CITIZENS AND POWER

Jose S. Azcona Bocock

We have seen during this decade the emergence of the concept of “Civil Society,” along with other related ones such as the concept of convergence between sectors and the growth in number, power, and identity of Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs). These trends aim at decentralization and the return of power to citizens, reducing the role of the government in many fields of national life. These goals are laudable, and must be decisively supported by the government and society itself.

Making an analysis of this process we see that a large part of the process has consisted of the central government maintaining all its functions while delegating to less representative bodies and under less legal and public scrutiny some part of the decision-making process and resource management. It is now intended, in some political proposals, to institutionalize this fait accompli by creating structures of corporatist representation and granting them constitutional functions. These proposals, despite the good intentions of those who advocate them, can lead to a greater bureaucratization of the state, a reduction in popular representation, a more irresponsible management of our resources, and a latent danger for our democracy.

To be alert to this process, we must understand what corporatism is. This model of representation is based on the idea that society is composed of power groups (businessmen, professionals, workers) whose existence is organic and whose interests are homogeneous. If representatives from each of these sectors come together, a more accurate representation of national interests is obtained than with the representative democratic system. There are no examples of the implementation of this system in any democracy, but in authoritarian regimes (generally with a totalitarian tendency to the left or to the right) we have: The Chamber of Corporations in Mussolini’s Italy, GOLKAR in Suharto’s Indonesia, and the unique list in communist Poland and East Germany.

This system can only be implemented by creating a new power of the State, with the consequent growth of bureaucracy and spending. Any new organizational structure that is created will have a tendency to grow and hoard more power and resources. By making processes more cumbersome, raising the tax burden and further distancing the power of the common citizen, it can hardly be said that progress is being made in the democratization and liberalization of our society.

Another problem that arises is that the citizen has less voice and vote in decisions in a corporatist system. We imagine a conference or congress designated under this system: the representatives would be the same as always, who belong to ten or more organizations and who abrogate the right to speak for all the Honduran people under the nebulous concept of “Civil Society.” The people would lack, not only effective representation, but also the possibility of accessing it. Our current system of representation has severe flaws as well, but by reforming it is possible for each citizen to participate with decision-making power. As Winston Churchill said: “Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”

The final problem, although very far from the ideas of its promoters, is the strong possibility of manipulation of the representatives by the public power. This is the reason why fascist dictatorships have had a preference for this model. In this system, the representatives are not from the people, but from an organization, so they can be removed more easily. The authorities do not need to convince all the people of the benefits of their decisions to conserve and use power, but only the leaders of some organizations.

Hondurans must promote greater decentralization and citizen power in national life, but not at the expense of the constitutional functions of our representative bodies. Power must be returned through local communities or by reducing the excessive regulation and bureaucratization that crush the citizens in their effort to achieve a better life. More structures, especially without effective representation, are not the solution.

(2000, LT)