Sport is neither democratic nor undemocratic: it is a platform that can be used to promote both democratic and undemocratic values, depending on the context.
Democracy is not a new concept within the sports movement. Today, however, there are as many different forms of democracy as there are democratic societies in the world; Although there is a general definition of what democracy is, in practice democracy can mean different models of government depending on the mechanisms by which it is brought to life: how and how often people elect, how certain members or officials represent them, how People organize elections, etc., just to give a few examples.
According to the Council of Europe’s Handbook on Human Rights Education for Young People, two principles give democracy its moral strength: individual autonomy and equality.
1. Individual Autonomy: The idea that no one should be subject to rules imposed by others. People should be able to control their own lives (within reason).
2. Equality: The idea that everyone should have an equal opportunity to influence the decisions that affect people in society.
In addition to the use of representatives of the people, democratic systems also have a “majority rule” in common, which can lead to the interests of minorities not being represented. This simple principle brings with it a specific set of challenges: conflicting views on how specific issues should be addressed and the need for a mechanism to deal with conflicting views.
This also applies to sport and leads to the following questions:
- To what extent are SGBs democratic? And should they be?
- How do sports organizations comply with the principles of individual autonomy and equality?
- Do decision-makers (presidents, board members, councils) represent the interests of all stakeholders involved in the sport movement, for example athletes?
- Which inclusive and participatory decision-making mechanisms could be used and promoted by SGBs?
- How legitimate is it for SGBs to exploit democratic symbols and principles?
It can be argued that SGBs are democratic because they hold free elections, conduct secret ballots, have voting structures to choose their members, and even claim that they are “walking the talk” when, for example, more women join the board of directors .
However, democracy involves much more than just elections. In assessing how democratic a society is, it is important to think beyond institutional or voting structures and consider how the will of the people is exercised and represented.
In the sports context, this question becomes even more relevant because of the hierarchical structure adopted by the Olympic Movement, the pyramid scheme.
This system does not have mechanisms that encourage the top of the pyramid and give them an equal opportunity to influence the decisions that affect them and their sports: the principles of equality and representative democracy are not built into the pyramid, and athletes and other stakeholders must abide by rules imposed from the top of the pyramid – also a lack of the principle of individual autonomy.
Although these systems may use tools such as consultations with strategic stakeholders, they do not have a mandatory element, just information to make recommendations and rules are set from the top down.
How much more democratic can and should the sports movement be?
Direct influence, or influence through representation, is a new element that could be incorporated into sports governance structure. How and under what conditions can different stakeholder groups in the pyramid interact to ensure that decisions taken take into account the needs of the different stakeholder groups involved?
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
This article was submitted by SCORE – Sport Think Tank – independent sports thinkers who aim to support and collaborate with the sports community to find impactful and relevant solutions from SCORE.
Comments are closed.