Citizen ownership of the state: Definition and measurement

This paper introduces a normative definition of citizen ownership of the state. It defines citizen ownership of the state as the implementation of election promises. It argues that the level of implementation of election promises is a measurement of citizen ownership of the state. To explain the definition, the paper models the authority of a representative government to a power of attorney. The citizen as principal awards a power of attorney to the winning party, alliance or individuals as an agent in their election. In the election, the set of election promises of the agent becomes the only written part of the power of attorney. The 2008-2012 tenure of US President Barack Obama is used to test how the methodological approach works with empirical data. The test finds the citizen ownership of the state in the USA at 70.7 percent and the party intrusion into the ownership at 29.3 percent during the tenure.


Introduction
The concept of citizen ownership of the state is related to republicanism and more specifically, democracy. The word republic has originated from the Latin res and publica. Res implies a thing, affairs or interest, and publica means everybody. Thus, the word republic literally means thing or affair that belongs to everybody (LaRosa 2005). Besides, the four basic elements of the stateland, people, government, and sovereigntyare conceptually centered on the existence of citizens. The people themselves are the citizens; the land in general belongs to the citizens; the citizens create the government, and, thus, all of these three points mean that the sovereignty of the state is in the hands of citizens.
The constitution of democracies acknowledges citizens as the owner of the state, but political parties in representative democracies apparently challenge this constitutional acknowledgement in practice. The global scenario ranging from Western to non-Western democracies manifests a more-or-less uncomfortable relationship between citizens and political parties. Especially, non-Western democracies have witnessed the worst situation in this context as politicians after coming to power usually break their election promises. These democracies also have witnessed partisan approaches and unfair efforts to come and cling to power. A study on Bangladesh shows how political parties exert overwhelming influence on the state machinery and how the so-called democracy has evolved into a 'partyarchy' (BIGD 2015). According to a recent survey, a vast majority of citizens in developing countries thinks that their governments do not listen to them (Pew Research Centre, 2014). In Western democracies, Prime Ministers or Presidents has become the dominant political actor (Cameron 2013). Against this backdrop, this paper investigates the questions: Do citizens own the state in practice? How can one measure the ownership?
There is no much literature relating to citizen ownership of the state. Karl Marx' revolutionary thoughts found the state belonging to the owners of the means of production, such as capitalists in capitalism and proletarians in socialism. However, the ongoing controversy over his claim entered a wider phase at the end of last century when the state in Eastern Europe got back from the hands of the Proletariat, the then absolute owner of the means of production, to the people in capitalist society that included non-owners of the means of production. Pettit's (2008) Condominium Model provides an insight into citizen ownership of the state as the model's apartment owners of a condominium resemble state owners in general. But there is no literal mention of 'citizen ownership of the state' in Pettit (2008) and the Condominium Model does not deal with the party system which this paper is interested in. The only work found is Bezhanyan (2009) that literally uses the concept, 'citizen ownership over the state' (p. 1). It operationalizes the concept as a right to fight corruption in government mechanism. However, Bezhanyan (2009) is an unpublished work that does not provide clear access to the concept. Therefore, developing a normative definition of citizen ownership of the state is crucial.
Unlike the dearth of the literature on citizen ownership of the state, the literature relating to how or whether governing political parties, alliances or individuals fulfill their promises made to citizens during elections is abundant (e,g. Bradley 1969;David 1971;Fishel 1985;Krukones 1984;Monie're 1988;Pe´try 2002;Pe´try and Collette 2006;Pomper 1968;Pomper and Lederman 1980;Rallings 1987;Ringquist and Dasse 2004;Rose 1984;Royed 1996;Royed and Borelli 1997;Royed and Borelli 1999;Thomson 2001;Petry and Collette 2009;Thomson et al. 2017). Petry and Collette (2009) review 18 studies of election promise fulfilment in North America and Europe. They find that governing parties, on an average, fulfil 67% of their electoral promises. However, none of such works links their findings to any idea like citizen ownership of the state. This paper argues that the level of the implementation of election promises is a measurement of citizen ownership of the state.
The rest of the paper is divided into a few sections. The Theory section explains who actually the owner of the state is. Then, the Empirical Study Method section designs how to measure citizen ownership of the state with empirical data. The Test section presents findings of a test of the methodological approach using the 2008-2012 term of US President Barak Obama and his election promises. The Conclusion talks about the implications of the paper.

