نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
نویسنده
گروه حقوق، دانشکده علوم انسانی، واحد همدان، دانشگاه آزاد اسلامی، همدان، ایران.
چکیده
دموکراتیک سازی اداره که به مفاهیم دموکراسی سازمانی و دموکراسی در محل کار شباهت دارد، لازمه طبیعی یک نظام سیاسی دموکرات و مصداقی از حق مشارکت عمومی، موضوع ماده 21 اعلامیه جهانی حقوق بشر است. هدف پژوهش انطباق دموکراسی مستقیم بر اداره به قصد اعمال دموکراسی در اداره یا تبیین ویژگی های اداره دموکراتیک است. روش پژوهش توصیفی- تحلیلی است، مؤلفه های دموکراسی مستقیم و اقتضائات اداره توصیف و برهم کنش این دو تحلیل میشود. مؤلفه های دموکراسی مستقیم (برابری ارزشی- حقوقی، تکثرگرایی، مشارکت و نظارت همگانی، تضمین و ترویج حقوق بشر، اجماع محوری، وجود مجمع عمومی و حاکمیت قانون) از طریق ایجاد مجمع فراگیر کارمندان، تصمیم گیری با روش اجماع، تقویت باور به لزوم مشارکت در امور میان کارمندان و ایجاد مقررات لازم در مجمع با رعایت قواعد عالی تر حقوقی یعنی حفظ حرمت دموکراسی نمایندگی، ممکن است. منتها اینها مستلزم اعمال تغییراتی در اداره است و مشخصاً با ساختار سلسله مراتبی قابل جمع نمی نماید یا حداقل بجای زیست دموکراتیک، به تمرین دموکراسی به بهای تولید بروکراسی زاید می انجامد.
کلیدواژهها
موضوعات
عنوان مقاله [English]
Democratization of Administration: An Opportunity to Restore Direct Democracy
نویسنده [English]
- Samaneh Rahmatifar
Associate Prof, Department of Law, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran
چکیده [English]
Introduction
In the field of public law, democracy creates a clear boundary between the political and administrative layers of the government. The model of democracy is applied in the political layer, while the administrative layer operates based on meritocracy and specialization. Democracy often remains behind at the door of the administration, mostly under the pretext of quality, complexity, expertise, and delegation (Zweifel, 2005). As a result, the legitimacy of the administration becomes questionable. Moreover, the shortcomings of representative democracy have raised serious concerns about the democracy in the political layer. One proposed solution is the restoration of direct democracy. The main objective of the present study was to adapt the components of direct democracy to the specific needs of public administration, thereby facilitating the application and restoration of democracy in this domain. Furthermore, the study tried to identify the components of direct democracy and analyze the demands of the administrative system. The central question is: How can direct democracy be applied within public administration?
The underlying hypothesis suggests that the democratization of administrative processes is both plausible and achievable, just as democracy has been successfully integrated into businesses, political parties, governmental bodies (e.g., parliaments), and non-governmental organizations (NGOs). Through a series of gradual reforms, there is a strong potential to shift democracy from being merely a political ideal to becoming an integral part of everyday life.
Literature Review
There is extensive research on the outcomes of democratization of private organizations. Much of this literature owes to the effort of scholars in management science. These studies often revolve around key terms such as organizational democracy and workplace democracy, with a primary focus on improving human resource factors. For instance, in “Organizational Democracy and Employee Outcomes,” Ahmed et al. (2019) examined the positive effects of participatory management practices, evaluating their potential to reduce employee turnover, increase commitment, improve competence, boost job satisfaction, and enhance overall efficiency.
Materials and Methods
Adopting a descriptive–analytical method, the present study first identified and described the components of direct democracy and the requirements of administration. Then, a comparative approach was used to analyze the relationship between the components.
