Social Sciences, asked by arsharts, 1 year ago

debate on opposition on democracy

Answers

Answered by PrashantMishra420420
3

Parliamentary opposition is a form of political opposition to a designated government, particularly in a Westminster-based parliamentary system. ... In some cases tame "opposition" parties are created by the governing groups in order to create an impression of democratic debate.

Answered by lakshaymadaan18
2

There seems to be a common misconception in the so-called ‘developing world’ that the role of opposition parties, as the name suggests, is limited to opposing everything or anything an incumbent government proposes or suggests. But contrary to this, in emerging democracies around the world the opposition has been playing an increasingly important role in shaping policy agendas, conducting civic education, and fighting corruption, singly or in alliance with other entities.

However this fact has been largely undermined and has remained unappreciated. Typically ruling parties continue to dig deep into the national treasury and use official resources to out-compete opposition parties. Opposition parties continue to be victims of legal and political restrictions designed by the incumbent regimes. Such actions are clearly seen in the UWP’s allegation that access was denied them to the state-owned DBS radio during the last General Election. If true, it is not a unique case. Opposition parties in developing countries around the globe face an un-leveled political battlefield.

Faced with these challenges what role does the opposition play in an emerging democracy? What function does it serve? What can it do to promote the democratic process?

In order to answer this question it is important to briefly define the word “democracy.” Ideally democracy guarantees the freedom to form and join organizations (such as political parties); freedom of expression; the right to alternative sources of information, guaranteed, among other things, by a free press that is unencumbered by restrictive state legislation; right to vote or be voted into public office; regular, free and fair elections; and the right to private property. Interestingly, in rather recent times democracy’s list has been expanded to include the “right to good governance.”

I think this last point opens even more avenues for the opposition to actively involve itself in the democratic process because in many parts of the developing world the populace has been led to believe that democracy is simply the casting of ballots every five years or so and the government is to be left to its own accord until election time comes around again.

Within the context of the above the role of the opposition is without doubt critical and it serves very important functions. Below I shall propose some points which I think opposition parties should endeavor to adopt in order to keep the democratic process alive and probably even increase their chances at the next polls.

First, the opposition should have the capacity to promote responsible and reasoned debate, particularly after an election and the “silly season” has dissipated. Keeping issues alive and on the front burner is crucial but the opposition must be able to dance the fine line between keeping them alive and remaining non-divisive. Debating is not simply screaming one’s opinion at each other but is a form interactive argument and should not be “way out there,” lacking in substance, not fully thought out, or ambiguous. Through healthy debates the opposition might be able to promote some kind of “national conversation” and push democratic discussion to a higher level of political development and maturity.

After an election politicians generally tend to disappear and are hardly seen again until the next polls. It is no secret this happens in Dominica and voters are left to wonder where the people who sat with them and even ate their food had gone too. This is even more prominent among winners on the government side who generally feel warm and snug in their victory and who later come up with the cheap excuse that they have “ministerial duties” to perform. A well organized opposition should be able to move in and fill in that void, maintaining contact and building networks with the voter-citizen, ordinary people, the oppressed, the marginalized, the disenfranchised and demonstrating to them that democracy and politics are not limited to only casting ballots. This creates a bond between the citizens and the opposition party and if maintained will become crucial during the next election season.

Thirdly, opposition parties should be able to act as some kind of training ground for future leaders. In some countries opposition parties normally form “shadow cabinets” where members of the party are designated cabinet portfolios reflecting the incumbent government. I think this is a great idea because shadow cabinet members are given the opportunity to start acquiring their own network of contacts and developing strategies within their specific portfolios making it an easy transition into a ministerial job should they win the next election. Many times when a party comes to power its members are assigned ministerial portfolios and they have no idea of what is going on or where to start. Nothing is more detrimental to good governance than a clueless government.

Similar questions