Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
4
5
Introduction
Definition
The word democracy literally means rule by the people, taken from the Greek
terms,demos (meaning people), and kratos (meaning rule). It is a political
concept and form of government, where all people are supposed to have equal
voices in shaping policy (typically expressed through a vote for representatives).
Period
Date
Ancient 600-5
B.C
Region/state
Notes
Ancient
Greece
Middle
Ages
5th
Century
to 16th
Century
Throughout
Europe
1265
England
1688
England
United
States of
America
1789
France
1917
Russia
World
War II
Europe
Post
World
War II
Colonized
Third
World
Africa
1947
India
Post
World
War II
Latin
America
Post
World
War II
Asia
Perhaps it is no wonder Churchill once said,
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been
tried.
Back to top
Pillars Of A Functioning Democracy
In a democratic government key principles include free and open elections, the
rule of law, and a separation of powers, typically into the following:
Legislature (law-making)
Executive (actually governing within those laws)
Judiciary (system of courts to administer justice)
Not all countries have or need such a complete separation and many have some
level of overlap. Some governments such as the US have a clear separation of
powers while in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a parliamentary
system somewhat merges the legislature and executive.
An edition of a Wikipedia article looking at the separation of powers noted that
Sometimes systems with strong separation of powers are pointed out as difficult
to understand for the average person, when the political process is often
somewhat fuzzy. Then a parliamentarian system often provides a clearer view
and it is easier to understand how politics are made. This is sometimes
important when it comes to engaging the people in the political debate and
increase the citizen [participation].
This suggests that education of politics is also important. The US for example,
attempts to teach children about their system of governance. In the UK, for
example (also writing from personal experience) this is not typically done to the
same extent (if at all). This may also be a factor as to why further separation of
powers in the US has been reasonably successful.
Some people talk of the difference between a minimalist government and direct
democracy, whereby a smaller government run by experts in their field may be
better than involving all people in all issues at all time. In a sense this may be
true, but the risk with this approach is if it is seen to exclude people, then such
governments may lose legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate. Direct
democracy, on the other hand, may encourage activism and participation, but
the concern is if this can be sustained for a long period of time, or not. (There are
many other variations, which all have similar or related problems; how to handle
efficiency, participation, informed decision making and accountability, etc.
Different people use different terms such as deliberative democracy, radical
democracy, etc.)
The historical context for some countries may also be a factor. Many examples of
successful democracies include nations that have had time to form a national
identity, such as various European or North American countries.
Other nations, often made up of many diverse ethnic groups, may find
themselves forcedto live together. A major example would be most African
countries, whose artificial borders resulted from the 1885 Berlin Conference
where European colonial and imperial powers, (not Africans) carved up Africa (for
the colonial rulers own benefit, not for Africans).
Such nations may find themselves in a dilemma: an intertwined set of branches
of government may allow democratic institutions to be strengthened, but it may
also lead to corruption and favoritism of some groups over others. Furthermore,
many such countries have been emerging from the ravages of colonialism in the
past only to be followed by dictatorships and in some cases social and ethnic
tensions that are freed from the restraints of authoritarian rule. As such, many
poor nations in such a situation do not have the experience, manpower or
resources in place to put in an effective democracy, immediately.
Civilian control over the military is paramount. Not only must the military be held
to account by the government (and, be extension, the people), but the military
leadership must fully believe in a democratic system if instability through military
coups and dictatorships are to be avoided. (This is discussed further below.)
Indeed, some nations do not have full-time professional armies for the reason
that coups and military take-over is less likely. Others, notably the more
established powers, typically do have it, because they have had a recent history
of war and their place in the world stage may make it seem a necessary
requirement.
To achieve the openness that transparency and accountability gives, there is an
important need for a free press, independent from government. Such a media
often represents the principle of the universal right to free speech. This
combination is supposed to allow people to make informed choices and decisions
thereby contributing to political debate, productively.
Transparency and accountability also requires more bureaucracy as decisions and
processes need to be recorded and made available for the general public to
access, debate and discuss, if necessary. This seems easy to forget and so it is
common to hear concerns raised about the inefficiency of some governmental
department.
Efficiency, however, should not necessarily be measured in terms of how quickly
a specific action is completed or even how much it costs (though these can be
important too). The long-term impact is often important and the need to be
open/transparent may require these extra steps.
Back to top
Challenges Of Democracy
Voter apathy
Disenfranchisement
Parties not representing people
Voter intimidation
The common criticism leveled at those who do not vote seems to be to blame
them for being apathetic and irresponsible, noting that with rights come
responsibilities. There is often some truth to this, but not only are those other
reasons for not voting lost in this blanket assumption of apathy, but voting itself
isnt the only important task for an electorate.
Back to top
Paradoxes Of Democracy
Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes. For example,
People may vote in non-democratic forces
Democracies may discriminate the minority in favor of the majority
Those with non-democratic political ambitions may use the ideals of
democracy to attain power and influence
More propaganda may be needed in democracies than some totalitarian
regimes, in order to gain/maintain support for some aggressive actions and
policies (such as waging war, rolling back hard-won rights, etc.)
Regular elections lead to short government life-time. This seems to result
in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist
issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns
Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or
get policies enacted in their favor. (For example, some policies may be voted
for or palatable because of immense lobbying and media savvy campaigning
by those who have money (individuals and companies) even if some policies
in reality may undermine some aspects of democracy; a simple example is
how the free speech of extremist/racist groups may be used as an excuse to
undermine a democratic regime)
Those with money are more able to advertise and campaign for elections
thus favoring elitism and oligarchy instead of real democracy
Deliberate confusion of concepts such as economic preferences and
political preferences (e.g. Free Markets vs. Communism economic
preferences, and liberal vs authoritarian political preferences) may allow for
non-democratic policies under the guise of democracy
Democracies may, ironically perhaps, create a more effective military as
people chose to willingly support their democratic ideals and are not forced to
fight.
report finds that its claims to religious integration and harmony are on far shakier grounds
than previously believed . Muslims in India, for example, a large minority, are also
under-represented and seem to be seen as Indias new underclass.
