Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

download Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

of 47

Transcript of Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    1/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761

    Global Issues http://www.globalissues.org

    Social, Political, Economic and Environmental Issues That Affect Us All

    Democracy

    by Anup Shah This Page Last Updated Saturday, January 28, 201 2

    This print version has been auto-generated from

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracy

    Democracy (rule by the people when translated from its Greek meaning) is seen as one of the ultimate

    ideals that modern civilizations strive to create, or preserve. Democracy as a system of governance is

    supposed to allow extensive representation and inclusiveness of as many people and views as possible to feedinto the functioning of a fair and just society. Democratic principles run in line with the ideals of universal

    freedoms such as the right to free speech.

    Importantly, democracy supposedly serves to check unaccountable power and manipulation by the few at

    the expense of the many, because fundamentally democracy is seen as a form of governance by the people,

    for the people. This is often implemented through elected representatives, which therefore requires free,

    transparent, and fair elections, in order to achieve legitimacy.

    The ideals of democracy are so appealing to citizens around the world, that many have sacrificed their

    livelihoods, even their lives, to fight for it. Indeed, our era of civilization is characterized as much by war

    and conflict as it is by peace and democracy. The twentieth century alone has often been called the century

    of war.

    In a way, the amount of propaganda and repression some non-democratic states set up against their own

    people is a testament to the peoples desire for more open and democratic forms of government. T hat is, the

    more people are perceived to want it, the more extreme a non-democratic state apparatus has to be to hold

    on to power.

    However, even in established democracies, there are pressures that threaten various democraticfoundations. A democratic systems openness also allows it to attract those with vested interests to use the

    democratic process as a means to attain power and influence, even if they do not hold democratic principles

    dear. This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. In principle, there may be

    various ways to address this, but in reality once power is attained by those who are not genuinely support

    democracy, rarely is it easily given up.

    This web page has the following sub-sections:

    http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracyhttp://www.globalissues.org/http://www.globalissues.org/http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracyhttp://www.globalissues.org/
  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    2/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 2

    1. Introduction

    1. Definition

    2. Democracy past and present

    3. Is Democracy a Western or Universal Value?

    4. State of democracy around the world today

    2. Pillars of a functioning democracy

    3. Challenges of democracy

    1. Low voter turnouts

    2. Does an elected official represent the people if turnout is too low?

    3. Why a low voter turnout?

    4. Paradoxes of Democracy

    1. Voting in non-democratic forces

    2. Minorities losing out to majorities

    3. The fear of the public and disdain of democracy from elites (while publicly claiming to

    supporting it)

    4. Democracy requires more propaganda to convince masses5. Limited time in power means going for short term policies

    6. Anti-democratic forces undermine democracy using democratic means

    7. Those with money are more likely to be candidates

    8. Confusing political ideology with economic Ideology

    9. Democracies may create a more effective military

    5. Democracy , extremism and War on Terror; people losing rights

    1. Fear, scare stories and political opportunism

    2. Weak democracies and hostile oppositions

    3. Lack of inclusiveness undermines democracy, strengthens extremism

    6. Democratic choice: parties or issues?

    1. Representative and Direct Democracy

    2. Voting

    3. What makes voting meaningful?

    4. Evaluative democracy

    7. Election challenges

    1. Campaign financing

    2. Electronic voting: efficiency or easier for corruption?

    3. Media manipulation and ownership

    4. Media Reporting

    5. Campaigning on personalities and sound-bites

    6. Threats of violence and intimidation

    7. Disenfranchisement of voters

    8. Democratic governments and the military

    9. Powerful countries: democratic at home; using power, influence and manipulation abroad

    1. Election corruption

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    3/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 3

    2. Can democracy be forced upon a country through military means?

    10. Democracy of Nation States in the age of Globalization

    1. International institutions: democratic or representing those with the most power?

    2. Reality of foreign policy

    11 . The dangers of apathy in a democracy

    12. How can democracy be safe-guarded?

    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).

    Democracy past and present

    The Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, the student of Plato and teacher to Alexander the Great, is

    considered one of the most important founders of what is now described as Western philosophy. In his work,

    Politics, he offered some comparisons with other forms of government and rule, but also included some

    warnings,

    It is often supposed that there is only one kind of democracy and one of oligarchy. But this is

    a mistake.

    ...

