Consider the view that efficient government is more important than democracy. (2011)

What is the difference between efficient government and democracy?

An efficient government is one that seeks to manage its country’s resources (including human resources) to maximize the benefits derived thereof for the people of the country.

Democracy refers to a style of government in which the power of policy-making is spread out – in theory – equally among a group of people who have been elected to represent the rest of the population, thus considering the views and needs of all before a decision is made.

In order to answer this question, we must first determine the roles and objectives of a government before we can determine what contribution democracy can make towards helping a government achieve these roles and objectives.

Thesis: While efficient government is always the basis of any successful nation, for a nation at a higher stage of national development democracy becomes an essential tool for a system of government that is geared towards meeting the higher needs of its people.

For any government regardless of management style, its role is to secure the country’s borders and operate a system of acquiring, maintaining, and distributing its resources such that the country can perpetuate itself along with its unique culture and identity. For a government to be efficient in its duties it must be diligent in fulfilling its tasks; be alert to changes in both local and global trends; and be able to respond to these changes swiftly in order to avert danger or to capitalize on new and emerging advantages. Ultimately, the highest aim of government is to lead the country towards establishing for itself a global importance and longevity to stand the test of time.

Many governments in the past were considered “efficient”, and therefore able to meet their roles and responsibilities well enough. The ancient civilizations of Egypt, Greece and Rome, for example, were highly successful as nations went. Their borders were protected by strong armies that boasted technologically superior weapons and armour to their neighbours; their access to naturally available resources allowed them to cultivate much more resources that enabled them to sustain a huge population that identified itself with its ruling government; and they were so successful that they could devote non-essential resources to constructing monuments to themselves so massive that they even boggle the minds of modern humans today. So, efficiency has to do with the effective management of resources such that after distribution there is a surplus that can either be saved for future use, or spent on morale-boosting national projects – or both.

None of these civilizations, except Greece, operated along the structures of what we today would identify as ‘democratic’. Compared to modern democratic nations, Egypt with its pharaohs and Rome with its Caesars functioned more like dictatorships. Although the rulers did have a council of advisors, decision-making was largely the prerogative and even the duty of the ruler himself. Greece may lay claim as the Father of Democracy, but even though its political system was consultative instead of dictatorial, decision-making was restricted to a narrowly-defined privileged group and not the all-inclusive, representative style of government as we know it today.

Inasmuch as meeting the roles and responsibilities of a government efficiently, it is clear that its style need not be democratic. However, it is also equally clear that non-democratic styles of government only benefit a small range of people over the vast majority. In fact, many of these people were slaves or otherwise oppressed through severe and arbitrary taxation, conscription and compared to the privileged few, their lives were in the words of Thomas Hobbes, “… nasty, brutish and short”. Not everyone, certainly not the majority, was particularly happy with their efficient governments.

The more important consideration is whether a government can manage its resources well enough to change its people from being grateful for its provision to being dissatisfied with what they have in comparison to what their neighbours have. With the rise of the middle class from 17th century Europe, there arose a demographic of people who did not have to depend so much on the government for sustenance. Trade provided this class with an increasing pool of resources that made them rich and influential… and question the need for a ruling class (efficient or otherwise) in the equitable distribution of resources.

Since the French Revolution (1789-99) the world has been electing to adopt democracy as a means of determining how their government is to function. The reason is that democracy is a much fairer method of government as representation means that more groups of people in a nation will have their needs and views considered before national policy is decided upon. In a way, this approach does enhance the efficiency of government in meeting the needs of more of its people in the nation. In theory, it also means that the resources of a nation do not get accumulated by a small, privileged group but are more evenly spread out among the people.

Democracy functions in theory to prevent any single elite from gaining control of the nation through a system of checks and balances, mostly in the form of regular elections and the establishment of watchdog bodies such as the free press. Most democratic nations hold parliamentary elections every 4-5 years during which voters may replace an ineffective candidate with another they believe will be more effective in the coming term. The United States, for example, will be holding its Presidential Elections in November this year (2012) 4 years after Barak Obama took office. It was the power of the free press that brought down President Richard Nixon in the Watergate scandal: investigative journalists discovered that Nixon was misusing state assets to spy on his political opponents. When the news broke, Nixon chose to resign from office rather than face impeachment.

Other features of democratic states are constitutionally upheld human rights for all; the separation of religion from state issues; and the separation of legislative, executive and enforcement roles from judicial issues. In most democracies, apart from communicating via official representatives, the people themselves are also able to feed back to the government their views through the press, and through demonstrations, sit-ins and other acts of civil disobedience such as the “Occupy Wall Street” movement. Thus, no authority is able to wield power arbitrarily without being answerable to another.

While democracy seems to make the system fairer for everyone in the state, it is by nature a messy system. Majority rule, though fairer than authoritarian rule still cannot please everyone, particularly the minority. This situation becomes more problematic in parliament when different political parties representing different interest groups meet on more or less equal terms to debate national issues. In the US, the dominant parties are the Republicans and the Democrats; in the UK, the Conservatives (‘Tories’) pit themselves against Labour; with national leadership potentially shifting back and forth with every election. Such instability in leadership makes long-term policy planning difficult in terms of the details, if not the concept itself. For example, everyone believes that the US national health plan is in need of an overhaul, but Congress is unable to agree on what needs to be done and how as different proposals tend to favour certain interests over others.

With democracy encouraging a plethora of voices from different interest groups via different channels, it seems harder for a government to be efficient in deciding what national priorities are, let alone managing the nation’s resources. However, if a nation can evolve to become democratic, it is no longer necessary for the government to manage all its resources. Democratic states operate free markets that resources flow into and out of according to the laws of supply and demand. The acquisition, processing, allocation and disposal of resources now depend on market forces and pricing determines how resources are distributed among consumers. Theoretically, everyone should be able to afford what they need and thanks to the market, luxury goods (e.g., consumer electronics, exotic foods) too become affordable to most, rather than the super-rich alone.

If the market oversees the major part of resource management in a democratic state, a democratic government is left to manage the state’s reserves that it squirrels away through taxation. These resources are put towards running various public services that are essential for the daily lives of the citizens, but the market sees no profit incentive to offer. Due to a heavy initial cost outlay, such services are usually public sanitation, public transportation, the power grid and national defence (while market operators do make profits from offering the services, they do not own the infrastructure as it is built with public funds).

More importantly, democratic governments manage people – their expectations, dreams and aspirations; their morale, civic order and social integration. Democracies function best when peoples’ basic needs are assuredly taken care of and they are looking to fulfil their higher needs. Hence, the more functional democracies are located among the developed nations, while the less developed nations are still messing about with the concept of democracy although they have yet to find a way to make it work the way it is supposed to.

Efficient government is necessary for a nation to establish itself and acquire and keep its resources when it is first starting out. A government dedicated to caring for the needs of the people and the political will to fulfil its expected duties and responsibilities towards the people will always be the bottom line for any nation to succeed, regardless of political system adopted. However, human life is not just about scrabbling for resources. Once people’s basic needs are met, they look to fulfil their higher needs, among which autonomy and self-determination become strong motivational forces for their continued contribution to their society. When a nation reaches this stage of national development, democracy allows a people to essentially govern themselves while at the same time have an impartial, yet authoritative body that acts on behalf of the common good.

Thus, in terms of importance, efficient government is foundational to a nation, but democracy addresses its ideals. Many nations in the world today are still struggling with even establishing a stable – never mind efficient – government, while some others have already begun their journey towards democracy, but none so far have yet reached democracy’s ideals.

(1712 words)