Wealthier countries also have similar problems, ranging from France with its
challenge to integrate/assimilate a large foreign population, to Spain which
struggles with a large Basque population wanting independence, to the US where
large immigrant populations are struggling to integrate.
To address such potential issues requires more tolerance, understanding, and
openness of society, such that people are not insecure due to the presence of
others (and so that they do not, as a result, turn to more extreme/fundamental
aspects of their own beliefs). This can come through various outlets, including, a
diverse mainstream media, institutions such as religious and legal ones,
schooling, family upbringings, etc
Equally important are the underlying economic conditions and situations of a
country. Generally, it seems, where economically people are generally doing well,
where the inequality gap is not excessive, people have less of a reason to opt for
more defensive, reactionary or aggressive policies that undermine others.
At the same time, concerns of undesirable social engineering would also need to
be addressed, and it is likely that in different countries there will be different
formulas for this to be successful, for the historical context within which people
live, the specific circumstances of the day and various other factors will differ
amongst and within nations.
The Fear Of The Public And Disdain Of Democracy From Elites (While Publicly
Claiming To Supporting It)
People often see democracy as an equalizing factor that should not allow the
elite or wealthy in a society to rule in an autocratic, despotic, unaccountable
manner. Instead they have to respond to the will of the people, and ultimately be
accountable to them. Furthermore and ideally, it should not only be the wealthy
or elite that hold the power. There should be some form of equality when
representing the nation.
However, this has also meant at least two accompanying phenomena:
Democracy is seen as a threat to those in power, who worry about the
masses, referring to them as a mob, or some other derogatory phrase
(tyranny of the majority is another), and
To get votes, parties may appeal to populist issues which are often
sensational or aim for short-term goals of elections.
Interestingly, leading up to the 2006 US mid-term elections, amidst all sorts of
allegations of corruption coming to light, in an interview by Democracy Now!,
writer James Moore, provided a classic example of political utility: Karl Rove, the
influential, but controversial, advisor and strategist for President George W. Bush,
despite actively campaigning to get the Religious Right to support Bush was
not religious at all (and possibly despised the evangelical Christian extremists
that he actively worked to get the votes of) and Bush himself apparently called
them wackos years earlier:
James Moore: What people do not realize about [Karl Rove] is that everything
about him is political utility. When he looked at what was going on with the
megachurches ... Karl decided he was going to take these gigantic churches on
the Christian right and to turn them into a gigantic vote delivery system. And
thats precisely what he has done. This is not a man who has deeply held
religious faith. Its a man who believes that faith can be used to drive voters to
the polls. In fact, his own president, in an interview withor an offhand
unguarded moment aboard the press plane with my co-author, Wayne Slater, had
referred to the Christian right and the fundamentalists north of Austin as
whackos. They hold these people in more disdain than these individuals are
aware of.
John Pilger, In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its
usefulness to US power , 20 February, 2001
(This sites sections on the mainstream media and propaganda looks at these issues
in more depth. The buildup to the Iraq invasion is also an example of the lengths
that governments of two democracies, the US and UK, would go to to gain
support for their cause.)
Yet, at the same time, the short-termism that results has its problems too. As
Crick also notes, in two of the worlds most prominent countries, democracy has
almost become a mockery of what it is meant to be:
Today, the politics of the United States and Great Britain become more and more
populist: appeals to public opinion rather than to reasoned concepts of coherent
policy. Political leaders can cry education, education, education, but with their
manipulation of the media, sound-bites, and emotive slogans rather than
reasoned public debate, [John Stuart] Mill might have had difficulty recognizing
them as products of an educated democracy. And our media now muddle or
mendaciously confuse what the public happens to be interested in with older
concepts of the public interest.
The main media outlet, RCTV, aggressively anti Chavez, was denied a renewal
license in 2007, not because it was critical of Chavez policies, but because a preChavez government law did not look too kindly on broadcasters encouraging
coups (after all, what government would!). RCTV and their supporters tried to
insist otherwise; that this was an issue of free speech. The US mainstream media
has generally been hostile to Chavez (as has been the Bush administration itself),
and this was therefore added to the other mis-characterizations often presented ,
lending credence to the view that Chavez is a dictator. In essence a law enacted
during the previous dictatorial regime (backed by the US and others) is now being
turned around and used against Chavez as another example of power-grabbing.
If and when nations such as the US want to further undermine the democratic
processes in Venezuela, such incidents will be brought back into the mainstream,
without these caveats, and a more favorable/puppet regime may likely be the
aim.
Chavez is not helping his own cause by his often vocal and inflammatory antics,
but it should not be forgotten how much foreign influence may be contributing to
the undermining of democracy tendencies. Venezuela has been through a
succession of dictatorships and many supporters of the previous regimes are in
the anti-Chavez groups. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti- Chavez, it
certainly seems that democratic participation has increased during his tenure,
given all the increased political activity, both pro- and anti-Chavez.
In another example, for a number of years now, in the US, a number of Christian
groups in various Southern states have been campaigning hard to get schools to
either reject teaching subjects such as the theory of evolution in science classes,
or to balance them off with things like Creationism stories from the Bible or
Intelligent Design ideas, in the name of free speech and academic freedom. In
mid 2008, Louisiana became one of the first states to pass a religiously motivated
anti-evolution academic freedom law that was described by Ars Technica as
being remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking,
as it cites scientific subjects including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of
life, global warming, and human cloning.
(On this particular issue, the point is not to ban stories on Creationism; they are
better taught in religious classes, not science classes. Instead, religious views of
the world have been pushed forward arguing that scientific theories are just that,
ideas without proof, and so religious-based ones should compete on a level field
allowing people to make more informed decisions. Yet, often missed from that
is that scientific theories are usually based on a well-substantiated explanation
that gets tested whenever possible, whereas religious ideas usually are required
to be accepted on faith. More generally in the United States, there is however, a
growing concern at the rise in an extreme religious right that wants to replace the
democratic system with a Christian State .)