    We should ... say that democracy is the form of government in which the free are rulers, and

    oligarchy in which the rich; it is only an accident that the free are the many and the rich are

    the few.... And yet oligarchy and democracy are not sufficiently distinguished merely by

    these two characteristics of wealth and freedom. Both of them contain many other elements

    ... the gov ernment is not a democracy in which the freemen, being few in number, rule ov er

    the many who are not free ... Neither is it a democracy when the rich have the government

    because they exceed in number.... But the form of government is a democracy when the free,

    who are also poor and the majority , govern, and an oligarchy when the rich and the noble

    govern, they being at the same time few in number.

    Aristotle, Politics , Part 4, 350 B.C.E

    The following table offers only the briefest overview of democracy throughout the years. Of course, the

    earlier forms of democracy were not close to what we consider as democracy today, but were often

    important precursors or proto-democracies that laid down important foundations and principles. The

    1

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    4/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 4

    examples shown here are also not completeeach and every instance is not mentioned or detailed, but a

    sampling of the more common or interesting ones to get an idea:

    Period Date Region/state Notes

    Ancient

    600-5

    B.C

    Ancient

    Greece

    Various forms of rule, ultimately resulting in Athenian Democracy, a form

    of direct democracy, as opposed to representative democracy.

    An exclusive club, however, as only adult male Athenian citizens that hadcompleted military training could vote. Women, slaves, and foreigners

    could not.

    500 B.C

    27

    B.C

    Ancient

    Roman

    Republic

    Planted the seeds of representative democracy. Like other systems of

    the same period, it was exclusive, and not like democracies we consider

    today. After this time, Rome had an emperor characterized by dictatorial

    rule, and eventual decline.

    600 B.C

    400

    A.D

    Ancient India

    Early forms of democracy, republics and popular assemblies, especially

    where Buddhism and Jainism was more prev alent.

    (Today, Hinduism is the main religion in India, but in ancient times,

    Brahmanism, as it has also been referred to, co-existed with Buddhism and

    Jainism. While Brahmanism was also the main religion then, Buddhism

    and Jainism were far more widespread.)

    The caste system, though not as rigid then as it would later become,

    nonetheless meant it was not a ty pe of democracy we think of today, just

    like Athenian democracy and the Roman republic systems would not be.

    (See Democracy in Ancient India by Steve Muhlberger, Associate

    Professor of History, Nipissing University, for more details).

    Middle

    Ages

    5th

    Century

    to 16th

    Century

    Throughout

    EuropeSmall examples of elections and assemblies

    1265 England

    Parliamentary system. TheMagna Cartarestricted the rights of kings.

    Election was very limited to a small minority. T he monarchys influence

    over Parliament would eventually wane.

    1688 England

    Revolution of 1688 saw the overthrow of King James II, paving way for a

    stronger parliamentary democracy, strengthened by the 1689 English Bill

    of Rights

    Adoption of the Constitution provided for an elected government and

    protected civil rights and liberties. Considered the first liberal democracy,

    2

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    5/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 5

    18th

    Century

    to

    Present

    1788 Unite States

    of America

    ut starte o wit imitations: voting y a u t w ite ma es on y e ore

    1788, propertied white males only). Women and slaves (predominantly

    African) would have to wait a long time still.

    1789 France

    French Revolution and the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the

    Citizen, a precursor to international human rights conventions, for it was

    universal in nature (but still only applied to men, not women or slaves).

    This and the American Constitution are considered influential for manyliberal democracies to come after.

    1917 Russia

    The Bolshevik Revolution saw the autocratic Tsar replaced. Led by a

    Marxist-Lenin ideology, a form of democracy known as Soviet

    Democracy was initially supported where workers elected representative

    councils (soviets). This was a form of direct democracy.

    However, the Russian Civil War and other various other factors led this to

    be replaced by a more bureaucratic and top-down rule, ultimately

    resulting in Stalins authoritarian rule and any remaining democracy

    appeared only on paper, not practice. In other words, democratic rule

    combined with Communist economic ideology quickly gave way to

    paranoia and authoritarian rule combined with Communist economic

    ideology.

    World

    War IIEurope

    Democracies give way to fascists in an attempt to retain or increase

    power. Allied forces also become more militarized to counter Hitler. With

    the help of the US, all eventually become democracies after the War.

    Post

    World

    War II

    Colonized

    Third World

    Colonial breaks for freedom as Europe weakened itself during World War

    II. Many breaks for freedom saw fledgling democracies ov erthrown by

    Western Democracies who favored dictatorships to retain key

    geostrategic control. Some new democracies were claimed to be under

    Soviet influence. In some cases this may have been true, in many others, it

    was just an excuse. (See this sites Control of Resources section for more

    detail.)

