Home
Up | |
Volume November 2006
Democracy and what it means.
Chester E. Finn, Jr., professor of education and public
policy at Vanderbilt University and director of the Educational
Excellence Network says "The idea of democracy is durable, but its
practice is precarious." Democracy can legitimately claim to address
universal human aspirations for freedom and self-government
Democratic values may be resurgent today, but viewed over the long course
of human history, from the French Revolution at the end of the 18th
century to the rise of one-party regimes in the mid-20th century, most
democracies have been few and short-lived. While the desire for freedom
may be innate, the practice of democracy must be learned. freedom and
opportunity depends on the dedication and collective wisdom of the people,
not on the benevolence of self- appointed leaders.
A healthy democratic society is not the one in which individuals pursue their
own personal goals. Democratic
Societies flourish when they are tended by citizens willing to use their
freedom to participate in the life of their society--adding their voices to the
public debate, electing representatives who are held accountable for their
actions, and accepting the need for tolerance and compromise in
public life.
The citizens of a democracy enjoy the right of individual freedom, but they also
share the responsibility of joining with others to shape a future that will
continue to embrace the fundamental values of freedom and self-government.
Freedom and democracy are often used interchangeably, but the two are not
synonymous. Democracy is indeed a set of ideas and principles about freedom, but
it also consists of a set of practices and procedures that have been molded
through a long, often tortuous history.
Democracy is a system in which citizens make political decisions by majority
rule which is not necessarily democratic: A system can not be said to be fair or
just if it permits 51 percent of the population to oppress the remaining 49
percent in the name of the majority. In a democratic society, majority rule must
be coupled with guarantees of individual human rights that, in turn, serve to
protect the rights of minorities The rights of minorities do not depend upon the
goodwill of the majority and cannot be eliminated by majority vote. The rights
of minorities are protected because democratic laws and institutions protect the
rights of all citizens
Thus when a democratic system operates in accordance with a constitution that
limits the powers of the government and guarantees fundamental rights to all
citizens, it is called a constitutional democracy. In such a society, the
majority rules, and the rights of minorities are protected by law and through
the institutionalization of law Constitutional rules and procedures determine
how a government functions
A society in which institutions, political parties, organizations, and
associations work for individual goals within the parameters of the
Constitution, it is called pluralism, and it assumes that the many organized
groups and institutions in a democratic society do not depend upon government
for their existence, legitimacy, or authority.
Through such groups, individuals have an avenue for meaningful participation
both in government and in their own communities. In an authoritarian
society such organizations would be controlled by the government.
In a democratic system, the powers of the government are, by law, defined and
limited. As a result, private organizations are free of government control; on
the contrary, many of them seek to hold the government accountable for its
actions.
Groups, concerned with the arts, the practice of religious faith, scholarly
research, or other interests, may choose to have little or no contact with the
government at all.
In this democratic society, citizens can explore the possibilities of freedom
and the responsibilities of
self-government--un-pressured by the potentially heavy hand of the state.
THE PILLARS OF DEMOCRACY
Sovereignty of the people.
.......Democracies rest upon the principle that government
exists to serve the people; the people do not exist to serve the
government............
Government based upon consent of the governed.
Majority rule.
In order to function within the desired framework of a
democratic system, decisions have to be worked out in such a way, that they will
be willingly carried out. As it is not possible to please everyone,
the way out of the situation is by accepting the rule of the
majority. A simple majority in some cases and a 2/3 majority in more
important situations.
Minority rights.
In order to safeguard the interests of those who disagree due to
their status, cultural differences, etc., because they form a minority component
of the Society, one has to take into consideration their interests if a
stable democratic system is to be the objective. If this is
not done, it will turn into a dictatorship of the interests of the
majority block. This will leave a chance to fifth columnists
and sabotage of the Society and its institutions.
Guarantee of basic human rights.