Although we are accustomed to hear about Muslim extremists pushing for
relgious-based states in various Middle East countries, this example is one in a
democracy where despite the principle of a separation of Church and State,
thePolitical Compass web site, the mainstream often mixes concepts such as
democracy, authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, with free markets and communist
economic ideologies. The terms of left and right wing politics is a gross
oversimplification:
See the neoliberalism section for various other graphs that show how most major
political parties and leaders of major countries are more neoliberal/right wing,
even if they may be considered left (e.g. the Labour Party in UK).
In summary, democracy does not automatically require free markets and free
markets does not automatically require democracy. Many western governments
supported dictatorships during the Cold War that practiced free market
economics in a dictatorial/fascist manner, for example.
Leading up to World War II, a number of European nations saw their power
determined by fascists, often via a democratic process. Today, many European
democracies attempt a social model of economic development ranging from
socialist to somewhat managed markets.
To the alarm of the US which considers the area its area of political influence,
Latin America has been flirting with various socialist/left wing economic policies
and direct/radical democracy.
In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, a party was voted in that has put
communist practices in place with some reasonable success. Of course, many
communist regimes in reality have also been accompanied by dictatorships and
despots in an attempt to enforce that economic ideology.
And during the beginnings of free markets, the major European powers
promoting it were themselves hardly democratic. Instead they were dominated
by imperialist, racist, colonialist and aristocratic views and systems.
The point here is that by not making this distinction, policies can often be
highlighted that appear democratic, or even could undermine democracy
(depending on how it is carried out) as many African countries have experienced,
for example. As a recent example, as South Africa came out of apartheid, it was
praised for its move to democracy, its truth and reconciliation approach and
other political moves. Less discussed however, were the economic policies and
conditions that followed.
A report describing a conference celebrating 10 years of South African
independence from Apartheid noted how difficult a democratic system is to
establish when combined with factors like regional and international economics
(i.e. globalization) which were identified as being responsible for some of the
problems in the region:
Nomboniso Gasa, Southern Africa, Ten Years after Apartheid; The Quest for
Democratic Governance , Idasa, 2004, p.11
One irony noted by John Bunzl of the Simultaneous Policy Organization (Simpol) is
that the worlds leading democracies have, through the lobbying by corporatefriendly think-tanks, governments and companies, unleashed a corporate-friendly
form of globalization that even they cant fully control. As a result, even these
countries are finding pressures on their democratic systems, resulting in
unpopular austerity measures and cutbacks in cherished services and rights,
such as health and education (though nowhere near to the level that has
happened in the developing world, under the benign phrase Structural Adjustment
).
How this has happened is detailed by many people. One detailed source to go to
might be the Institute for Economic Democracy and the work of J.W. Smith.
democracies that do not have forced military service, might create a more
effective military because people have to willingly chose to participate in military
institutions, and may have sufficient pride in protecting their democracy.
Of course, in reality it is more complex than that and democracy may be one
ingredient of many, but potentially an important one that is hard to fully measure
quantitatively. For example, sufficient funding, technology, skills and so on, are
all required too, to transform an eager and enthusiastic military to an effective
one.
Crick, quoted above, noted Platos observation that often a democratic system of
rule would need to allow the few to govern on behalf of the many. This is what
modern democracies typically are. But, as Crick notes, this has historically meant
rule by the few always needed to placate the many, especially for the defense of
the state and the conduct of war. (Democracy, p.17) In other words, propaganda
is needed. This occurs today, too, as discussed earlier.
In some countries, the military will offer lots of incentives to join (good salary,
subsidized education, etc.) which may appeal to poorer segments of society, so
defending ones democracy may not be the prime reason for joining the
military; it may be an important way for someone in poverty to overcome their
immediate predicament.
People may also be free to chose not to participate in a military, and/or reduce
the money spent on it. Hence, a lot of fear politics and propaganda may be
employed to gain support for excessive military spending, or to wage war, as the
build-up to war against Iraq by some of the worlds most prominent democracies
exemplified.
Many political commentators have noted, for example, that since the end of the
Cold War, the US has struggled to fully demilitarize and transform its enormous
military capacity into private, industrial capacity, and still spends close to Cold
War levels. (This has been observed way before the so-called War on Terror.)
Many regard the US as a more militarized state than most other industrialized
countries.
Back to top
Democracy, Extremism And War On Terror; People Losing Rights
Fear, Scare Stories And Political Opportunism
The use of fear in a democratic society is a well known tactic that undermines
democracy.
For example, the US has also been widely criticized for using the War on Terror
to cut back on various freedoms in the US, and often undermining democracy
and related principles. By raising fears of another terrorist attack it has been easy
sentencing of Saddam Hussein would take place: conveniently just before the 2006 midterm elections so as to try and get extra votes through the appearance of a
successful action coming to a close.
Another example comes from the Iranian hostage crisis where Iranian students
held some American hostages for over a year: A documentary that aired on a
British cable channel (cannot recall details unfortunately) explained how Reagan,
challenging Carter in the US presidential race, used a propaganda stunt that also
helped him achieve popular support: Reagan and George H. W. Bush had struck a
deal with the Iranian mullahs to provide weapons if they released the hostages
the day after he was sworn in as President, rather than before, during Carters
term.
This would allow Reagan to be sworn in with a very positive and triumphant view,
and provide an image of him that could be used again and again in the future to
help bolster him and his party, even though, as Robert Parry commented, The
American people must never be allowed to think that the Reagan-Bush era began
with collusion between Republican operatives and Islamic terrorists, an act that
many might view as treason. [Robert Parry, The Bushes & the Truth About Iran ,
Consortium News, September 21, 2006]
Cynics will note (rightly) that such tactics are not new and they happen all the
time. The problem is that many people (often cynics themselves) believe it, or
importantly, believe it at that time. Because these things have happened
throughout history does not automatically mean it should also happen in the
future too.
Supposedly, society becomes more sophisticated and improves its knowledge of
how these aspects work. We are supposed to be able to learn from past
experiences, and if that were true, knowing that such things can happen, and yet
they continue to do so all the time also signals a weakness or problem in the
democratic institutions if such actions are not held accountable for they deceive
the public into mis-informed decisions.
Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.6
As Waslekar also argues, the forces of extremism can be more dangerous than
the forces of terrorism:
Terrorism involves committing acts of [criminal] violence.... As they tend to be
illegal, it is conceivable for the state machinery to deal with them. Extremism
may not involve any illegal acts. In fact, extremism may surface using democratic
means.
Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.14
Waslekar notes that extremism often takes a religious face, and is not just in
parts of the Middle East and other Islamic countries (Islamic extremism), but
growing in countries and regions such as the United States (Christian extremism),
Europe (racism and xenophobia of a small minority of White Europeans, and
Islamic extremism by a small minority of Muslim immigrants), India (Hindu
extremism), Israel (Jewish extremism), Sri Lanka (Buddhist extremism), Nepal
(Maoists), Uganda (Christian extremism) and elsewhere.
Furthermore Waslekar finds that a closer look at the patterns of terrorism and
extremism around the world reveals that there are some common drivers
grievances and greed leading to supply and demand. There is clear evidence
that young people are drawn to the terrorist or extremist mindset because they
feel excluded by the society around them or by the policy framework of the
state.
And it is not necessarily absolute poverty that has the potential to breed new
recruits for terrorist organizations, but more likely inequality and relative poverty.
People suffering absolute poverty are generally struggling for their daily lives,
and less likely to have the leisure to think about their grievances and injustices.
Another issue that Waslekar summarizes well is how terrorism is understood and
reported:
Whether it is the mainstream media or the blogs, the analysis of the global
security environment revolves around the mutual love-hate relationship between
Western and Islamic countries. The fact that there are more serious patterns of
terrorism elsewhere in the world is ignored by both sides. The fact that there are
issues bigger than the growing mutual hatred between Western and Islamic
countries is forgotten. In the eyes of the Western elite and its media, the death of
5000 odd people in terrorist attacks launched by Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the
last five years is the ultimate threat to global security. In the eyes of Arab public
opinion, the death of 50,000 to 500,000 innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Lebanon and the Palestine is the real tragedy. Both sides forget that their woes
are serious but that some 50 million children lost their lives in the last five years
since 9/11 due to policy neglect by a world that is overly obsessed with one
issue.
Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.20
What do these issues have to do with democracy? A functioning, democratic
society is ideally one that is able to take inputs from different segments of
society and attempt to address them. Issues such as inequality and
social/political differences may have a better chance of being resolved without
resort to violence in a process that actually is (and is also seen to be) open,
accountable and inclusive.
Democracy by it self is no panacea as the various issues here have shown, but is
a crucial part of the overall process. A functioning mainstream media has a
democratic duty to inform citizens, but around the world the media repeatedly
fails to do so, and often reflects its regional biases or perspectives of an
established elite few. If concerns and grievances are not addressed, or if they
addressed through violence, Waslekar warns of an age of competitive
fundamentalism and is worth quoting again, this time at length:
The project of collaborative development of human knowledge and culture that
began under the sponsorship of Arab and Islamic rulers a thousand years ago
eventually became subject to the West. The Palestinian issue has been a symbol
of the continuation of the Western monopoly on power ... Iraq has been added as
another symbol not only of this Western power and arrogance, but also of
Western callousness. The rhetoric about Syria and Iran pose the risk of more such
symbols arising.
As the Arab elite have failed to provide an effective response to the Western
stratagem, Islamic preachers have come up with an alternative vision ... not in
harmony with Islams core message of peace, learning, and coexistence. On the
contrary, it presents an absolutist idea of the society. On the other hand, the
Christian Evangelical preachers and European xenophobic politicians present
visions of a closed society to their followers. It seems that the world is entering
an age of competitive fundamentalism.
While the West is obsessed with the Middle East, forces of extremism and
nationalism in Asia and Latin America pose the real challenge to its monopoly
and arrogance. Western discourse on terrorism and extremism is focused on the
Arab region at its own peril.... The conditions for relative deprivation prevail all
over the world, from Muslim migrants in Western Europe, the poor in the
American mid-west to farmers in Colombia and the Philippines. The intellectual
project to define terrorism only in relation to the groups in the Middle East turns a
blind eye to the growth of terrorism and extremism not only outside the Middle
East, in Asia and Latin America, but also in the American and European
homelands.
In the age of competitive fundamentalisms, human rights and liberties are
compromised. The states ... may indulge in human rights violations. And at times
they may use terrorism as an excuse to punish legitimate opposition. Several
people are more afraid of anti terrorist measures than acts of terror. Thus,
terrorism abets authoritarianism and undermines freedom. Since many of the
states today engaged in counter terrorism campaigns claim to be champions of
freedom, terrorist groups defeat them philosophically by forcing them to
undermine the freedom of innocent civilians. Terrorism wins when powerful
security agencies forbid mothers from freely carrying milk and medicine for their
infants on aeroplanes. Terrorism wins when democratically elected
representatives cannot allow their constituents to move about freely around
them. Terrorism wins when states use it as an excuse to kill their enemies, giving
birth to a thousand suicide bombers.
Competitive fundamentalism threatens trust between individuals and societies.
Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, pp.24-25
Back to top
Democratic Choice: Parties Or Issues?
Democracies seem easy to manipulate in some circumstances. It may be during
election campaigns when issues are oversimplified into simple slogans (e.g.
education, education, education), and emotive issues (which may be hyped
and exaggerated, such as immigration). Or it may be during fund raising for
political parties (often from influential contributors with their own agendas), or it
may be when running government where corruption, lack of transparency and
unaccountability affects even the wealthiest of nations who are proud to be
democratic.
The free press should act as a natural check against these issues in a functioning
democracy, yet intertwined interests and agendas result in them often being
mouthpieces of parties or just a press-release machine that unwittingly follows an
agenda set by others resulting in limited analysis outside those boundaries.
Perhaps the way parties are voted into power is an issue?
Voting
An interesting aside is an Internet-based project called the global vote , to allow
direct voting on global issues, which go beyond national boundaries, or allow
people to vote on aspects of policies in the countries of others.