    Post

    World

    War II

    Africa

    Initially characterized by corrupt dictatorships, now has over 4 0

    countries that have moved towards participatory elections and

    democratic tendencies though many challenges still remain. Some are

    democracies on paper, while others flaunt it as and when it suits (a recent

    example seems to be Zimbabwe and Robert Mugabe).

    1947 India

    Gains independence from British rule, splitting into India, Pakistan, and

    East Pakistan (later Bangladesh). India becomes the worlds largest

    democracy, while the other two struggle with both dictatorships and

    democracy.

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    6/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 6

    Post

    World

    War II

    Latin America

    Initia y c aracterize y numerous ictators ips, o ten supporte into

    power by the US. Almost all are now democracies now struggling more

    with economic ideology issues.

    Post

    World

    War II

    AsiaSome countries remain dictatorships. Many transition eventually into

    democracies.

    Is Democracy a Western or Universal Value?

    Democracy is often described as one of the greatest gifts the West has given to the world. It certainly is one

    of the greatest gifts to humanity. But is it Western or more universal a principle? The previous table

    suggests there is some universality.

    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 his 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.

    And, as also noted much further below, it was the Middle East in the 9th 12th centuries that preserved a lot

    of Ancient Greek and Roman achievements after Rome collapsed (which Europe then thankfully also

    preserved when the Middle East faced its own invasion and collapse by the Mongols.

    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 cross-fertilization of ideas that also features prominently in history. After all, great battles

    throughout the ages are often celebrated far more than cross cultural fertilization of ideas which require

    more study and thought and doesnt make for epic tales!

    As discussed further below, there are elements within both Western and non-Western societies that are

    hostile to democracy for various reasons.

    State of democracy around the world today

    Wikipedias Democracy article collates interesting images from organizations that research democracy

    issues. Some of these images show what countries claim to be democracies, and to what degree they really are

    (or not) democratic:

    3

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    7/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 7

    As George Orwell noted, the word democracy can often be overloaded:

    In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but the

    attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt that when we call a

    country democratic we are praising it: consequently the defenders of every kind of regime

    claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they might have to stop using the word if it were

    tied down to any one meaning. Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest

    way. T hat is, the person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to

    think he means something quite different.

    George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

    While most countries claim themselves to be democratic, the degree to which they are varies, according to

    Freedom House, which surveys political and human rights developments, along with ratings of political right

    and civil liberties:

    Perhaps it is no wonder Churchill once said,

    Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

    4

    5

    6

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    8/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 8

    Sir Winston Churchil

    On the one hand then, there has never been as much democracy as present. And yet, many countries suffer

    from poor representations, election anomalies and corruption, pseudo democracy , etc. While these issues

    will be explored further below, first a look at some of the fundamentals of a democratic system.

    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)

    It is felt that separating these powers will prevent tyrannical rule (authoritarianism, etc). Critics of this may

    argue that this leads to extra bureaucracy and thus inefficient execution of policy .

    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 Wikipediaarticle 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. T hen 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. T he 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

    7

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    9/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 9

    countries.

    Other nations, often made up of many diverse ethnic groups, may find themselvesforcedto 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 gov ernment may allowdemocratic 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.

    It is therefore unclear if what is determined as best practice for an established democracy is necessarily, or

    automatically, the recipe for a newly emerged democracy. For example, a country coming out of dictatorship

    may require a strong leadership to guide a country towards further democracy if there are still elements inthe society that want the old ways to come back. This might mean more integration of powers, to prevent

    instability or the old rulers attempting to manipulate different branches of government, for example.

    However, in this scenario, there is of course a greater threat that that strong leadership would become

    susceptible to being consumed by that power, and it may become harder to give it up later.

    Getting this one aspect of governance right, let alone all the other issues, is therefore incredibly challenging

    in a short time. As such, an effective democracy may not be easy to achieve for some countries, even if there

    is overwhelming desire for it.

    In addition to those formal aspects of a functioning democracy, there are other key pillars, for example,

    Civilian control of the military

    Accountability

    Transparency.

    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 militarytake-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 informedchoices and decisions thereby

    contributing to political debate, productively.

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    10/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 10

    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. T his 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.

    A simple comparison on procuring a service may help highlight this:

    A responsible government may request a tender for contract. An open process to document these and

    how/why a f inal choice was made is important so that there is openness, understanding, and

    accountability to the people. For example, the media, and citizenry can use this to determine whether

    or not decisions have been made with the best interests in mind. Some of the higher profile issue may

    require sustained public discourse and expensive media coverage, too.