Theory: Who owns the state?
Though there are differences between directions of the thought, both the theory of social contract and Marxism say that individuals had every right to the nature in the pre-state society. Social Contract theorists Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau agree that the people have created the state through combining and surrendering their individual rights (Ritchie, 1891;Evers, 1977;Hühne, 2012). As Marxism views, the society was full of individual rights in the primitive era but, afterwards, the wealthier class of the people created the state by snatching individual rights of others (Semenov 1975;Sanderson 1963). Based on these Social Contract and Marxian theories, this paper considers that the state is made of individual properties. The individual properties include individual rights, their occupancies and their relationships with external societies. In the process of creation of the state, the properties are divided into two broad-based sections: individual affairs and common affairs. The common affairs are called state affairs. To run the state affairs, a part of individual rights is converted into the state authority. The state authority formulates, enacts and judges laws. To operate the authority, a government is created. The monetary support for running the state affairs come from citizens in the form of payment of taxes. In developing societies, state affairs run on foreign aid to a considerable extent but the aid also is meant to be allocated to citizens.
As per social contract and Marxian theories mentioned above, this paper identifies citizens as traditional inhabitants or settlers of the state and considers that the state by birth belongs to its citizens. Therefore, all the laws and judgments that govern the state affairs, including citizenry are meant to have approval from citizens. This paper also considers that the citizenry is universal and, if any practices or theories such as the ones based on force or wealth go against this universality, that is a result of distortion of the originality. In accordance with the originality, the state is meant to be run by its owners, citizens.
The ancient Greek city-state of Athens is by and large 1 an example of such a system.
The then Athenian citizens generally used to formulate laws, execute the laws, and judge the laws and their execution (Jones 1958;Blackwell 2003;Landauer 2014).
Thus, Athenian citizens used to get whatever the majority of them wanted from the state. This paper considers the Athenian regime the ideal model of the citizen ownership of the state. But present-day states are quite big in terms of the geographical area and the number of citizens so large that they cannot run the state affairs themselves. Therefore, citizens get the state affairs run by their representatives.
Considering the above discussion on the creation of the state out of individual properties and the Athenian practice of democratic regime, this paper defines that the citizen ownership of the state is primarily the implementation of whatever citizens (the majority of them) want from the state. By making a comparison between what citizens want from the state and what they get, the level of the ownership is determined. Also, by determining the level of non-implementation and negative implementation of what citizens want, the level of intrusion of the governing party or alliance or individuals into the citizen ownership of the state is discovered. Such promises are usually expressed in different ways, such as speeches in public meetings, debates and election manifestos. This paper considers parties or alliances the main contenders in an election. Once citizens vote for a party or alliance or an individual, it is understood that the citizens who vote the party or alliance or individual want what the election promises of the party or alliance or individual say implemented. In case of a presidential system, where the chief executive is recruited through a separate election and not accountable to the parliament for his or her workings, it is understood that the majority of the citizens has voted the winning party or alliance or individuals and wanted what the winning party or alliance or individuals promised during their election campaign fulfilled. In a parliamentary system, where the majority party or alliance of an elected parliament appoints the chief executive such as prime minister and he or she along with his or her cabinet colleagues is accountable to the parliament for their workings, it is understood that the majority of the citizens has voted the majority party or alliance and wanted what the majority party or alliance promised during their election campaign fulfilled. But election results do not always produce a majority party or alliance straightaway. In such cases, elected smaller parties or individuals by negotiation between themselves create a majority alliance and form a coalition government. In the process of the negotiations, their conflicting election promises, if any, are compromised or become inactive and some new promises may also be added to the policy preferences of the newly formed governing coalition. Elected party executives and individuals rightfully make such changes because their election acknowledges their leadership quality and they emerge as leaders, though none of their parties or alliances emerges as the majority party. And, the leadership quality of the smaller parties or individuals apparently convinces their respective voters that any changes in the election promises in the process of forming a coalition government are acceptable. Therefore, in a case where no party or alliance had emerged as a majority party to form the government and some minor parties or alliances after the election got united to form a coalition government, it is understood that the coalition partners' conflicting promises, if any, were compromised or disabled at the levels of the coalition partners and their voters as soon as the coalition was formed. Hence, it is understood that the citizens who had voted for those parties or alliances or individuals separately got united and became the majority and wanted what the non-conflicting promises of the minor parties or alliances or individuals had said during the election campaign kept. In a case of absence of formal political parties in a democracy where elected individuals backed by their informal parties have created an alliance to form a government, it is understood that the conflicting election promises of the alliance partners were compromised or disabled as soon as they formed the government and their nonconflicting promises got together. And, accordingly, it is understood that the citizens who had voted for those individuals separately got united, became the majority and wanted what the non-conflicting promises had said fulfilled.