.....inalienable rights are God-given natural rights. These
rights are not destroyed when civil society is created, and neither society nor
government can remove or "alienate" them...........Inalienable
rights include freedom of speech and expression, freedom of religion and
conscience, freedom of assembly, and the right to equal protection before the
law........protection of basic human rights is accepted widely: It is embodied
in written constitutions throughout the world as well as in the Charter of the
United Nations and in such international agreements as the Helsinki Final Act
(the Conference on Security and Co-operation in
Europe--CSCE).....
Free and fair elections.
..........When citizens in a democracy vote, for example,
they are exercising their right and responsibility to determine who shall
rule in their name............
Democracies fall into two basic categories, direct and
representative. In a direct democracy, all citizens can
participate in making public decisions. Such a system is clearly only practical
in a community organization or tribal council, Ancient Athens, the world's first
democracy, managed to practice direct democracy.
Representative democracy, is that in which citizens elect officials to make
political decisions, formulate laws, and administer programs for the public
good. In the name of the people, such officials can deliberate on public issues
in a systematic manner that requires time and energy.
How such officials are elected can vary. It is important that
these elections are fair and transparent and do not leave to doubts, which will
feed disgruntled losers and non co-operation in the management of the society as
a whole.
Equality before the law.
The democratic system has to run by specific laws, and a
Constitution has to guide it in this functioning. The officials
should follow it to the letter and without any gain for themselves, which leads
to bribery and corruption.
Due process of law.
Institutions of Courts and Judiciary is implied. It
also implies that it is manned by experience staff, and that infrastructure to
educate them is created if it does not already exist. In
developing Countries, where once asks they introduce democracy, this could be a
crucial problem, as mature democracies evolved their institutions over a long
period of time, and we now want these overnight, to suit the 'national
interests' of the promoters.
Constitutional limits on government.
........It is certainly true that individuals exercise basic, or
inalienable, rights--such as freedom of speech, assembly, and religion--which
thereby constitute limits on any democratically based government. In this sense,
individual rights are a bulwark against abuses of power by the government or a
momentary political majority...........Broadly speaking, these responsibilities
entail participating in the democratic process
to ensure its functioning. At a minimum, citizens should educate themselves
about the critical issues confronting their society...........
Social, economic, and political pluralism.
..Citizens in a democracy enjoy the right to join organizations
of their choosing that are independent of government and to participate freely
in the public life of their society. At the same time, citizens must accept the
responsibility that such participation entails: educating themselves about the
issues, demonstrating tolerance in dealing with those holding opposing views,
and compromising when necessary to reach
agreement...rights and responsibilities, are opposite sides of the same coin.
Exercise of ones rights also puts an obligation to protect and enhance those
rights--for himself and for others.....Benjamin Barber notes, "Democracy is
often understood as the rule of the majority, and rights are understood more and
more as the private possessions of individuals and thus as necessarily
antagonistic to majoritarian democracy. But this is to misunderstand both rights
and democracy."
Values of tolerance, pragmatism, cooperation, and compromise
...........Democracy, Diane Ravitch writes, "is a process,
a way of living and working together. It is evolutionary, not static. It
requires cooperation, compromise, and tolerance among all citizens. Making it
work is hard, not easy. Freedom means responsibility, not freedom from
responsibility."..........Human beings possess a variety of sometimes
contradictory desires. People want safety yet relish adventure; they aspire to
individual freedom yet demand social equality.....It is important to recognize
that many conflicts in a democratic society are not between clear-cut
"right" and "wrong" but between differing interpretations of
democratic rights and social priorities..........Individuals and groups must be
willing, at a minimum, to tolerate each other's differences, recognizing that
the other side has valid rights and a legitimate point of view...........
CONCLUSION
A healthy democracy depends in large part on the development of a democratic
civic culture. "A totalitarian political system," Diane Ravitch
writes, "encourages a culture of passivity and apathy. The regime seeks to
mold an obedient and docile citizenry. By contrast, the civic culture of a
democratic society is shaped by the freely chosen activities of individuals and
groups. Citizens in a free society pursue their interests, exercise their
rights, and take responsibility for their own lives. They make their own
decisions about where they will work, what kind of work they will do, where they
will live, whether to join a political party, what to read, and so on. These are
personal decisions, not political decisions."