This is interesting in a few ways. For example, voting beyond the nation state is
something new, ironically perhaps afforded by globalization which some see as
undermining democracy. It is also enabled by modern technology (the Internet in
this case).
On the issue of technology, attempts to introduce other types of technology into
voting, such as e-voting machines have been plagued with problems of
insecurity, difficult usability for some people, lack of open access to the
underlying source code, and even incorrect recording of votes, or possible
manipulation. This is discussed further, below.
Evaluative Democracy
Ensuring free decisions and informed decisions are of course are clearly
interlinked, and political scientist Stephen Garvey thoroughly argues that voting
the way it is typically done is so flawed that a more evaluative approach to
democracy would be a better way to judge progress, determine leaders, and
ultimately achieve a better (and real) democracy. This, he argues, is because an
evaluative democracy
Back to top
Election Challenges
Campaign Financing
In countries that have representative democracies a problem with election
campaigning is that it requires a lot of money, and raising it often means
appealing to those who have sufficient money to donate.
In the US, this has led to the criticism that both Democrats and Republicans have
had to court big business and do not necessarily represent the majority of the
people, as a result.
Such enormous campaign financing has meant that other potentially popular
candidates have not been able to get further because they have not been able to
spend as much on advertising and marketing.
This means that not only do political parties court big financiers but that these
large entities/businesses and wealthy individuals can use the media to push their
own agendas and interests which may not necessarily represent majority views.
Numerous calls for limits are welcomed by those without money, but resisted by
those with it, for clearly one set of people would gain, while another would lose
out.
This very much sounds more like a system of oligarchy, rather than democracy,
as Aristotle had long warned of, quoted near the beginning of this article.
In the US, activists have been trying to raise the issue of campaign financing for
years, but it recently took on another dimension as limits to campaign financing
were removed. Kanya DAlmeida recently summarized this in an article in Inter
Press Service:
The richest one percent has hijacked the very foundations of democracy in a
country whose constitution of 1787 promised to be by the people, for the people.
[A US Supreme Court ruling in January 2010 that Congress cannot limit spending
by corporations in elections] struck at the very heart of what many U.S. citizens
have felt for years that despite a careful constitutional separation of the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, corporate capital
had infected the body politic from head to toe.
television stations this year will rake in as much as eight billion dollars from political
campaigns.
In the US and UK for example, there have been various cases of media outlet
parent companies contributing to election campaigns or candidates/parties.
Famously, Tony Blair got support by Ruper Murdoch and the Sun tabloid, usually a
right-leaning paper, which helped him come to power in 1997.
In Italy when Silvio Berlusconi became Prime Minister (on more than one
occasion), he was a powerful media mogul and was able to use that to good
effect to promote his agenda andsometimes controversial views . As one of Italys
richest men he was also embroiled invarious allegations of corruption , including
from the influential Economist magazine. Berlusconi has been able to use his
influence in business, media and politics to avert much criticism and charges in
various ways.
In Venezuela there has been both an intense anti-Chavez mainstream media, but
also a state run channel where Chavez has had is own TV program. (As an
interesting aside, Chavezs recent election winan overwhelming winhas been
described by some foreign media as an example of amassing more power . The
irony here may be that he may have won a popular democratic vote, but because
he is not looked at favorably by nations such as the US, and because many of the
mainstream media outlets of those other nations often follow the
government/establishment position on such things, the reporting by the
mainstream media from there reflected that government position. Had Bush or
any other US presidential candidate won US elections with such a majority it is
unlikely to be described as amassing more power, but rather an example of
democracy and overall success and popularity of that candidate.)
Media Reporting
Danny Schechter, a media expert, wonders out aloud why we see some repeated
good quality analysis (after an election) of why election reporting may have been
problematic, and yet those problems occur again the next time:
After every election, there are post-mortems and then, after that, come the
studies to confirm the presence of many institutional and deep seated flaws in
our ritualized electoral-democracy.
Annually, journalists acknowledge their own limits and mistakes. The honest ones
admit there was a uniformity of outlook in which the horse race is over-covered
and the issues under covered.
They concede that there was a focus on polls without explaining their limits
adequately or how polls in turn are affected by the volume and slant of media
coverage. There are criticisms of how negative ads and entertainment values
infiltrated election coverage, what Time magazine calls "electotainment." They
bemoan the fact that there was more spin and opinionizing than reporting along
with less investigative reporting.
And then they do it all over again.
Danny Schechter, The 2006 Election: Another Nail in our Democratic Coffin?,
ZNet, December 11, 2006
While Schechter is specifically commenting on US elections, these similar
concerns often apply to many other countries, rich and poor.
Schechter above commented on the negative ads in US. This involves a lot of
excessive and pointless attacking and degrading of opponents, rather than
focusing on issues. It often involves a form of spin and slanting just to make the
other candidate look bad, and both Democrats and Republicans get involved in
this.
In the UK recent elections have been accompanied hype on populist issues such
as immigration which, while the have issues, have been exaggerated and blown
out of proportion to the issue itself.
The image of the candidate is often paramount, in that they must appear to
support or not support a particular issue. Some media reports will try to make the
most out of some minor issue such as appearance on a particular day and see if
they can read any signals from it. The personality of the candidates themselves
also become major issues.
Such tactics are arguably a waste of resources, and divert attention away from
real issues which then get less time to be debated. Unfortunately these tactics
will always be pursued because some of these do affect peoples views and
opinions. It is well known that appearance, for example, does affect peoples
opinions, regardless of whether it should or should not.
Disenfranchisement Of Voters
In a Democracy Now! broadcast on November 6, 2006 (just before the US midelections) the issues being discussed were various ways that people were being
prevented from voting . The broadcast interviewed New York Times editor, Adam
Cohen, who had been following this concern in detail and gave various examples
of attempts to try and use rules that appear fair but are actually designed to
prevent a certain group of people from voting so that a certain party will win. If
parties can do it, they will try, he implies.