When the majority of citizens vote for a party, alliance or individuals, who eventually form the government, the promises of the elected party, alliance or individuals become the main part of a governing contract between the citizen as the owner of the state and the governing party, alliance or individuals as the governing contractor. It is like an unwritten power of attorney where citizens as the principal appoint the winning political party, alliance or individuals an agent to run the state affairs for the next tenure of government and where the set of election promises is considered as the only written part of the power of attorney.
At a personal level, in a general power of attorney, a person as the principal authorizes another person or persons as an agent or attorney to act on the Principal's behalf. The principal generally specifies the purposes, scope, terms, etc. for the power of attorney. To this effect, the principal signs a document witnessed by some other persons. The agent must agree on the document and have the capacity to perform. The power of attorney ends once the agent has completed the task or tasks mentioned in the power of attorney document or when the principal withdraws it (Law Institute Victoria, n.d.). The agent also can resign any time (Bird n.d.).
In this paper, the governing party, alliance or individuals as the agent writes the only document (election promises) of the power of attorney before their election and the citizen as principal approve it by electing the party, alliance or individuals to the government. The election promises work as the task list for the agent. Since the governing party, alliance or individuals themselves write the power of attorney document (election promises), there are no doubts about their agreement on the document and their capacity to carry out the tasks. The tenure of the government is the normal timeframe for the power of attorney although the citizen as the principal can withdraw it anytime and the governing party, alliance or individuals as the agent has the right to resign whenever they want.
Once the winning party, alliance or individuals assume the offices of the government, the power of attorney provides them with crucial responsibilities and required rights. Their responsibilities are to govern the state affairs following their election promises while the rights aim at having supports required to fulfill the election promises. Those party, alliance or individuals become a popular agent and win the power of attorney often who fulfills their promises with their rights exercised at a level generally acceptable to the principal.
After a tenure has ended, a comparison between what the election promises had said and how much of the promises were implemented, unimplemented or negatively implemented can answer the question of how much citizen ownership of the state has existed and how much the governing party or alliance intruded into the citizen ownership of the state during their tenure. Therefore, the definitions of citizen ownership of the state and party intrusion into the ownership are operationalized as follows: (1) Citizen ownership of the state = Election promises implemented (2) Party intrusion into citizen ownership of the state = Election promises unimplemented + Election promises negatively implemented When the winning party, alliance or individuals go by their election promises while running the state affairs, it understood that they as an agent obeys the power of attorney. Conversely, if they do not go by their promises or go opposite to the promises, this paper argues, they breach the power of attorney and act like owners of the state. Thus, the amount of implementation of the election promises stands for the amount of citizen ownership of the state. On the other hand, the amount of nonimplementation and negative implementation of the promises represents the amount of intrusion of the governing party, alliance or individuals into the citizen ownership of the state.
Also, the power of attorney is meant to be withdrawn by the principal if it is evidently observed that the governing party, alliance or individuals do not go by their electoral promises at all. Furthermore, if they do not even hold any election or even if there are some elections, the electoral competition is solely between the candidates who are nominated by the same party, alliance or individuals and, as a result, the regime does not change, the power of attorney is meant to be absent there. In such cases, the state runs on a might-is-right basis.

Empirical study method: How to measure citizen ownership of the state
In order to measure citizen ownership of the state by investigating and rating the election promise implementation status, this paper introduces a unique methodology.