    With a private company, the same process could be followed, but all workers (especially in a largecompany) and shareholders are not equal, and the companys board is usually entrusted to make many

    decisions quickly. T hey do not have to record every single detail or even request an open tender for

    contract if they dont want to. The market and the shareholders will presumably hold the company

    to account.

    Even when companies are subject to these same requirements of openness (to shareholders, to whom public

    companies are accountable), governments may have requirements that companies do not have, such as

    providing universal access to a serv ice such as health care. Companies, however, can chose what market

    segments they wish to go for.

    A government may therefore incur costs and expenditures that are not needed by a private company. T his

    raises legitimate concerns about excessive drives for privatization being led by misguided principles, or the

    wrong type of efficiency. Conversely , one could hide behind the excuse of democratic accountability if

    accused of not acting quickly and decisively enough. Openness, transparency, independent media, etc. are

    therefore key to assuring such processes are not abused in either direction.

    [Side note: To avoid claims of inefficient government being just based on ideology, perhaps the cost of being

    open and transparent in all decision making could be more thoroughly factored into these economic

    calculations. This is something not typically required in private companies and organizations, for example,

    which can then appear more efficient. There is also the counter point that some things cannot be efficiently

    done or developed by committee, but instead by specialized groups that get to focus on the task at hand.

    There are, of course, many legitimate concerns and examples of unnecessary/wasteful bureaucratic

    processes in government, as well as in the private sector which do require addressing. A look at works by

    William Easterlys White Mans Burden, or J.W. Smiths Worlds Wasted Wealth IIwould give many detailed

    examples of this.]

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    11/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 1

    Challenges of democracy

    Low voter turnouts

    There have been numerous cases where democracies have seen leaders elected on low voter turnouts. In the

    US for example, in recent elections, the President has been elected with roughly 25% (one quarter) of the

    possible votes because a full 50% did not vote, and the close election race saw the remaining 50% of thevotes split almost equally between the final Democrat and Republican candidates. Other countries, such as

    the UK has also seen such phenomenons.

    Does an elected official represent the people if turnout is too low?

    What does it mean for the health of a democracy if 75% of the electorate, for whatever reason, did not

    actually vote for the winner?

    Such a low voter turnout however, represents a concern for a genuine democracy as a sufficient percentage

    of the electorate has either chosen not to vote, or not been able to vote (or had their votes rejected).

    Some countries mandate voting into law, for example, Belgium. Others require a clear percentage of votes to

    be declared a winner which may result in the formation of coalitions (oftentimes fragile) to get enough votes

    in total.

    As far as I can find, there are no countries that entertain the thought of negative votes, or voting for a list of

    candidates in order of preference that may help provide some further indications as to which parties are

    really the popular ones.

    For example, many accused Ralph Nader for Al Gores loss to George Bush in the infamous 2000 US

    electionsignoring for the moment accusations that Bush never won in the first place. If there had been the

    ability to list your preferred candidates in order of preference, would many of Naders supporters put Gore

    as their second option. Many right-wing alternatives may have put George Bush as their alternatives too, but

    perhaps this would have encouraged those who do not normally v otesuch as those believed that their vote

    for a third candidate would have been pointlessto v ote?

    Why a low voter turnout?

    There are numerous reasons for low voter turnout, including

    Voter apathy

    Disenfranchisement

    Parties not representing people

    Voter intimidation

    The common criticism leveled at those who do not v ote 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

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    12/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 12

    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.

    Being able to make informed decisions is also important. In many nations, including prominent countries,

    there is often a v iew that the leading parties are not that different from each other and they do not offer much

    to the said voter. Is choosing not to vote then apathy or is it an informed decision? In other cases, the media

    may not help much, or may be partisan making choices harder to make.

    In some countries voter intimidation can take on violent forms and discourage people to vote for anyone

    other than a militias favored group. (A recent example is that of Zimbabwe where the leading opposition felt

    they had to withdraw from the election process as voter intimidation by militias supporting Robert Mugabe

    was getting too violent. Mugabes government decided to carry on with the elections anyway, which seemed

    pointless to most but not to him; as he obviously wouldand didwin.)

    These concerns will be explored further later on.

    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.

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    13/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 13

    Some of these are discussed further, here:

    Voting in non-democratic forces

    Two examples of this paradox are the following:

    Hitler and his party were voted in. He then got rid of democracy and started his gross human rights violations

    and genocidal campaigns as a dictator.

