There are different meanings, different ways of understanding democracy , which depend on how it is translated and applied in rules and institutions. Italy, the United Kingdom, the United States, Spain, France, Belgium, and Germany are all Western democracies, yet they are markedly different political and social systems.
Contemporary democracies
The power of “demos”, which in ancient Greek polis was expressed in theagora by direct representation (of men only), can today be reified (also for organizational reasons) in various institutional forms, such as for example the presidential democracy, That parliamentary o semi-presidentialEven more important, however, are the differences that distinguish the various democracies of different countries in terms of their political functioning and the very concept of democracy. Arendt Lijphart In “Contemporary Democracies” (1999) he provides an analysis of these differences by proposing the contrast between two different macro-models which differ significantly in several points and which reflect the two main ways of thinking about democracy: Westminster model and consensual model.
The Westminster system
Westminster democracy ( also known as majoritarian democracy) is based on a vision of democracy in which power is zero-sum and is held and exercised by the winner of elections , considered the strongest, without having to take other parties into account. In this model, also known as "people's power (of the majority)," democracy could be defined as exclusionary in that parties with a smaller share of votes have little or no representation or influence over the government. It primarily refers to democracy in Great Britain , which then spread to all Anglo-Saxon and Commonwealth countries such as the United States, New Zealand, and, curiously, even Barbados (the case studies taken from Lijphart).
The quality characteristics
The characteristics that distinguish this model are first of all a centralization of executive power in single-party governments with a narrow majority: in simple words, the executive government is essentially formed by the single party that wins the elections with the head of the party who is appointed Prime Minister, however, with a very slim but on the other hand very stable majority margin of seats in parliament. Consequently, we are thus witnessing a predominance of the executive compared to the parliament, typically unicameral, with a greater ease of legislatingAlthough formally, England deviates from this characteristic, in practice the House of Lords has little influence over the decisions of the House of Commons; in fact, in the UK, Parliament does not even have the power to express no confidence in the government. However, as a rule, if Parliament does not approve a key proposal from the executive, the latter can resign even without receiving a formal vote of no confidence.
There's room for only a few
Furthermore, in these countries, also due to the single-round majoritarian electoral system, a two-party system is created in which only two relevant parties who enter parliament following elections, sometimes with highly distorting and unfair effects that disadvantage the "smallest." It can happen that the party that wins the elections does not even obtain 40% of the voters, or in other cases, under particular conditions, parties that obtain 25% of the vote translate into a much lower percentage of seats in parliament. In this context, we observe a highly centralized system of administration, in which the central government plays a more important role than the Local societies and their demands; and above all a strong influence from the interest groups in the formulation of public policies, especially those of a socio-economic nature. The type of consultation with institutions, however, is more conflictual and less inclusive of those that are different interests but in which the strongest groups prevail, often the business representative groups (this is also due to a financial economy and one more based on the third sector).
It's not all gold
Finally, countries following this model are characterized by greater constitutional flexibility (the United Kingdom even lacks it), with an absence of constitutional review for deliberate policies. Defenders of this democratic conception, often accused of being effectively undemocratic for smaller interests, argue that in this configuration a substantial alternation between the two main parties, which during their time in government tend to propose more "centrist" policies that would also allow voters of the opposing party to identify with those policies. It must be remembered, however, that this democracy is better suited to a society with a more homogeneous social composition; otherwise, it would lead to problems and malfunctions with too many parties permanently excluded from the management of power. A typical case in this regard is theNorthern Ireland, which for a long time adopted the majoritarian system which often rewarded the Protestant component over the Catholic one and which partly contributed to the outbreak of the civil war.
The consensual model
On the other hand, the model of the consensual democracy It is based on a concept of democracy defined by the author as "for the people," which seeks to involve multiple political parties in the decision-making and legislative process. In this idea of democracy, elections are not a competition in which the strongest wins, but in which different social groups elect the own share of representation in parliament. Subsequently, if the executive power wants to be democratic, it is shared, through coalitions, between the parties, seeking to mediate and take into account all the different interests and minorities. The author uses Switzerland and Belgium as case studies, but our country also resembles this model in many respects. In Italy, in fact, we have had—for example, in 1994—government coalitions consisting of more than eight parties.
Switzerland and Belgium
In Switzerland , government ministries are traditionally divided among all the major parties elected to parliament (while also preserving the Italian, French, and German linguistic minorities), while in Belgium , the government must respect the equality of linguistic minorities, with Flemish and Walloons being equally represented. Indeed, these societies are diverse, comprising multiple ethnic, religious, and linguistic minorities and multiple sociopolitical divides, which are reflected in a multiparty system that is best supported by a proportional electoral system , so that votes are translated proportionally into seats. Single-party governments, therefore, would dissatisfy the majority of the population.
The power of consultations
Le policies, unlike Westminster democracy, are the result of a structured process between the parties and in particular the socio-economic ones are the result of tripartite consultations (union-entrepreneurs-State) where in this case the government also considers it necessary to grant more margins of autonomy with a decentralization of power to local institutions. The executive's action is finally subject to review by parliament through the trust relationship with more rigid constitutions to control power and whose changes must pass through a very large majority of the parliament itself, usually formed by two rooms.
This shows us that no political model is better than another. A consistent system must be designed and integrated depending on the context. Models that seemingly seem better may, in another context, be dysfunctional, or vice versa. Politics is the result of a country's specific territorial, cultural, and historical characteristics, and if it is to achieve positive results , policy formulation must take these specificities into account.
Valerio Adolini
