On Democracy

This is going to be long. And it’s a work in progress, that may not make a whole lot of sense in its current form. This is an attempt at a draft for a chapter of what may eventually become a book. It is both a compilation of my thoughts on a certain subject, and an exercise in trying to write in a longer, more essay-like form toward a specific thesis.

I have in recent months heard many variations on the idea of “protecting democracy.” But to what extent, if any, is democracy present in our lives?

In the Americas, and presumably elsewhere, the ideal of democracy is firmly established. But as with other political terms, its exact meaning is subject to a lot of personal variation. This, in turn, results in confusion, misunderstanding, and arguments, which can be undermined by bad actors using subterfuge, propaganda, rhetoric, and all the tools of the wicked statesman.

The origin of the term “democracy” is in Ancient Greece, where it is far from a favored idea. In its early context, it has the meaning of mob rule, of chaos that follows the crude impulses of the uneducated masses, focused on momentary desires and divorced from what is best for anyone, driven by the careful words of the aforementioned bad actors. History has shown that this view of democracy is not without its validity, and it is a possible outcome that we have to keep in mind, and to carefully avoid, lest any society betray its lofty goals and dissolve into such madness.

It is for similar reasons to these that the founders of the United States made little mention of democracy in their official documents, and the constitution mandates, for the form of government, a republic, a term from the Latin “res publicam”, the matters of the state. This term represents a political ideal in which the government is the overall property of its populace and answerable to it, rather than master of it, and this is an honorable enough idea. Through representational government, the people are theoretically served by elected officials, who will consider the needs of their constituency in forming policy, unless of course they are from the same crop of bad actors as above.

It may become apparent from the repeated mention of a particular pitfall that there is no system that automatically works and is immune to corruption; there will always be threats, internal and external, to test the strength of a political structure. A system that is ideal, for anyone or everyone, and one that is able to survive the trials of an unpredictable world, are separate matters, and it is in the meeting of these metrics that reality must lie.

There are many forms of government, of which the republic is one. Are any of them inherently democratic? Can a democratic government exist?

Let us consider as a starting point the ideal, the foundation on which democracy is touted: shared power. If political power is dispersed throughout the population, it means that each person has some say, is not completely at the mercy of the whims of some other person. It also means abuses of power are much harder to achieve.

And at best, the efforts of each empowered person will reinforce each other: those ideas that everyone agrees are good will be easily enforced, while those that cannot be agreed upon will flounder and ultimately be left for each person to decide what is best. This, if effective, would naturally ensure the greatest possible freedom for everyone.

On the other hand, it means that decisions are seldom to be made quickly, especially when they are contentious. And, as previously mentioned, the people can be misled through misinformation. This is where the exact form of government matters: some must be lent authority to act quickly and decisively when necessary, while protecting that authority from abuse. Rules can be made to potentially ensure this state of affairs. But rules must be arbitrated and enforced, and so the threat of corruption only becomes more complicated.

Let’s get back to the starting point. If power is dispersed, no one can have more than a piece of it. Yet if someone tries to take more than a piece, if they are noticed, they will draw the ire, envy, and enmity of others, especially if they abuse that power. It follows that the ideal, the status quo we should seek, is for each person to keep a small piece of power, and to be able to trust others, to know that they will not abuse their piece, that their use of it will, at least for the most part, align with your own. And how can this be achieved?

In consideration of this question, I have developed four ideals, four pillars that I think can be upheld to guide populations toward more egalitarian social structures and more democratic forms of government.

Before we can wield power, we must know how to use it. The means to this is education. A robust culture of education is essential and its importance cannot be overstated. To learn, not just rote information, but critical thinking, how to examine the world and see the pieces that compose it. To understand the foibles and biases in what we are told. To understand ourselves and what we can achieve, to know how to find the paths between who we are and where we want to be. There can be no liberty if we do not understand what our options mean and what their consequences could be. There can be no democracy without education.

The counterpart to education is information, i.e. provided by the press or other media sources. While the idea of a free press is well established, it has an inherent problem that has never been fully resolved: in order to effectively share information, an organization needs resources which must be somehow provided, usually in the form of funding. Whatever source that funding is, be it a collective of private individuals, a commercial enterprise, or a government, there will naturally arise a pressure for the press organization to favor information and viewpoints that their funding source will prefer. At the very least, this is a risk that must be kept in mind, and anyone related to the press must strive to combat this. But in particular, recipients of informational media must exercise constant skepticism about the validity of what they are consuming, especially when the content is convenient for whoever has the money. And the media source itself must be open about its supporters and their goals.

In order for any organization (educational, media, governmental, or commercial) to stay trustworthy and prove it, there must be oversight: external, ongoing observation of practices by persons who are not associated and thus have no inherent cause for bias. For private individuals, it makes sense to protect one’s privacy to protect against unfair recrimination or persecution; for public entities, which have no thoughts or desires, no livelihoods of their own, secrecy can only be in service of malfeasance. Even for private organizations, it makes sense as a sign of goodwill to be open and encourage examination of their conduct by outsiders.

The complement to oversight is self-policing. Any organization, even if it has ostensibly altruistic goals, can possibly harbor individuals with ulterior motives who may subvert its activities to their own ends. Effort must be made by members of a group to ensure other members are behaving appropriately. In most cases this is as simple as having a list of best practices and reminding others of it occasionally. But if there is a role which is overlooked or considered above reproach, problems can arise. More problematic is the adoption of an insider/outsider worldview which not only shuts out oversight, but encourages members to ignore signs of malfeasance. Every organization, regardless of its exact aims, is part of a larger world and will be most effective when it is open and honest both within and without.

In none of this have I been talking about official policy or law. That is because in a government that is truly owned by its populace, laws automatically follow from the needs of that populace and do not need to be enforced. The reason checks and balances exist is that the founders understood that a perfect government could not exist, and so some measure of legal reinforcement must be put in place to shore up the weaknesses. While the quality and effective benefit of laws can be examined to judge the qualities of a government, that is not exactly the same as measuring the quality of a democracy.

The thing to understand is that democracy is not a system. It is a process. And undertaking that process is a daily, constant, widespread exercise. If we do so, the system will follow suit, and will arrange itself to suit our collective needs.

Democracy doesn’t mean voting. It doesn’t even mean contacting representatives, lobbying, rallying, and signposting. These are all things that happen when democracy is present.

It means caring about the people around you, including strangers. It means being open and honest with your opinions, and willing to listen to those of others. It means ensuring that everyone has a voice, even those who disagree with you. It means remembering that government officials have a place in servitude of society, and reminding them of that fact when necessary. It means knowing that things change, even on the largest of scales, and we have the responsibility to guide those changes.