    Hamas was also recently voted in by Palestinians. T he International community (really the Western

    countries) withheld funds and aid because Hamas is regarded as a terrorist organization (though most

    Palestinians would seem to disagree). T he lack of aid, upon which the Palestinians have been quite dependent

    contributed to friction amongst Palestinians who support Hamas and those that do not and this has been

    amplified by the worsening economic situation there. The Israel/Lebanon conflict also affected the Gaza

    Strip contributing to the in-fighting between various Palestinian factions.

    The Hitler example highlights the importance media and propaganda play and the need for continued open

    self-criticism to guard against these tendencies.

    The Hamas example is complicated by the general Middle East situation and the view on the one hand that

    American/Israeli power and influence in Palestine is undermining peace between Israel and Palestine, while

    on the other hand, the terrorist activities of Hamas and other organizations push American and Israel to even

    more authoritarian reactions.

    That the majority of Palestinian people would vote in Hamas suggests that they have not seen the fruit of any

    recent attempts at a peace process (which has long been regarded by the international community minus

    the US and Israel as one-sided) and this has driven people to vote for a more hard line view.

    Minorities losing out to majorities

    Another criticism of democracy is that sometimes what the majority votes for or prefers, may not

    necessarily be good for everyone. A common example plaguing many countries which have diversity in race

    and religion is that a dominant group may prefer policies that undermine others.

    Some quick examples include Nigeria which has large Christian and Muslim populations; some Muslims

    there, and in other countries, want Sharia Law, which not all Muslim necessarily want, let alone people ofother faiths. If only a very slight majority can override a very large minority on such an important issue as

    how one should live, then there is a real chance for tension and conflict.

    Another ex ample is India, often help us an example of pluralism throughput the ages, despite all manner of

    challenges. Yet, unfortunately an Indian government 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

    8

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    14/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 14

    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 byDemocracy Now!,writer James Moore, provided a classic example of

    political utility: Karl Rov e, 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

    9

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    15/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 15

    the polls. In fact, his own president, in an interv iew 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.

    Karls Rove Secret , Democracy Now, November 2, 2006

    This is just one example, where parties have simply targeted people to get v otes for power. And yet, many inthe religious right believe that Bush represents them and some even see him as an instrument of God ,

    showing just how effectiv e political utility and manipulation has been.

    Noting that different people refer to, and think of democracy in different ways, (even some despots have

    called themselves democratic!), Bernard Crick concedes that,

    We must not leap to the conclusion that there is a true democracy which is a natural

    amalgam of good government as representative government, political justice, equality,

    liberty , and human rights. For such volatile ingredients can at times be unstable unless in

    carefully measured and monitored combinations. Is good gov ernment or social justice

    unequivocally democratic, even in the nicest liberal senses? Probably not. Tocqueville wrote

    in the 1830s of the inevitability of democracy, but warned against the dangers of a tyranny

    of the majority. Well, perhaps he cared less for democracy than he did for liberty. But even

    Thomas Jefferson remarked in the old age that an elective despotism was not what we fought

    for; ... John Stuart Mill whoseEssay on Libertyand Considerations on Representative

    Governmentare two of the great books of the modern world, came to believe that everyadult

    (yes, women too) should have the vote, but only after compulsory secondary education had

    been instituted and had time to take effect.

    Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press, 2002), pp.10-11

    Democracy requires more propaganda to convince masses

    In a democracy, people are generally accustomed to questioning their government, and should be

    empoweredand encouragedto do so.

    In some countries, healthy cynicism has given way to outright contempt or excessive cynicism at anything a

    government official promises!

    What this does mean, however, is that those with ambitions of power and ulterior agendas have to therefore

    resort to even more propaganda and media savvy manipulation, as Crick notes:

    Totalitarian ... was a concept unknown and unimaginable in a pre-industrial age and one

    that would have been impossible but for the invention and spread of democracy as majority

    power. For both autocrats and despots depend in the main on a passive population; they had

    no need to mobilize en masse.... Napoleon was to say: the politics of the future will be the art

    10

    11

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    16/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 16

    of mobilizing the masses. Only industrialization and modern nationalism created such

    imperatives and possibilities.

    Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press, 2002), p.15

    Media co-opting is one strategy that may be employed as a result, as Australian journalist, John Pilger notes:

    Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the United States

    were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and watching television, that almost all

    the opinions on all the vital issues were the same. In our country, said one of them, to get

    that result we have a dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here

    you have none of that. How do you do it? Whats the secret?

    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 USand UK, would go to to gain support for their cause.)

    Limited time in power means going for short term policies

    Many democracies have rules that elections must be held regularly, say every 4 or 5 y ears. The short life

    span of governments is there for an important reason: it prevents a party becoming entrenched, dictatorial,

    stagnant or less caring of the population over time. Competition in elections encourages people to stay on

    their toes; governments knowing they must deliver, and potential candidates/parties knowing they can

    participate with a chance.

