Key Issues

A democratic society is not necessarily a free society. Consider one of the definitions for democracy given by the on line dictionary Word Net: “the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group (syn: majority rule).” Suppose that the majority is driven by hysterical feelings induced by moral panics, is limited by an educational system that neither teaches them to think nor allows them to question authority and is manipulated by powerful propaganda machines that dominate the mass media and effectively mold public opinion. In such a situation one can readily imagine that a democracy might in fact produce a very repressive society. Suppose that our previous supposition represents a fairly accurate description of the most powerful democracy in the world today. Well, we don’t need to suppose, do we. We need only look at the actual situation in which we live. To have a system in which the leaders are elected by the people is clearly desirable. But it is well to remember that, while free elections are a necessary condition for a free society, they are not a sufficient condition. Much more is required.

 

Through extensive lobbying, campaign contributions, creating scape goats, presenting diversionary spectacles, engaging in covert operations, and molding public opinion through the media it is possible for a small minority of wealthy and powerful people to persuade a majority to elect leaders who do not represent their real interests. In his article, “Communication as if People Mattered”, David Werner addresses the need to develop techniques to give a real voice to poor and marginalized people. His examples are largely from less developed countries, but the same principles are applicable everywhere. He emphasizes the central role of “education for change” in this process.

If we are committed to the idea of democracy we are naturally concerned about seeing that our leaders are selected in elections that are truly free. But this is only a small aspect of what democracy is all about. If we have free elections, but every other aspect of life is organized and run by small groups of unelected but powerful people, then we cannot be said to live in a democracy. With the impact of woman’s liberation, our families have become more democratic. But it is still generally accepted that children should have no real rights and not actual power in the families where they live. Schools are notoriously undemocratic institutions. Our places of work, our religious institutions and our clubs are likewise seldom run by democratic procedures. The principles of democracy – of participatory control – should pervade all of society and transform all its institutions.

If democracy is based on the rule of the majority, then we must naturally be concerned about the rights and well-being of minorities. Without a very strong commitment to civil liberties that is deeply embedded in the attitudinal and legal dimensions of a society, it is almost inevitable that the majority will show an inadequate concern for the needs of minorities, and will impose upon them values and living conditions that are not of their own choosing. In some cases minorities my even be excluded entirely from the decision making processes of society, as the article “Giving Felons a Role in Democracy” makes clear.

It is ironic that a country that prides itself on its commitment to democracy has become the greatest block in the world today to the development of a democracy of nations. The United States has decided instead to set itself up as the head of a world empire, ruled as thought the interests of its wealthy individuals should have prominence over all other interests in the world. Noam Chompsky has shown how this commitment to the Hegemony of the US has been on the agenda of the Democratic as well as the Republican party, and his book “Hegemony or Survival” continues this analysis. In his informative essay ‘The Third Stage of American Empire” Wm Rivers Pitt provides some of the historical background for this empire building.

Actually the American empire is not so much concerned with defending the interests of the United States as with defending the interests of the multinational corporations. It would not be inaccurate to think of the United States armed forces as the police force for these multinationals. The central role and power of the multinationals in global politics is spelled out clearly by David Korten in his article ‘One World -- One Governance System”.

Connections to Other Topics

Corporate Ethics

Corporations operate in accordance with one imperative: to make a profit – the bigger the profit the better. This has nothing in particular to do with the moral inclinations of the people who run the corporations. It’s build into the system. If a corporation is to survive the profit imperative must supplant all other value considerations. Whether the corporation, in its modern form, is compatible with the values of a free and democratic society merits careful consideration.

Diversity

One of the risks in any democracy is that the majority will not respect the right of minorities to be different – or, in some extreme situations, even to exist.

Education

It is difficult to see how spending 12 years or more conforming to one of the most totalitarian systems in society – public school – is a good preparation for participation in a democracy. Alternatives that allow children a say in their education are very much needed. The article “The School as an Ethical Community” suggests that schools should be caring and democratic social systems that children will want to attend.

Freedom of Speech and the Press

Democracy has little meaning unless there is a public forum where all voices can be heard and the full range of opinions can be debated.

Global Economics

If a small group of international corporations, for all practical purposes, rule the world, then what has become of democracy? These corporations increasingly are accountable to no-one except the share holders. As they have become international in scope they escape the control and scrutiny of any government. It is only logical that they should be taxed and regulated by an international body that represents the will of the people in all nations. This, of course, is what the UN is supposed to be.

Human Rights

A free society must run on two wheels: the first is rule by the majority and the second is the protection of the rights of individuals and minority groups. A society that discards either of these wheels ceases to be a free society – hence the importance of human rights in a democracy.

Humanizing Institutions

The central issue with regard to humanizing institutions is developing participatory systems of decision making. In a fully humanized world all people would have a voice in the the goals and procedures adapted by all the social systems they participated in – from home, to school, to workplace.

Religion

Theocracy and Democracy are not compatible. It is true the democracy demands a clear separation of church and state. However, no spiritual perspective is politically neutral. The relationship between religion and politics is more complex that one would first suppose.

 

Currently, only 49 of the world’s 100 biggest economies are nations; 51 are transnational corporations. To a large extent the giant corporations – with their military base of power in the United States – do indeed “rule the world.” Meanwhile, a third of humanity lives on earnings of less than two dollars a day. In practice the control of life is often based on one dollar – one vote. Such a top-heavy control of decisions that effect everybody is perilously unstable. As this system of control undermines real democracy, it jeopardizes not only the well being of billions of people, but is wreaking havoc with the planet’s ecosystems on which all life depends.

The Connection to Health

The article, “Is Democracy Good for Your Health?” reports on a study in the British Medical Journal that shows that “people who live in democratic societies are physically healthier than those governed by repressive regimes.” The research group summarized its findings by saying that “After adjusting for a country’s wealth, population, and level of inequalities, lead researcher Alvaro Franco and colleagues discovered that democracy ruled when it came to the best levels of health.” The reasons for this connection are probably multi-factorial. Perhaps living in a free society simply makes people happier, and happier people tend to live longer. Also it seems likely that people who live in democracies are able to insist on legislation and social policies that are conducive to their health. If one were to factor in psychological, social and ecological health the connection between democracy and health would undoubtedly be even greater.