As pre the methodology, a government tenure is the primary unit of study of citizen ownership of the state. Such tenures must have been created through an election participated by more than one formal political party in general or more than one informal party like the ones in Tuvalu 2 and recognized as democratic or partly 2 There are no formal political parties in Tuvalu. Candidates stand in elections on their own and make promises as to what they will do if elected. In election seasons, some small informal parties are seen working in favor of their respective candidates. democratic by a traditional democracy measure such as Polity (Marshall, Jaggers and Gurr 2016), Freedom House (n.d.), Przeworski et al. (2000) and Economist Intelligence Unit (Kekic 2007). To carry out such a study, data are needed about: (1) election promises the governing party, alliance or individuals made to citizens during the election, and (2) their implementation, non-implementation and negative implementation, if any, during the tenure. The promises that fall under any of the following categories and are expressed along with a specific way of implementation are considered for study: 1. Written election manifestos published by parties, alliances or individuals.
2. The promises made in a national election forum of a party, alliance or an individual candidate.
3. The ones published as election promises in mass media or in a research article. In a case of unavoidable circumstances under which a government is not able to implement some promises or even carry out a negative implementation of a promise, the likely affected promise or promises do not come under study. Such circumstances include natural calamities like cyclone, earthquake, flooding; international circumstances like an economic recession, war; and changes in public opinion. The impact of such circumstances is explained in well-documented notes as to how the government was not really in a position to implement the particular promise or promises. Besides, if an issue has been resolved through a referendum or any other direct democratic procedure, which dismisses an election promise, the study does not cover the promise.
In a case of presidential form of government, the winning presidential election promises and the tenure, while in the parliamentary form of government, the winning parliamentary election promises and the tenure come under study. In a presidential system, if a presidential effort to fulfill an election promise has been blocked in the legislature, the particular promise is considered fulfilled partly since there were two different sets of winning election promisesone was the president's and the other was the legislature's. For the same reason, in a semi-presidential system where there However, if a government had not completed its tenure but the same governing party, alliance or individuals have formed a new government and completed the tenure, the election promises of the party, alliance or individuals come under study for the whole tenure. This paper assumes that there are available resources required for the implementation of the election promises made by political parties, alliances or individual candidates because they are meant to be responsible for and make implementable promises. And, it is reasonable that false promises fall under the nonimplementation category.
This paper uses a nine-point scale (see Table 1) to measure implementation, nonimplementation and negative implementation of promises. The implementation status of every promise for a period under study is assessed and quantified using the scale. The scale points range from '4' (full positive implementation) to '-4' (full negative implementation). In the case of 'yes' or 'no' answer to the question about the implementation status of election promises for the whole tenure of the government, 'yes' is assigned '4', 'no' is '0' while a negative implementation is '-4'. In the case of a proportional implementation of an election promise, the researcher uses their judgment in assigning the right values to the implementation status of the promise realizing the modality of different points on the scale. For example, the implementation of an election promise -'Income tax will not be increased'is assigned 3 for the whole four-year tenure if one year of the tenure has witnessed an increase in income tax. Another example of an election promisethe construction of a bridge had just started and there was no more progress during the tenure of the government. In this case, the quantified implementation status of the promise is 1, the lowest positive point of the scale before zero. To calculate a government tenure score of citizen ownership of the state, the number of election promises considered for the study is counted first. Then, all the quantified statuses ( Also, following the theory and methodological approach used in this paper, a future researcher can carry out a study of citizen ownership of the state using a sample of a past tenure or tenures of government of a single country or across countries. A multitenure single country sample may facilitate a comparison between government tenures in a single country while a cross-country sample can facilitate a comparison between countries (see Table 2). Besides, a cross-country multi-tenure sample can facilitate a comparison between and within countries. Based on the tenure score of citizen ownership of the state, tenures can be ranked on an index that could be called State Owner Perception Index (SOPI). The more the tenure score of citizen ownership of the state, the higher the tenure rank will be. If more than one tenure has attained the same score, those tenures are ranked in alphabetic order.   …pass the Lilly Ledbetter Act, which will make it easier to combat pay discrimination; we will pass the Fair Pay Act; and we will modernize the Equal Pay Act. 4 18 …fast-track investment of billions of dollars over the next ten years to establish a green energy sector that will create up to five million jobs.
2 19 …make quality, affordable early childhood care and education available to every American child from the day he or she is born. Our Children's First Agenda, including increases in Head Start and Early Head Start, and investments in high-quality Pre-K, will improve quality and provide learning and support to families with children ages zero to five. Total amount of party intrusion into citizen ownership = 29.3% Note: The author uses the election promises data from Manifesto Project (2017)

Author
Dr Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology Sydney (Social and Political Sciences), Sydney, (NSW), Australia E-mail address: kazad9@gmail.com