    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 ourmedia now muddle or mendaciously confuse what the public happens to be interested in with

    older concepts of the public interest.

    Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press, 2002), p.11

    [Side note: Noam Chomsky also details many times how the national interests have been used as a

    euphemism for the interests of only certain groups, such as some industry group, the government, a military

    industrial complex, or some other elitist/influential/powerful group.]

    12

    13

    14

    15

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    17/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 17

    Anti-democratic forces undermine democracy using democratic means

    In a number of countries, governments may find themselves facing hostile opposition (verbal and/or

    physical/military). Some governments find this opposition has foreign support, or, because of their own

    failures has created a vacuum (either a power vacuum, participation vacuum or some other failure that has

    allowed people to consider alternatives seriously). When a legitimate government is then deliberating, or

    taking, stronger actions, that government can easily be criticized for rolling back democracy , acting

    dictatorially or in some way undermining the rights of their people. This can then strengthen the non-

    democratic opposition further.

    There are unfortunately countless examples of such foreign and domestic interference with potential and

    actual democracies to be listed here. It is common for example, to hear of say the former Soviet Union doing

    this. Unfortunately, while less common to hear about it in the mainstream, western governments have also

    been complicit in overthrowing and undermining democracies in other parts of the world in favor of puppet

    regimes, be they dictatorships or pseudo democracies. Two useful resources to read more about these

    include J.W. Smiths Institute for Economic Democracy and the Noam Chomsky archives.

    One recent example worth highlighting here is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez managed to reverse a coup

    against him. This coup was aggressively supported by many in the Venezuelan elite media and also by the US

    After the coup, news channels that actively supported the coup in 2002 to oust Chavez, were still allowed to

    remain in operation (which many democracies would not usually tolerate).

    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 apre-Chavez 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 toChavez (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

    16 17

    18

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    18/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 18

    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 byArs Technicaas 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, Christian religious extremists push forward with their agenda, anyway.)

    Those with money are more likely to be candidates

    It is a common concern in many democratic countries that those with sufficient funds, or fund-raising

    capability are the ones who will become the final candidates that voters choose from. Some criticize

    candidates for selling out to mega donor, who then expect favors in return.

    Others, who may be more democratic, but are either poor, or lack the finances of the leading contenders, or

    will not likely support policies that influential mega donors support, will often lose out.

    In the US for example, campaign finance reform has long been a concern. It has been common to hear

    leading candidates only wanting themselves to appear on television election debates because of concerns

    about technicalities such as the time needed to accommodate other candidates with no realistic chance of

    winning. Yet, one would think in a democracy, time should be afforded to make all popular voices hear, not

    just the leading four from the two main parties, as that just results in the leading four becoming unfairlypopular at the expense of the rest, and makes the concern they raise into a self-serving argument.

    Understandably, finding time for all candidates might not be practical if there are many, but always limiting i

    to the four from the two leading parties results in the same choices people have to chose from each time,

    limiting diversity (especially when many feel the two leading parties are quite similar on many issues).

    Attempts to suggest caps on finances of any sort to address this undue influence are met with support from

    those who have little, but ferocious resistance from those who stand to lose out.

    19

    20

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    19/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 19

    Newspapers and other media outlets are often less than impartial in election campaigns. The high

    concentrated ownership of major media outlets does not always bode well for democracies as it puts a lot of

    influence into a handful of owners. For example, Rupert Murdochs ownership of the Sun tabloid in the UK

    and the papers switch from being a long time Conservative supporter to Labour supporter was described by

    many as a key reason that Tony Blair first came into power in 1997.

    In the US, it can be argued that the differences between some Democrats and Republicans are quite small in

    the larger context, and the media owners come from the same elite pool, thus reinforcing the impression of

    vast differences and debate on major issues. The result is that many get put off and the remaining who do

    want to vote have access to just a few voices from which to make any notion of informed decisions.