Furthermore, if you look back at the history of voting in the United States, there
has always been an attempt to use rules of various kinds to stop certain people
from voting. Its always been a partisan thing. One party realizes if it stops a
particular ethnic group or racial group from voting, it may win, and they adopt
rules that appear to be neutral, but actually arent neutral at all.
As shocking and concerning as some of these tactics are, these issues of course
are not limited to the US, and in some countries, attempts to prevent groups of
people from voting are far worse, including use of violence as noted above. The
US was chosen as an example here because of the high regard people have for
its democratic process. If democratic principles are easy to violate in the US, then
many other countries will have even worse problems.
Back to top
Democratic Governments And The Military
In a truly functioning democracy, the military has to be subservient to the people.
The US and most other industrialized democracies are a good example of this.
The military pledges to serve the purpose of protecting democracy. (Ignore for
the moment the issue of democratic governments waging war on other countries,
sometimes against the wishes of their population.)
There are times when we witness military coups in a country where the generals
coming into power claim it is in order to route out corruption that has made a
mockery of their democratic systems, or some other such reason. The rule, they
say, is temporary and necessary, but only until conditions are okay to restore
democracy.
Yet, many times this has either been an excuse, or, even when intentions may
have been genuine, dictatorship lingers on. One example is Pakistan. Enormous
corruption in the democratic government was a reason cited by by General
Musharraf when he lead a military coup. He promised a restoration of democracy
as soon as possible. Many years later, the world was still waiting. Finally, rather
than keeping to his promise, it was intense pressure (and miscalculation by his
group, or those who favor him, by assassinating opposition leader and former
Prime Minister, Benezir Bhutto) that led to Musharraf to give in, allowing elections
in February 2008.
During this time, numerous other democracies looked the other way, as
Musharraf was useful in the war on terror and some Western media eventually
started to refer to him as President Musharraf, even though originally he was
referred to as General Musharraf (which is what the media will often use when
reporting on such rulers in in hostile countries. Ironically in Venezuela, former
General, Huge Chavez, has occasionally been referred to as General Chavez, to
give the impression that the country is a fake democracy being run by a military
person. That would be equivalent of say someone like General Wesley Clark
becoming President of the US and referring to him as General Clark).
Thailand has also seen a similar situation to that of Pakistan. And time again will
have to tell if the military dictatorship is genuine in its desire for establishing
democracy or not.
Another major factor for military coups and dictatorships that have overthrown
fledgling governments is because of external factors, such as when the US,
during the Cold War, overthrew many fledgling democracies in favor of puppet
dictatorships.
Back to top
Powerful Countries: Democratic At Home; Using Power, Influence And Manipulation
Abroad
Foreign policy issues hardly feature in election campaigns of countries such as UK
and US, and yet their influence around the world is immense. Recall the 2000
elections between Bush and Al Gore, where both virtually agreed with the other
in a televised debate on foreign policy matters. (Admittedly, many parties feel
their target audiences are not as interested in foreign policy. Perhaps that will
change in near future as issues such as the war on terror, the rise of Asia, climate
change, and other issues become more prominent.)
Election Corruption
Elections are typically local and national events. Foreign involvement in a
national election, however, does happen, and depending on the circumstances
and perspective, it can be seen as anything from providing assistance and
support, to political interference and undermining of the democratic process (if it
is seen at all).
There are countless examples in recent decades, too many to list here, but some
recent ones include the external funding of democratic parties often by some
Western countries in parts of the developing world.
For instance, in Iran one of the opposition groups to the ruling regime is a
monarch descendant and not necessarily democratic as such, but gets Western
backing nonetheless.
In Nicaragua leading up to the 2006 elections, the US actually warned
Nicaraguans not to vote for for Ortega. (In the mid 1980s, the US had actively
supported Contra guerrillas in a war against the Nicaraguan government . Ortega was
leader of Nicaragua at that time.) The US went as far as threatening economic
sanctions and withdrawal of aid if Ortega won . Even Oliver North and Donald
Rumsfeld went there to tell people not to vote for Ortega (though Rumsfeld
denied he went for political reasons). North was one of the main people involved
in the Iran-Contra scandal, the US deal to sell weapons to Iran and use proceeds
to fund the bloody contras against Ortega and the Sandinista movement there,
despite a congressional ban to do this (i.e. being against both US and
international law).
A scandal caused around 2000 was when there was feared Chinese influence in
US elections at that time the media and politicians were (rightly) outraged at
foreign interference, but ignored the immense number of incidents (and
sometimes far worse) foreign interference their own country had taken part in, in
other countries, before and since.
Recently, Russia has also been accused of interference with some of its former
satellites (sometimes unsuccessfully such as with the the Ukraine velvet
revolution).
By its very nature, it is hard to detect this kind of interference. Sometimes it is
visible but accompanied by so much subtle propaganda that it seems benign,
while other times it is only years later that the information comes out, by which
time the damage has been done (and many peoples lives have been affected).
Yet, nations and organizations doing these things will often feel they have to for
their own agendas and national interests. Of course the more powerful and
influential countries will be able to pull this off far better than poorer ones, and is
yet another tool in the arsenal of more powerful countries to try and maintain
their position of advantage in the international arena. While it is easy to say and
hard to do, transparency in all parts of a democratic process is key to help
minimize or avert this kind of perversion of democracy.
(For far more detailed examples, including in particular the history of Western
companies and front organizations funding groups to overthrow governments in
the name of democracy but really to achieve various foreign policy interests, see
the works of J.W. Smith from the Institute for Economic Democracy , and the
various writings from Noam Chomsky . Whenever some of these things come to
light, the mainstream and politicians of these interfering nations often claim
these were mistakes that should not have happened, but Smith, Chomsky and
many others show how systemmatic this has often been, implying it is part of a
foreign policy agenda to shape the world, where possible, with governments that
are friendly to their interests, democratic or not.)
Back to top
Democracy Of Nation States In The Age Of Globalization
As noted further above, the international arena has an affect on most countries
today. Both democratic and non-democratic forces may be voted in that then
institute policies that are in some way affected by globalization (for example,
supporting aspects that are described as overly corporate friendly at the expense
of local people, while benefiting a few wealthy elite, or reacting negatively to
some of the effects of globalization such as whipping up hysteria against
economic migrants, etc.)