"Education plays a singular role in free societies," Finn states.
"While the education systems of other regimes are tools of those regimes,
in a democracy the regime is the servant of the people, people whose capacity to
create, sustain, and improve that regime depends in large measure on the quality
and effectiveness of the educational arrangements through which they pass. In a
democracy, it can fairly be said, education enables freedom itself to flourish
over time."
"Coalition-building," Diane Ravitch observes, "is the essence of
democratic action. It teaches interest groups to negotiate with others, to
compromise and to work within the constitutional system. By working to establish
coalition, groups with differences learn how to argue peaceably, how to pursue
their goals in a democratic manner, and ultimately how to live in a world of
diversity."
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/whatsdem/whatdm6.htm
Difficulties
While Democracy is the Ideal, and seems to have flourished
in some countries, others have faced difficulties. England matured
over centuries of trials starting in the 12th century. In 1920 women
were not allowed to vote either in England or in the United States which
went to war with Iraq with the purported aim of establishing
democracy. Since it served them well, they believed that others
would too. So what was the difficulty?
First of all, one has to see the geographic and ethnic
distribution of people. In the United States, the first immigrants
were Anglo Saxons who were disgruntled with the monarchic system in
England. So, in their adopted homeland they wanted to do something
else. They wanted the power to decide their future and so adopted a
scheme. It was a confederation, and with individual rights for the
States and a common Federal Structure for the management of the whole
territory. It was a voluntary adjustment by the people who owned
property and had land rights given to them by the Monarchic government that
preceded it. It was a voluntary transition to the
better. In spite of it they had their differences which
landed them into a bitter Civil War, and the vanquished had to yield to the
Victors and the ill feeling has not completely ebbed away.
Universal franchise came only in the twenties when women were allowed to vote,
and the Black Americans got their rights in the 60s. Even now
they have complaints that the votes are fudged and the Blacks have not been
registered in the Voting Lists. There is a back lash against
people of Hispanic origin, for form 15 % of the population. As the
powerful media presents the interests and views of the powerful and wealthy
sections of the Society, or panders to the vulnerable classes whom the wealthy
consider their "market" to prey upon, we find these
undercurrents, in tragedies like the Katrina Hurricane and its after
math where the interests of the wealthy are given preference over the
interests of the poor. Then what is so great about this
Democracy? India adopted a Democratic system of Government after
Independence, when the Founding Fathers, saw the havoc caused in Europe through
despotic rulers. They chose the best from the US, Britain and the
Soviet Union, and made a unique system for themselves. Thanks to
Queen Victoria, after 1857, Indians used their opportunity and mastered
Law and Jurisprudence, by pursuing higher education in England and thus
could manage the Constituent Assembly with great finesse, once the British left
our land by giving us Independence. Unfortunately, the West
thinks that all that is good can only come from them, and they have the sole
monopoly to demand others to obey their dictats. Their
survival as Capitalist Societies, depends on the dependence of weaker sections
of the world on their capital. As this inter-dependence does
not take into account the psychological aspects of the weaker people, it leaves
loop holes through which corruption and inefficiency creeps in, and undermines
the whole project and leads to violence and ultimately toppling of the apple
cart.
We see the first examples of the democratic governments after
the First World War, which replaced the monarchies of Europe.
