Causes of the Crisis of Democracy

Causes of the Crisis of DemocracyTwenty-five years ago, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki identified a crisis of democracy which pied the bleak future for governmentTwenty-five years ago, Michel J. Crozier, Samuel P. Huntington, and Joji Watanuki identified a crisis of democracy which painted the bleak future for government as an image of the lawlessness of civil order, the breakdown of loving discipline, the debility of leaders, and the alienation of citizens (Crozier 2). While this vision of the demise of democracy appears extreme, at that place has been a dramatic drop in the existences trust in pols and governmental parties in recent years which has resulted in a macrocosm disillusionment with the government. A growing scepticism among the British public has reversed the traditional deference to political elects, and voters are quick to voice their opinions on policy and politicians alike. The growing discontent with the negativity of political discourse, and a overleap of dominance in the efficacy of the government suggests that voter disengagement and disenchantment is a threat to the stability of the government, and politicians must take no.e and reconnect with their public.Although legion(predicate) are quick to blame the apathy of voters or the sensationalist media on voter scepticism, research funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) has found that charges of mishandle against individual politicians are responsible for the decline in trust in the government and politicians (Denholm). Voter apathy is a result of the growing perceptions of scandal amongst the elite members of all the main political parties, resulting in a disinterest in governance in general and a negative estimation of politicians themselves. In repartee to this growing mistrust, a series of Parliamentary committees in the 1990s examined issues of political corruption, ethics, and abuse of campaign finance regulations. The comm ittees found that perceptions of politicians as untrustworthy and self-interested derive in part from gossip regarding individual members of the elite, which raises public uneasiness about the standards of behaviour of the political elite. The Committee on Standards in Public Life, established by the bloom Minister in 1994, is evidence itself of the mounting concerns of the public. The introduction to the Committees first report statesWe can say that conduct in public behavior is more rigorously scrutinised than it was in the past, that the standards which the public demands remains high, and that the great majority of people in public life meet those high standards. But there are weaknesses in the procedures for maintaining and enforcing those standards. As a result people in public life are not always as clear as they should be about where the boundaries of acceptable conduct lie. This we regards as the principle reason for public disquiet (Whetnall).The decline in trust and the corresponding drop in voter activity is not due to long-term social forces, but to recent political affairs such as allegations of sleaze in the archeozoic Nineties.However, it is impossible to pinpoint recent political scandals as the sole cause of the drop in the publics trust of politicians. There is the perceived lack of difference in the major political parties after the general election of 1997, which contributed to lower voter turnout and general apathy. Giddens (1998) has argued that contemporary Britain requires a politics melt from sharp ideological division and adversarial conflict as a response to global trends such as globalisation, detraditionalisation, increased reflexivity, and a new individualism (368). This politics without adversary is an attempt to appeal to a broader range of voting public, but in reality has alienated much of the public and raises doubts regarding the genuineness of the party and politician ideology. In an interview conducted by Weltman and Billig (2001), a Conservative councillor suggests that the left/right distinction is not longer capable of mapping the social and political world because the contours of modern society concord altered. Asked whether he generally thinks of other members of the council in terms of left or right, he says that he could have used those words with more sense ten years ago, both in terms of individual people, councillors, and in terms of attitudes (Weltman and Billig 373). One can suppose from this interview that contemporary politics are breaking down into a non-adversarial form of politics, one with which the public cannot identify and cannot trust to enact significant change. by an examination of the social and political events which have shaped the current public mistrust of politicians and political parties, one can deduce that much of the current disenchantment in politics and politicians is rooted in the absence of available political spaces for the public. There are hardly a(pre nominal) practices or institutions which are able to respond to issues of public interest and political disagreement, and to channel the public opinion in an effective and meaningful way. Currently, Britain is facing public disquiet over the prospect of joining the European Union and the coinciding single market economy, along with the protests against the involvement of Britain in the war in Iraaq. Whatever the reasons behind the drop in public confidence in the government, what is clear is that the British government needs to re-evaluate its relationship with the public in the light of an invasive media, new technology, a better educated public, and a pervasive culture of cynicism. New technology, such as the internet, offers politicians the opportunity to make a connection with out-of-touch voters and offers new ways of mobilising and recording popular opinion, an opportunity which few politicians have taken. We are entering a new era of politics, in which the old ideologies of l eft and right, public and private, moral and immoral, are breaking down. The public, alienated from this new politics without adversaries and incensed at the unethical behaviour of individual politicians, has expressed their loss of trust in the government. It remains up to the politicians themselves to win impale the confidence of the public.Bibliography Crozier, M., A. Huntington, and J. Watanuki (1975) The crisis of democracy, New York New York University Press Denholm, A. (2004) Public trust in politicians hit by sleaze claims, The Scotsman, Tuesday 25 May. Giddens, A. (1998) The third way The renewal of social democracy. Cambridge Polity. Pharr, S. (2000) A quarter century of declining confidence, Journal of Democracy vol. 11, no. 2, April pp. 5-25. Weltman, D. and M. Billig (2001) The political psychology of contemporary anti-politics A discursive approach to the end-of-ideology era, Political Psychology vol. 22, no. 2 367- 382. Whetnall, A. (1995) The management of ethics an d conduct in the public service online. Case Study released by the Cabinet Officer, Office of Public Service, United Kingdom. purchasable from http//www.oecd.org/dataoecd/30/21/2731894.htm Accessed 15 March 2005