In the case of Africa noted earlier, many countries have found themselves subject
to harsh conditions for debt relief, which on paper sound fair, but in reality leads
to an undermining of democracy.
When globalization challenges national borders and is international in scope, how
meaningful are some national elections? Even when a party is voted in based on
some sort of criticism on the way globalization is affecting their nation, there are
numerous times when those very parties have been unable to do much other
than go with the pressures globalization brings (e.g. poor countries opening up to
foreign investment, mostly by large western companies, thus undermining any
local sector which cannot compete against such established actors or breaking
some promises made to electorates).
Some time leading up to the November 2000 US presidential election, I recall
hearing on radio (cant recall details, unfortunately) how a farmer in an African
nation lamented how he could not vote in the US elections for what happens
there has far more effect on his country than whatever vote he could make in his
own country.
The challenge will remain; richer nations, supported by the wealthy and powerful
companies that come from their territories are pushing for others to open up, as
this will benefit their companies and possibly their own nations more generally
(or at least the wealthier segments of their own society). Poor nations are open to
the idea of globalization and international institutions to discuss these processes,
but repeatedly find that international meetings at the IMF, World Bank and World
Trade Organization are far from democratic.
British economist John Maynard Keynes, is considered one of the most influential
economists of the 20th century and one of the fathers of modern
macroeconomics. He advocated an interventionist form of government policy
believing markets left to their own measure (i.e. completely freed) could be
destructive leading to cycles of recessions, depressions and booms. To mitigate
against the worst effects of these cycles, he supported the idea that
governments could use various fiscal and monetary measures. His ideas helped
rebuild after World War II, until the 1970s when his ideas were abandoned for
freer market systems.
Keynes biographer, professor Robert Skidelsky, argues that free markets have
undermined democracy and led to this crisis in the first place:
What creates a crisis of the kind that now engulfs us is not economics but
politics. The triumph of the global free market, which has dominated the world
over the last three decades has been a political triumph.
It has reflected the dominance of those who believe that governments (for which
read the views and interests of ordinary people) should be kept away from the
levers of power, and that the tiny minority who control and benefit most from the
economic process are the only people competent to direct it.
This band of greedy oligarchs have used their economic power to persuade
themselves and most others that we will all be better off if they are in no way
restrainedand if they cannot persuade, they have used that same economic
power to override any opposition. The economic arguments in favor of free
markets are no more than a fig leaf for this self-serving doctrine of self-
aggrandizement.
Bryan Gould, Who voted for the markets? The economic crisis makes it plain:
we surrendered power to wealthy elites and fatally undermined democracy , The
Guardian, November 26, 2008
Furthermore, he argues that the democratic process has been abused and
manipulated to allow a concentration of power that is actually against the idea of
free markets and real capitalism:
The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and free markets are incompatible.
The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the
democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to
accumulateas any player of Monopoly understandsin just a few hands. It
deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would
otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players.
If governments accept, as they have done, that the free market cannot be
challenged, they abandon, in effect, their whole raison d'etre. Democracy is then
merely a sham. No amount of cosmetic tinkering at the margins will conceal
the fact that power has passed to that handful of people who control the global
economy.
Bryan Gould, Who voted for the markets? The economic crisis makes it plain:
we surrendered power to wealthy elites and fatally undermined democracy , The
Guardian, November 26, 2008
Despite Keynesian economics getting a bad press from free market advocates for
many years, many are now turning to his policies and ideas to help weather the
global economic crisis .
Rich nations have long felt the pressure from the business sector and elsewhere
to reduce spending on various social programs, and in most democratic elections
the sound bites are about parties promising to uphold those social programs as
best they can. If rich countries are struggling with this question, the challenge for
emerging/developing nations is greater.
democratic leadership, and are now beginning to address that balance. This has
not come about because of democratic tendencies of the leading contributors (all
Western democracies), but because a handful of developing nations, such as
China, India and Brazil, have now become politically strong enough to gather
sufficient backing to demand these Western-backed/influenced institutions open
up and let them in and share power more fairly if they are to be truly
international organizations that they want/claim to be.
It is very early days to see what will happen; will the emerging nations just
become another group leaving the poorer ones still under-represented, or will
they be able to fight for better global representation?
The World Trade Organization is another such problematic organization in this
regards, while the UN, generally universal, suffers from the problem of the nondemocratic UN Security Council with its handful of veto-power nuclear powers.
For example, during various rounds of WTO talks, developing countries frequently
complained that rich nations keep circumventing established procedures or just
prevent developing countries taking part or even produce documents and drafts
so late in the process (e.g. the night before they are discussed) that they do not
have time to analyze them sufficiently. Any of these things undermine
negotiation processes for countries already limited by resources. The Green
Room antics whereby rich countries selectively invite a few poor countries to
closed door meetings, telling them how things will proceed, smells of divide and
conquer. In the meanwhile industrialized country officials will celebrate these
talks as being open and transparent, blaming developing countries for some
unexplainable reason for being unreasonable when things go wrong.
(And when mainstream media outlets of wealthy countries rarely report these
meetings, let alone the concerns and perspectives of poor countries, their
officials, who sound like they genuinely want to help the poor but cannot
understand why they wont accept their offer, get away without being held to
account as to why their offers to poor countries were actually so harsh and unfair
in various ways.)
Although sounding boring for most of the public, these talks are some of the most
important in the world, for they affect the lives of all citizens. Promises by
wealthy countries of openness, transparency and other democratic like behavior
are just that; promises. In reality this is politics, dirty negotiation tactics and
doing anything that one can get away with in order to push ones own interests in
the international arena (which, unfortunately is somewhat understandable from
the perspective of those individual nations doing it; they are trying to get the
best for their own interest, even if they often present it as being best for
everyone). [For additional details, see also this sites page: WTO Meeting in Hong
Kong, 2005 ]
Of these international institutions, the UN is perceived to be far more democratic
and inclusive in comparison. However, it too is tainted, this time by the 5
permanent members of the UN Security Council who have veto powers over
many decisions, thus giving them more power, regardless of any overwhelming
international opinion or even votes by the UN General Assembly.