    Confusing political ideology with economic Ideology

    As discussed on this sites neoliberalism section, and explored in more depth at the Political 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

    21 22

    23

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    20/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 20

    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. T oday, many European democracies attempt a social model of economic developmen

    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 flirtingwith 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 theregion:

    In the conditions of a unipolar world and the development of multinationals, which are highly

    technologically advanced, it is hard for Africa to find an entry point into this globalised

    context.... The conference examined the implications of the globalisation context for the

    prosperity of the regions economic structure and the implications for the consolidation of

    democracy. The question of how the international world relates to and indeed is responsible

    for some of the problems was also deliberated at the conference. While the consensus was on

    Africans ... taking responsibility for their own welfare and problems, the conferenceacknowledged the interconnectivity among local, regional, continental and international

    economies. Indeed, some of the economic problems of the countries in the region can be

    traced back to their relationships with former colonial masters. More recently, the structural

    adjustment programmes of the 1980s continue to affect the economic stability of SADC

    countries.... provisional relief of debt has been linked to certain conditions, including political

    conditionality, which is basically a commitment to a narrow form of democracy, and

    economic policies, which have created deeper disempowerment. Some African scholars have

    dubbed this phenomenon choiceless democracies.

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    21/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 2

    The link between globalisation and democratisation was further debated in the economic

    session of the conference. Suffice to say, democracy is threatened when a state cannot

    determine its own budget. The conditionality cripples the development of a socially

    transformative democracy . A number of the debt rescheduling agreements have fostered

    cutbacks on social spending, and have created conditions of further economic

    marginalisation and social exclusion of the poor. In the long term, the consolidation of

    democracy is threatened because the conditions have the effect of fostering social unrest.

    Nomboniso Gasa, Southern Africa, Ten Years after Apartheid; The Quest for Democratic Governance

    Idasa, 2004, p.1 1

    One irony noted by John Bunzl of the Simultaneous Policy Organization (Simpol) is that the worlds leading

    democracies have, through the lobbying by corporate-friendly think-tanks, gov ernments 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 may create a more effective military

    It may seem ironic to many, considering that one principle underlying democracy is the desire for freedom,

    but democracies may create a more effectiv e military.

    Unlike a totalitarian regime, or, in the past, systems that used slaves, democracies that do not have forced

    military serv ice, 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 allowthe 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

    24

    25

    26

    27

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    22/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 22

    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 hasstruggled 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.

    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 to pass through harsher policies ranging from more stringent borders, to

    snooping on citizens in various ways.

    Another ex ample is the US military commissions act in 2006 which has increased already formidable

    presidential powers further, rolling back some key principles of justice such as habeas corpus(the traditiona

    right of detainees to challenge their detention), allowing the President to detain anyone indefinitely while

    giving US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured before the end of

    2005 by US military and CIA. (It is also an example of how a seemingly non-democratic bill is passed in

    through a democratic sy stem. The previous link goes into this in a lot more detail.)

    Fear, scare stories and political opportunism have also been a useful propaganda tools during election time.

    For example, A November 6Democracy Now!interview noted that the US government had long ago

    predetermined when the sentencing of Saddam Hussein would take place: conveniently just before the 2006

    mid-term elections so as to try and get extra votes through the appearance of a successful action coming to

    a close.

    Another ex ample comes from the Iranian hostage crisis where Iranian students held some American hostage

    for over a y ear: 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.

    28

    29

    30

    31

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    23/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 23

    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.

    This is an overly complex situation as it goes to the heart of society and questions whether a society suffering

    this problem is truly democratic if systemically the mainstream media fails to hold those in power to account,either through fear of criticism that they are not being patriotic or through being part of the same elite

    establishment that reinforces each others views and perspectives, etc. The point is, perhaps regardless of

    whether this is easy to address or not, there may be a fundamental problem: not enoughdemocracy,

    openness, transparency and accountability, thus letting these things happen, repeatedly.

    Weak democracies and hostile oppositions

    It seems that where democracies are weak (e.g. through government corruption, favoritism, or

    incompetence, or just because a nation is newly emerging, or only recently moving out of dictatorship andtowards democracy) there is a greater risk in the rise of hostile opposition.

    Sundeep Waslekar is president of the Strategic Foresight Group, a respectable think tank from India. He

    captures these concerns describing how this can pave the way for extremism:

    Bangladesh has terrorist groups belonging to Islamist as well as leftist ideologies. They

    gathered strength in the late 1990s in a political vacuum created by constant infighting

    between the principal leaders of the democratic politics. T he situation in Bangladesh is similar

    to that in Nepal, which had autocratic rule in one form or another until 1991. With the

    induction of democracy in 1991, it was hoped that the voiceless would now have a space to

    press for their priorities. However, those in power, in partnership with their capitalist cronies,

    concentrated on the development of the capital region. They also engaged in such a bitter

    fight with one another that democracy was discredited as a reliable institution, creating a void

    that was quickly filled by extremists. In the case of Nepal, the Maoists stepped in. In the case

    of Bangladesh, it was the extremists of the left and the religious right. Having tested popular

    support, they have developed a vested interest in their own perpetuation. The result is that

    the Nepali political parties have had to accept an arrangement with the Maoists while the

    32

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    24/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 24

    Bangladeshi political parties are courting Islamic extremists.

