Preventing Democratic Deliberation Sample Clauses

Preventing Democratic Deliberation. Executive government officials treat concession agreements as private contracts by precluding democratic deliberation at each step of the process. First, they initially prevent the legislature from debating the merits of pursuing a concession agreement. This removal clearly distinguishes the concession agreements from other matters of domestic public policy created through deliberative legislative action, both in the United States18 and the countries discussed in this Note.19 In many developing countries, parties face preliminary difficulties in pursuing concession agreements. Many national constitutions and statutes require majority state-ownership and maintenance in the sector of the desired concession agreement.20 Even where no formal statutory barriers to the agreement exist, practical obstacles, such as the dearth of standardized rules or organized oversight regimes governing concessions, remain.21 To address these initial obstacles to concession agreements, the government official who spearheads the effort (often a member of the executive branch) frequently makes unilateral decisions. The official will simply ignore the limiting constitutional or statutory provisions, as well as practical obstacles, and will often negotiate an agreement that seems to conflict with existing domestic law.22 Or, the official will clear these obstacles through pronouncement. For example, in 1997, the President of Bolivia used an 18. See, e.g., Twin City Pipe Line Co. x. Xxxxxxx Glass Co., 283 U.S. 353, 357 (1931) (“Primarily it is for the lawmakers to determine the public policy of the State.”). Where the venue of creation is not initially democratically accountable, U.S. policymakers will often move to make the process more accountable. See supra note 14 and accompanying text.