Money has always been needed to run the Governments. If this
can not be raised by taxes then it has to be borrowed from Banks, Financial
Institutions or other wealthy countries. So these latter turn out to
be powerful brokers in the government machinery. In the past, they
would lend to the Monarchs and their descendants. In a Democratic
System, the Government and the people's representatives borrow it from them, and
eventually are obligated to pass laws which favor them, more than their
Constituents. The latter are passive and do not educate
themselves in their own rights and political participation, so the way is open
for those who take advantage of the loop holes. Thus Nations,
who profess democracy at home, will trample on the democratic aspirations of
others, in the name of National Interests. Thus National
Interests and Democratic Interests do not always go hand in
hand. Democratic Interests of the whole world should take
precedence over the interests of individual nations, and a modus vivendi
should be reached, for which the United Nations was formed, but today, more and
more it is evident, that the UN has been taken for a ride by the powerful
nations, to safeguard their national interests. It is this
dichotomy in the minds of Leaders that leads to resistance to democracy
according to the definition of the powerful who want to impose their will on the
weaker ones, so that the power in their hands will not be whittled away.
One clearly sees the clash of ideas of the Idealist Intellectuals and the
Capitalist Business Class and the Politicians fight for their survival as they
find themselves jammed between these two.
However, the irony of all this, is the lesson from
History. All great empires which came before perished tying to
fulfill that same purpose. To hold on to their National
Interests, they went to wars, and bankrupted themselves, and the weaker ones
filled the vacuum and started building their own empires.
Cultural Differences.
Democracy has not been the only alternative for
governments. In the past there were tribal, patriarchal and
matriarchal societies. They gave way to monarchies with a
feudal property structure. In this structure, peasants did not need
education as such which was the privilege of the priestly classes and who worked
as clerks of the Monarchs. Romans had Senatorial system
which preceded their Emperors. Their agricultural system depended on
the plebeians and to maintain their lands and their vineyards, they needed
slaves, and to obtain them they had to expand their empire. British and
Ottoman empires were the result of trade and market requirements for their
produce. To create markets, they colonized weaker areas of the
world, and used subterfuge to fulfill their goals. Education
was doled out sparingly, whether at home or in the colonies.
Charles Dickens portrays graphically in his stories life in England in spite of
the wealth created by the Empire.
The curious outcome of this Colonial Venture was the spread of
Education. In order to maintain their railways, ports and other
civic amenities, they needed local staff, and they employed them with a
preference to their own co-religionists. The Missionaries,
established schools and colleges, but what they could teach was determined by
the British Government. So we had schools up to matriculation
and colleges teaching only Arts and Humanities. For
Engineering and Medicine, they were basic and one had to go to Metropolitan
Cities for the same.
After the 1857 Mutiny in the Armed Services, the British
Parliament transferred the ruling power from the British East India Company to
the Crown. Queen Victoria introduced changes which required
local self government and induction of local man power in the Civil
Service. To train local Civil Servants Indian Civil Service
was established and to get a certificate one had to pass an examination in
England, and that gave an opportunity for Indians to see England and its
Universities and style of Government. This is how our first
political leaders, like Gandhi, and Nehru got their insight into Politics
and educated themselves in Law and Governance.
The two World Wars, bankrupted the British and the Ottoman
Empires.. However, during their sojourn in Mesopotamia and the
Middle East, after the defeat of the Ottoman Empire they found a new source of
wealth. Oil. It has been said that Zionists, a group of
the Jewish people with a political ideology, who had founded their
movement in 1897 in Vienna had set their goal to get back their Homeland from
where they were evicted by the Romans in 70 AD. The
possession of this land had moved from the Roman Empire to the Ottoman
Empire who were equally not ready to accept the Jews back in Palestine on the
scale the Zionists wanted. The only power at that time who could
achieve this goal of Regime Change was the British Empire and the funds came
from the German Bankers (who were Jewish) and that was the reason the
Kaiser had to abdicate and an Armistice was signed by the German Army which
obligated the Reich to pay reparations to England and France, which in turn
bankrupted Germany and led them to financial misery, which gave an opening to
the Nazi Party to take over. Jews got their homeland, and
British got their Oil. But Regime Change was not
easy. The British divided this region according to the areas where
Oil was discovered to have a control over the wealth which they could not
obviously hold on to for long, and partitioned Mesopotamia into Iraq and Jordan,
West of the Jordan River was to be the Homeland of the Jews, Kuwait was carved
and its oil was flowing by 1947. Iraq's access to the Gulf was
buffered on either side by Kuwait and Iran, both were the Protectorates of
Britain.