    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 driversgrievances 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 absolutepoverty that has the potential to breed new recruits for terrorist

    organizations, but more likely inequality and relativepoverty . 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 9/1 1 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

    33

    34

    35

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    25/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 25

    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 v iolence in a

    process that actually is (and is also seen to be) open, accountable and inclusive.

    Lack of inclusiveness undermines democracy, strengthens extremism

    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 tothe 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 effectiv e 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 xenophobicpoliticians 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 turnsa 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

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    26/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 26

    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

    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?

    Representative and Direct Democracy

    Most democracies are representative democracies, whereby votes are usually for parties who propose

    candidates for various government positions. By their nature, representative democracies these days require

    lots of funding to get heard, which opens itself up to corruption. There are usually constitutions to check the

    power of representatives, but even this can be open to abuse.

    One alternative is known as direct democracy where instead of voting for intermediaries, votes should be

    cast on issues themselves. Direct democracy may help prevent the perversion of democracy by those with

    power interests through the financing of parties and their various machines to garner votes. On the other

    hand, a possible risk with direct democracy may be that there is much more emphasis on voting for issues,

    which may mean minority groups do not get represented fairly , depending on the issues.

    There is also the challenge of scale. Direct democracy may be ideal for small organizations and communities,

    including thousands of participants. But what about tens of millions? Referendums in various countries on al

    sorts of issues have shown that direct democracy is possible, but how can this be applied to a more daily

    36

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    27/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 27

    routine on more routine and complex issues? Is it even possible, and how would issues come to the fore? The

    risk of demagogy is therefore a concern.

    For more details, benefits and challenges of each, see for example, the overviews from Wikipedia on

    representative democracy and direct democracy .

    In either case, informed opinion would be paramount, which places importance on news media outlets to be

    truly impartial and broad in its diversity of issues covered. With globalization today, and the accompanyingconcentration of media in many countries, often owned by large global companies , the diversity and

    variety of views are suffering.

    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.

    What makes voting meaningful?

    Voting in a democracy is based on the assumption of a free and informed decision.

    Without these you end up with an autocratic system pretending to be a democratic system while people

    believethey have made a free and informed choice. Over time, as a population becomes accustomed to living

    in such a system a self-perpetuating belief takes hold where the population believe that the system is

    democratic, even as informed opinion, political diversity and choices are reduced. Such a system is then able

    to sustain itself, having grown from the initial illusion of free choice.

    The crucial challenge therefore is how to ensure the decision is free (and not influenced unduly by

    propaganda or some other form of manipulation) and informed (how does one get a full range of

    information? Is it even possible?).

    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

    37 38

    39

    40

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    28/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 28

    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

    Minimizes the role of political influence and manipulation by making the focus of political

    determinations on citizen evaluations which are based on the collective interest.

    Minimizes political campaigning.

    Minimizes or eliminates the role of political organizations.

    Minimizes the role of money.

    Establishes accountability of political and governmental decision-making through the standard of

    collective interest.

    In essence, democracy (and the various issues raised for debate) would then driven by the people, not by

    leading political parties who decide the agendas based on their interests (which also results in a very narrow

    set of issues being discussed, and often contributes to low voter turnout). This has the potential, then, to be a

    much more people-driven (i.e. democratic) approach.

    For more information see Garveys book,Anti-Election:Pro-Determination(Inexpressible Publications,2007) and the web site, Evaluative Democracy .

    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 y ears, but it recently took on

    another dimension as limits to campaign financing were removed. Kanya DAlmeida recently summarized

    41

  • 8/10/2019 Democracy (Anup Shah) - Global Issues

    29/47

    8/8/2014 Democracy Printer friendly version Global Issues

    http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761 29

    this in an article inInter 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.

    Kanya DAlmeida, US: Money Isnt Speech, Corporations Arent People , Inter Press Service, January

    21, 2012

    This has also meant it has been hard to find out specific details about campaign financing:

    By ruling that the government cannot curb spending and lobbying by unions, corporations or

    even powerful individual stakeholders, the Supreme Court green-lit the proliferation of Super

    PACs (political action committees) that are unfettered by electoral laws or transparency and

    free to pour unprecedented amounts of money into campaigns of their choosing.

    Super PACs can also drag their feet on releasing hard data on how much money actually

    changes hands during election cycles and, in the new arena of impunity granted by the