Results and Discussion
Democracy is often seen as a means to achieve socio-economic goals within the organization (Bilge et al., 2020). Organizational democracy entails the continuous and inclusive participation of employees in organizational affairs, influencing the organizational culture rather than the inherent relation dynamics (Weber et al., 2023). However, there are two significant gaps in the existing literature. First, there is a noticeable lack of studies that position direct democracy as the organization’s primary objective or ultimate value, while exploring a comprehensive methodology for its implementation. Second, the contextual emphasis tends to overlook the legal aspects involved in democratically managing administration. The democratization of administration is closely related to the concepts of organizational democracy and workplace democracy. It represents a key requirement of a democratic political system and serves as an example of the right to public participation, as outlined in Article 21 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). In political societies, there are significant indicators of a declining public interest in representative democracy, including reduced voter participation and a waning desire to join political parties. In response to these trends, experts advocate for strengthening mechanisms of direct democracy, akin to a revival of Athenian democracy. However, implementing such an approach on a national scale is considered impractical in today’s crowded and complex societies. Instead of continuing efforts to restore direct democracy at the national level, which may lead to further disillusionment with the democratic process, a more pragmatic solution would be to ensure and promote it at sub-national levels and within smaller, less populous communities. The administration is an institution where a significant number of citizens are employed, while an even larger number interact with it daily to access public services. As a result, the adoption of democracy within the administration—particularly through direct democratic methods—not only offers an initial opportunity for a democratic experience but also helps to deepen democratic values within society. This, in turn, strengthens democracy and fosters hope for its wider application at the national level.
Conclusion
The components of direct democracy include the promotion of value-legal equality among citizens, pluralism, public participation and supervision, the protection and promotion of human rights, consensus-based decision-making, the existence of a general assembly, and the rule of law derived from these principles. These components can be realized in the administration through the following ways: Establishing an inclusive assembly of employees, achieving decision-making within the assembly through consensus, eliminating administrative hierarchies, ensuring active participation, enabling all employees to monitor internal affairs, proposing employment criteria and addressing violations through legislative authorities, and establishing a consensus-based regulatory framework among employees. The participation and oversight of all citizens and their representatives in administrative affairs are made possible through the framework of administrative democracy. As a result, direct democracy in administration can take on a consultative, yet primarily binding, nature—initiated by employees—and extending beyond fundamental matters to encompass the daily issues of administration. The findings confirmed the hypothesis that suggests the possibility of democratization of public administration in a manner similar to the processes in political parties, NGOs, and international organizations. It is now evident that democratization is possible, but only with significant changes, particularly in hierarchical relations. This implies that establishing direct democracy within the administration is impossible while maintaining the current structure. A thorough examination of the hierarchy requires independent research. In Iran’s administrative–legal system, there are scattered regulations that, if reinforced, could serve as a foundation for initiating the democratization process. However, the hierarchical structure and the lack of historical experience with direct democracy present significant obstacles to its implementation.
کلیدواژهها [English]
- Administrative Democracy
- Administrative Hierarchy
- Inclusive Assembly
- Democratic Life
- Organizational Democracy
- Workplace Democracy
- حبیبنژاد، سید احمد و خویینی، سمیرا، «مطالعه تطبیقی معیارهای همهپرسی خوب با تأکید بر قانون جامع همهپرسی»، پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، دوره 8، شماره 4، (1400).
- رنگریز، حسن و خمویی، فرشید، «شناسایی و اولویتبندی عناصر دموکراسی سازمانی در بخش عمومی با استفاده از دلفی فازی و فرایند تحلیل شبکه»، پژوهشهای مدیریت منابع سازمانی، دوره ۱۰، شماره ۳، (1399).
- زارع، رضا و بهمنی چوب بستنی، اکبر و فتحیزاده، علیرضا، «مفهومپردازی و شناسایی ابعاد و شاخصهای دموکراسی سازمانی در سازمانهای بخش عمومی»، مدیریت سازمانهای دولتی، شماره 15، (1395).
- رحمتیفر، سمانه، «مقایسه تطبیقی نظام حقوقی حاکم بر احزاب در جمهوری اسلامی ایران و آلمان: سنجش منزلت حقوقیِ سپهر عمومی»، پژوهش تطبیقی حقوق اسلام و غرب، دوره 8، شماره 2، (1400).
- فتحی، ناهید و ذبیحزاده باغلوئی، محمود، «بررسی تاثیر دموکراسی سازمانی بر روی سرمایه روانشناختی زنان در سازمان (مطالعه موردی: پژوهشگاه علوم انسانی و مطالعات فرهنگی)»، پژوهشنامه زنان، شماره 30، (1398).
References
Books
- Beetham, David & Boyle, Kevin, Introducing Democracy: 80 Questions and Answers, 2nd ed (Paris: UNESCO Publishing, 2009).
- Bühlmann, Marc, “Innovations of Direct Democracy”, In: Encyclopedia of Creativity, Invention, Innovation and Entrepreneurship, edited by Elisa Carayannis (Berlin: Springer, 2020).