These 5 are permanent members with excess powers because they have nuclear
weapons, helped form the UN (in the case of US, UK and France), or were invited
in for Geopolitical balance (in the case of the former Soviet Union, now Russia,
and China).
Military power, it appears, is the final arbiter of justice. This is ironic when key
democratic principles include an independent judiciary and a military subservient
to the people.
But what recourse do poor countries have? To whom can they complain and go to
when wealthy countries violate the principles upon which they make grandiose
claims of following?
almost have to try and get involved, even if it is an unequal system, just in case
they can get some concessions or have their voice heard.
Why is democracy at the international level so important?
There may clearly be cases where at all levels a committee/consensus type
approach may be inefficient (e.g. to respond to a natural disaster, where some
command/control approach may help immediately), but even there, a democratic
process can be useful to feed back into the decision making so that the
command/control structure does not become close-minded.
Clearly though, a more democratic set of international institutions is one way to
try and address inequalities caused by projection of power. Furthermore,
understanding our commonalities, not just differences may help solidify
humanity, which currently seems on a trajectory of distrust and violence.
Sundeep Walsekar, mentioned earlier is worth quoting again to show just one
seemingly small, but perhaps significant example:
It is generally believed that much of modern Western thought has its origins in
Greek philosophy. In the post-Roman Empire period, many important Greek works
were destroyed. It was largely to the credit of the Islamic rulers of the 9th to 12th
century that some of these works were recovered, translated and analyzed. The
Arab, Persian and Jewish scholars of the time built upon the knowledge they had
gathered. Trade with China and India provided access to the knowledge
developed in the Eastern societies for centuries. The scholars in the Middle East
further created their own ideas and innovations.... In a historical twist, their
works were destroyed by Mongol invaders and others but Western universities
secured and preserved some of them. Critical and independent inquiry is needed
to ascertain to what extent the evolution of knowledge is a result of crossfertilization of ideas between people from different parts of the world.
Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.29
Dwelling a bit further on this notion of humanity with more similarities than
differences, a common Euro-centric view of world history describes ancient Greek
democracy as Western democracy, with ancient Greece as part of that
Western/European identity.
Yet, as John Hobson writes in the excellent anti Euro-centric book, The Eastern
Origins of Western Civilisation, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), ancient
Greece and Rome were not considered as part the West until much later; that
is, Greece and Rome were part of a whole Middle East center of civilization, in
some ways on the edge of it, as more was happening further Eastward.
Western Europe adopted or appropriated ancient Greek achievements in
democracy as its own much later when it needed to form a cohesive ideology and
identity to battle the then rising Islam and to counter its defeats during the
Crusades.
The point here is that democracy is perhaps more universal than acknowledged
and that there is a lot of propaganda in how history is told, sometimes
highlighting differences amongst people more than the similarities and crossfertilization of ideas that Waslekar alludes to. This better understanding, which
would take a long time to permeate into mainstream society, would contribute to
creating a more tolerant, hence eventually a more democratic, society.
Back to top
The Dangers Of Apathy In A Democracy
Though it is ancient wisdom, Aristotles warning against concentrated power and
wealthin which democracy can be perverted into oligarchyis applicable today.
The more excessive this power, the more this oligarchy will tend towards
monarchy and rule by individuals not laws:
If the men of property in the state are fewer than in the former case, and own
more property, there arises a second form of oligarchy. For the stronger they are,
the more power they claim, and having this object in view, they themselves
select those of the other classes who are to be admitted to the government; but,
not being as yet strong enough to rule without the law, they make the law
represent their wishes. When this power is intensified by a further diminution of
their numbers and increase of their property, there arises a third and further
stage of oligarchy, in which the governing class keep the offices in their own
hands, and the law ordains that the son shall succeed the father. When, again,
the rulers have great wealth and numerous friends, this sort of family despotism
approaches a monarchy; individuals rule and not the law. This is the fourth sort of
oligarchy, and is analogous to the last sort of democracy.
Back to top
How Can Democracy Be Safe-Guarded?
Some feel that occasionally, a government may need to suspend democracy in order to
save it. For example, a rollback on fundamental rights and decision making may expedite
decision-making at times of threat and danger.
Governments may hand over power to the military, or more commonly, some in the
military may take it on themselves (sometimes with pressure/support from outside) that
their country needs saving from their government, and will step in accordingly (a coup).
It is hard to know if such coups were ever with the best intentions in mind, because it
seems most coups have resulted in long term military dictatorship. The stability sought
in such cases appears not to have been to ensure democracy, but perhaps to ensure
stability for those with money and power, and ulterior agendas.
In other situations, the US War on Terror being perhaps the most obvious in recent times,
the government has decided to roll back power of the people itself, and assume a stronger
and more disconnected ruling regime.
Perhaps when a nation faces a direct threat of invasion, or some other pending disaster, a
more efficient system of decision-making is needed, but in all these other circumstances
to save democracy, is a temporary roll back of democracy warranted?
What about strengthening democracy, by increasing it? If a democracy is struggling due
to corruption, a faltering economy or various social, political or other economic woes, or
a threat of terrorism, is less democracy a cure? Could more democracy be better, by
increasing accountability, participation and transparency?
As mentioned earlier, the idea of voting as it is practiced today might be flawed because
of the potential for so much misuse, abuse, and peoples lack of access to full
information, free from manipulation. Alternatives such as the Evaluative Democracy
approach described earlier, and others, need far more mainstream discussion (which is
hard to get when so much of the mainstream media and political establishments benefit
from the current arrangements).
Just as Aristotle warned of apathy, another bit of ancient wisdom might be appropriate
here, summarized by Professor Steve Muhlberger recounting a situation whereby a king
of Maghada in ancient India, who wished to destroy the Vajjian confederacy, sent a
minister to the Buddha to ask for his advice and whether his attack would be a success or
not? In his response, the Buddha said the people of Vajjia could avoid decline if they