Political Democracy And Institutionalized Crime Essay

LOCAL DEMOCRACY AND ORGANIZED CRIME

The international community is increasingly recognizing the threat that organized crime poses to the legitimacy of democratic institutions through forming symbiotic alliances with politicians, political parties and state officials. Organzed crime focus on safeguarding their interests—including their control of territory, access to transport and guaranteeing impunity for their cimes—through the use of threats/violence as well as strategic alliances with the political disposal of illicit networks. At the same time, politicians have been keen to exploit the resources and power at the disposal of organized crime. The relationship between illicit networks and politicians is one of symbiotic character based purely

It is the right of every citizen to voice their opinion and it is the duty of political leaders to be accountable in regular elections and to respond to public deliberation and dialogue (Sisk, 2001). The UN Office of Public Administration defines local government as “A political subdivision of a nation or (in a federal system) state, which is constituted by law and has substantial control of local affairs, including the powers to impose taxes or to exact labour for prescribed purposes. The governing body of such as entity is elected or otherwise locally selected” (quoted in Adeyemi, 2012, p.187). Adeyemi (2012) argues that local government institutions are based on four dimensions: social dimensions in the way it is “an organized social entity based on the feeling of oneness”; economic dimension as it is “an economic institution with a foremost role to play in promoting the economic well-being of the people of the locality”; geographic dimension since “among the inhabitants of a given area, there is a consciousness that they are differentiated from the inhabitants of other areas in the same country”; and finally, a legal dimension as the local government is a legal institution in the sense that it is established by a law of a…higher authority”

Sisk explains that “local community participation is the cornerstone of modern notions of citizenship because its institutions and decision-making procedures may allow for a more direct form of democracy in which the voices of ordinary individuals can be heard most easily” (p.13). The element of participation allows for inclusive and consesus-based decision-making processes that are essential for a well-functioning and responsive local democratice government and institutions. Participation is a democratic system, however, does not entail that every member of society needs to participate. Rather, it is the element of openess that is a defining characteristic of a responsive democratic system as it allows any willing member of society to participate (Ibid, p.29). An open system does have many barriers to the expression of dissent, and limits the disadvantages of the poorly organized. The openness of a system is therefore defined not only by the right to participation, but also by the presense of civil society and “direct participation through citizen consultations, citizens’ initiatives, referendums, and exchanges through information and new communication technology” (Ibid., p.30). In addition to