satisfy each of the criteria for democracy. elected political leaders and the right to stand for election are not included; these two institutions guarantee that the system is representative rather than democratic.

The following review shows that it is the universal and equal right to vote that does most to meet two of the criteria: Inclusion and Equal vote. Otherwise the links between FD institutions and the criteria for democracy are more debatable, above all because countries are such huge communities that the representative component predominates.

In terms of the ABC model, in other words, countries are, at most, fairly democratic. A more common practice is to distinguish between representative democracy and direct democracy but that is liable to be misleading. After all, practically every more or less permanent community, whatever its size, has some kind of executive body. Even associations, which are often cited as a lesson in direct democracy, have their representatives.

Inclusion

A universal right to vote is required if everyone is to be included as a full and equal citizen. In Sweden today, ‘citizen’ is a word that does not mean much more than “a person who is entitled to vote”. The criterion is then met almost as a matter of course, though not entirely – immigrants have to wait 3 years and others must have passed their 18th birthday.

Final control

This calls for free and impartial elections. If elections or electoral districts are rigged, those who win – and are likely to have a different policy – will not be the ones whom the citizens would prefer to be represented by. Freedom of association, freedom of expression and alternative sources of information are also needed so that citizens’ opinions about what government should be about can be expressed in party platforms and election campaigns.

Note, however, that these institutions make it possible for citizens to control their representatives rather than the agenda. It is primarily the representatives, not the citizens, who determine which matters are to be included on the agenda and how they are decided.

Another matter is that political leaders’ freedom of action has become more restricted in recent decades. The ongoing process of globalisation is imposing more and more limits on national sovereignty.

Effective participation

Freedom of association and expression are, like alternative sources of information, also necessary for citizens to participate effectively and for elections to have the desired outcome. But this calls, in addition, for money, time, access to information and so on. The more uneven the distribution of these resources is, the greater will be the inequality in people’s possibility of making themselves heard and the further the community will be from fulfilling the criterion. Participation will be more effective if political parties manage to activate large numbers of people in the political process; otherwise, interest groups that are not equally open for everyone will exert a greater influence.

Participation in elections is the crucial yardstick here. A decline in the proportion who vote is a sign that people are feeling less involved and that politics is tending to become a matter for specialists.

Equal vote

In this respect the necessary FD institutions almost match the Lifebuoy’s requirements: given an equal right to vote and free and impartial elections, citizens will have an equal influence on election day. The condition is met for the election of representatives.

Enlightened understanding

Reliable information calls for freedom of association and freedom of expression. Political leaders with a monopoly of information are not particularly credible. A fair number of independent organisations that can express themselves freely are also needed as alternative sources of information.

These institutionalised rights have paved the way for a powerful media industry. Citizens are exposed to a huge amount of information. Matters that are important and relevant for understanding the democratic process, for instance, tend to drown in the media’s torrential flow.

At the same time, the possibilities of obtaining information have never been greater. A brief session with a computer can be sufficient to get the necessary information. But the opportunities are not the same for everyone; they vary with, for example, the duration and level of education – resources that are increasingly important status indicators in most FD countries, which accordingly fall short of the Lifebuoy’s demand for enlightened understanding.

Political conditions for a democratic breakthrough

Effective FD institutions constitute the threshold that the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights calls on UN member countries to cross; this formal transition is a decisive step in the process of democratisation. Before it is crossed, authoritarian regimes can suppress whatever threatens their interests; afterwards, no one can be certain that their own interests will prevail. Simplifying somewhat, this step means that power is transferred from a group of people to a set of rules.[2] This comes at a cost – a peaceful transition requires concessions to those who previously controlled the political system. They demand institutional guarantees in return for relinquishing their monopoly of power and accepting compromises on factual issues:

• In Sweden, for example, voting was extended to all adult men at the beginning of the 20th century only after the right-wing forces had gained acceptance, in protracted negotiations, for continuing with a two-chamber parliament and a proportional voting system – two institutions that guaranteed the existing order in an era of popular mobilisation. Yet another decade of agitation and political struggle was needed before women were also included in Sweden’s political system.

• In Chile, General Pinochet overthrew Salvador Allende, the elected president, in 1973 and imposed a bloody military regime. In 1989 Pinochet handed over power to an elected president in exchange for parliamentary immunity. A decade later, a judge in Spain questioned this protection and called for Pinochet’s extradition from the United Kingdom for crimes against international law. Pinochet died before the procedural issues connected with this and a similar Chilean demand could be resolved.

• A move towards democracy in a country sometimes occurs as a result of a political breakdown rather than of negotiations. The collapse of the Soviet Union was followed in 1991 by elections in Russia that were relatively free. In time, when this outcome was threatened by a coup, President Jeltsin managed to stay in power even though the movement for democracy, which supported him, was not particularly strong. The instigators of the coup failed to mobilise the former elite, which preferred to benefit from the gigantic, headlong privatisation that the regime initiated simultaneously. However, Russia lacked a strong civil society that could drive the process of democratisation forward. Instead, the power elite’s internal settlements continued and towards the end of 2007 President Putin had reinstalled an authoritarian government through his control of the NSD institutions

• In response to the September 11 attacks on the Twin Towers, the USA attacked Afghanistan in 2001 and overthrew its Taliban regime. A decade later the country was still engaged in a civil war despite the presence of a large force of foreign troops. Clan leaders of various religious bents have not been capable of achieving the fundamental compromise that is needed to share power in joint FD institutions.

• In Iraq the situation is somewhat better. After the USA in 2003 invaded the country to forcefully establish a fairly democratic rule, there were many years of bloody chaos. The Iraqi army and the ruling Baath party were disbanded overnight without members of the former elite obtaining any guarantees of survival. Seven years later, in 2011, the foreign troops are being withdrawn from Iraq and political violence is diminishing. The country has a government that has been approved by an elected parliament but is not yet particularly effective

Violence, rule of law and democracy

The road to a lasting peace in the last of these cases will be hard because what is at stake is the political entity – a single state or several smaller states where those who control means of violence make up a fairly stable group. Moreover, before the entity can be even fairly democratic, there must be some resemblance to a rule of law so that the parties to the conflict and their allies are prevented from continuing to take the law into their own hands

A state can be constitutional, that is, ruled by law, without being particularly democratic. In Sweden, for instance, rich and poor were fairly equal under the law even before the democratic breakthrough, though in many respects the laws did discriminate against the working class and women. The opposite may be the case in countries that have recently taken this step: Brazil at the beginning of the 21st century was a fairly democratic country but a small privileged minority could use their wealth to stay above the law, while innumerable poor people lacked the law’s protection in important respects, for example in São Paulo’s favelas, where murder was seldom investigated.

In the long run, rule of law is essential for a lasting peace between social, ethnic and religious groups. Such a peace is essential in turn for a sustainable FD regime.

 [1] For a contemporary discussion of undemocratic features of representative rule, see Bernard Manin, The Principles of Representative Government, Cambridge University Press 1993.

 [2] Adam Przeworski, “Democracy as a Contingent Outcome of Conflicts” in Constitutionalism and Democracy, Cambridge University Press 1988)