In the 1920s American economy boomed, but in Germany there were
winds of change and fear of Hitler's anti Jewish Nazi party taking
over. Again the only empire who could defeat Hitler was British
Empire and the funds had to be taken out of America and thus the banks of
the US went into a tail spin, and there was the Great Depression, for which no
credible explanation has been given. In the Second World War,
European powers got their weaponry made in the US and the Military Industrial
Complex was born. Many of the ex-German industrialists and
bankers moved to US and invested in their industries and became
rich. Those who are interested could know who they were and
how they got their clout. It is but natural that they have an
interest in the preservation of their wealth and will go to any length to
preserve it. It does not follow that Jews as a whole are like
this. There are many who do not agree with these affairs and try to
change the equation by a just solution. You just have to hear the
website: http://www.democracynow.org
to hear the view of this side of spectrum whose voice has been drowned by the
mainstream media. This is truly a struggle for the survival of
democratic values and of our Society as we know it.
The result of the War is known. Germany and Japan were
defeated but also the British Empire was dead. India got its independence
and so too others quickly followed. In 1967 Margaret Thatcher
introduced the East of Suez policy, and they were left with the fig leaves of
Gibraltar and Falkland Islands. The Oil kept them afloat
till 1973 when OPEC was born.
This geo-political cataclysm is not well understood.
Boundaries were drawn for the convenience of the Western Powers, and did not
take into consideration the local demographic realities. They were
all peasants and were not important at that time, but eventually with the spread
of education, and understanding to the manipulations they banded themselves to
rid the Western influence.
Today when the US speaks of national interests, you should
understand what they mean. If they do not bully the weak now, they
will lose what they have and soon will be subservient to the latter at a future
time. This compulsion leads them to undertake wars, but war is a
double edged sword, and the victim at the receiving end is fighting an
asymmetric battle with new ideology of attack. This is
unacceptable to the West as it does not fit into their Conventions and
Treaties. But who said History obeyed these parameters in the
past. Did the Anglo Saxons follow conventions when in their quest for land
they decimated the Native Americans? Unfortunately,
history has the nagging habit of repeating itself, and those who are too busy to
have a look at it, become its victims. If not themselves, their children
and grand children will surely pay. But today they talk of Gay
Marriages, and the children are adopted from Vietnam, Bangkok or Cambodia
! Right at the borders are jobless Mexicans, waiting -
so what is the future, if people do not want to take matters in their own hands?
You hear of Darfur, but did you know that in 1500 it was an
independent kingdom? Did you know that Sudan and Egypt vastly
influenced by the Arab civilization during the Ottoman heyday, were
partitioned by the British after the first world war? The UN
did the finishing job on the boundaries, and if you look at the maps, they
all have straight lines. If you see Hugo Chavez fighting adamantly for a
seat in the United Nations Security council, just keep this part of history at
the back of your mind. Did the various ethnic groups who live within
these boundaries fit into these maps dividing their families on either side of
the fence, or did the Political Masters consult them before creating
them? Today's problems are the left-overs of the Colonial
Times and the Western Powers are trying to make amends with more
blunders. It is because education was imparted with specific
goals of managing their territories, that only a certain set of
tribes got the lead and are now reluctant to give up their
monopoly. This is the story behind Rwanda, Sierra Leone,
Nigeria, or Sudan. It was the policy of divide-and-rule
that led to it, and today people are trying to mend the torn fabric of
Society. Imposition of Democracy is one such "Tailor's
Pattern " whether it is in Iraq, Palestine, or
Africa. If the local people are allowed to choose, and their
choice does not fit into the national interests of the Powerful Nations,
they will just starve them to death, and then the Media will send their cameras
and troops to create sob stories , and people will shed tears and others will
collect funds through Celebrities and their glamorous shows or through NGOs like
Oxfam. and others to help the hapless victims.
|