- Baber, Walter F & V Bartlett, Robert, Consensus and Global Environmental Governance: Deliberative Democracy in Nature's Regime (Earth System Governance) (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2015).
- Doerr, Nicole, “Direct Democracy”, in The Wiley-Blackwell Encyclopedia of Social and Political Movements, Edited by David A. Snow, Donatella Della Porta, Bert Klandermans, and Doug McAdam. Vol. I, 2nd ed (London: Wiley-Blackwell, 2022).
- Glassman, Ronald M., Can Democracy Survive in the 21st Century? Oligarchy, Tyranny, and Ochlocracy in the Age of Global Capitalism (Berlin: Springer, 2021).
- Meier, Kenneth J. & J. O’Toole Jr., Laurence, Bureaucracy in a Democratic State: A Governance Perspective (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2006).
- Morel, Laurence, “Types of Referendums, Provisions and Practice at the National Level Worldwide”, in The Routledge Handbook to Referendums and Direct Democracy, Edited by Laurence Morel & Matt Qvortrup, (Abingdon: Routledge, 2018).
- Linder, Wolf & Mueller, Sean, “Direct Democracy”, Swiss Democracy, Possible Solutions to Conflict in Multicultural Societies, 4th ed (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2021).
- Zweifel, Thomas D., International Organizations and Democracy: Accountability, Politics, and Power (Boulder: Lynne Rienner Pub, 2005).
Articles
- Ahmed, Kaleem et al., “Organizational Democracy and Employee Outcomes: The Mediating Role of Organizational Justice”, Business Strategy & Development, Vol. 2, No. 3, (2019).
- Antía, Florencia & Vairo, Daniela, “Direct Democracy in the Hands of the Opposition Under Alternating Ideological Coalitions in Uruguay (1985–2022)”, Journal of Politics in Latin America, Vol. 15, No 2, (2023).
- Borz, Gabriela & Janda, Kenneth, “Contemporary Trends in Party Organization: Revisiting Intra-Party Democracy”, Article in Party Politics, Vol. 26, No. 1, (2018).
- Bilge, Hurriyet et al., “Organizational Democracy in the Private Sector: A Field Research”, Sustainability, Vol. 12, No. 8, (2020).
- But, Jelle & Jongkind, Demy & Voermans, Wim, “Direct Democracy in the Constitution: Good or Bad for Democracy?”, The Theory and Practice of Legislation, Vol. 11, No. 1 (2022).
- Cafaro, Susanna, “Democracy in International Organizations: Arguments in Support of a Supranational Approach”, The International Journal of Interdisciplinary Global Studies, Vol. 12, No. 1, (2017).
- Hedin, Astrid, “The Origins and Myths of the Swedish Model of Workplace Democracy”, Contemporary European History, Vol. 24, No. 1, (2015).
- Haskasap, Enver et al., “Influence of Organizational Democracy on Organizational Citizenship Behaviors in Digital Transformation: Mediating Effects of Job Satisfaction and Organizational Commitment for Smart Services”, Sustainability, Vol. 15, No. 1, (2023).
- King, Daniel & Griffin, Martyn, “Nonprofits as Schools for Democracy: The Justifications for Organizational Democracy Within Nonprofit Organizations”, Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, Vol. 48, No. 5, (2019).
- Mathews, Jud, “Minimally Democratic Administrative Law”, Administrative Law Review, Forthcoming, (2016).
- Malleson, Tom, “Making the Case for Workplace Democracy: Exit and Voice as Mechanisms of Freedom in Social Life”, Polity, Vol. 45, No. 4, (2013).
- Peters, B. Guy, “Bureaucracy and Democracy”, Public Organiz Rev, Vol. 10, (2010).
- Schweizer, Steven L., “Participation, Workplace Democracy, and the Problem of Representative Government”, Polity, Vol. 27, No. 3, (1995).
- Solomonova, Svetlana A., “Features of Direct Democracy in Switzerland”, Law Enforcement Review, Vol. 4, No. 1, (2020).
- Weber, Wolfgang G. & Unterrainer, Christine & Faurhold Jønsson, Thomas, “Editorial: Organizational Democracy, Organizational Participation, and Employee Ownership: Individual, Organizational and Societal Outcomes”, Frontiers in Psychology, No. 14, (2023).