Document Type : Research Paper

Author

• Samaneh Rahmatifar

Associate Prof, Department of Law, Hamedan Branch, Islamic Azad University, Hamedan, Iran

Abstract

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.

Keywords

• Administrative Democracy
• Administrative Hierarchy
• Inclusive Assembly
• Democratic Life
• Organizational Democracy
• Workplace Democracy

Main Subjects

• Administrative Law