Search our Site!
|
 |
 |
The
Future of Democracy
by
David Findlay
|
Democracy is like the water we drink, or the air we breathe. We take
it for granted. Rarely do we give it a thought. After all, isn’t
that just the way things are?
Think again! A newsletter I was reading recently (Early Warning Report
by Richard Mayberry – an excellent newsletter, by the way) counts
74 crisis areas is an area the writer calls Chaostan (roughly Africa,
the Middle East, Central Asia, China, Indonesia). A crisis area is
defined in the newsletter as an area affected by near war or chaos,
war or runaway banditry, religious war, non-religious war, or piracy!
Democracy, as we think of it, is very much the exception. It is a
rare and precious thing. And like most rare and precious things it
needs to be guarded carefully.
We tend to think of democracy as “one person, one vote.”
This, however, is a gross over-simplification. You could have ten
people, nine of whom decide that the tenth person should be killed.
Hardly democracy as we think of it!
Our democracy is modified by the Constitution which is designed to
give the “tenth person” protections against majority mob
rule. Everyone is granted certain basic rights and freedoms. The Constitution
was adopted in 1787 which means that it is only a little over two
hundred years old – yesterday, in the grand scheme of history.
So in a sense our democracy is not really a democracy at all but rather
a form of government that protects the liberty of the individual.
Of course, the rights of the individual have to be tempered by the
wishes of the masses, but it is a delicate balance. Very delicate.
Something it has taken us a couple of centuries to master –
and even now it is something we continually have to keep an eye on
and refine.
The felicitous synchronisities which led to what we now consider democracy
are beyond the scope of this article. But I sure am glad that I am
not living in one of the 74 crisis areas mentioned in the newsletter!
My wife and I are free to run our own business, think and say pretty
much what we please, earn as much or as little as we please, go where
we like, do what we like, when we like. Remarkable! Certainly not
something to take for granted.
I am not suggesting for a moment that we as a people are perfect –
though there is a tendency for some of us to think so! But we do have
something of real value, worth fighting for, and, if necessary, worth
dying for.
Which brings in a serious note.
Democracy is not a “free ride.” We are only free because
we are prepared to fight for our freedom.
This raises the thorny question of how.
If someone directly attacks us, or threatens to attack us (as in the
case of Pearl Harbor or the Cuban Missile Crisis), the answer is obvious.
We defend ourselves by attacking back (or threatening to attack back).
But what about all the “grey areas” – areas where
our “interests” are threatened? (For example, Middle East
oil.) And most of our foreign policy is about grey areas.
Having spoken some glowing words about our democracy, we need to be
able to look at the other side, at the things that may be less than
perfect about our democracy.
One major area that is not decided upon in a democratic fashion is
our foreign policy. You may protest and say that our foreign policy
is set by our elected officials, but in fact, if one looks back over
the last 50 years one will clearly see that we have followed a consistent
foreign policy regardless of which administration is in power. The
current political differences between the Republicans and the Democrats
are cosmetic. Yes, there may be a difference in degree. Should we
go to war with this country or that, now or later? That sort of thing.
But there is really very little discussion as to what our “interests”
are.
Who should decide what our “interests” are? The obvious
answer is “We The People.” But in practice “We The
People” do not care sufficiently to ask the question, “What
is really in our ‘interests’”? And, since we do
not care sufficiently, our elected officials are going to listen much
more seriously to the various powerful lobbyists who are supporting
their “interests.” To name a few of these powerful lobbies,
we have the armaments industry, the oil/energy industry, and the pharmaceutical
industry. Their interests are not necessarily the same as those of
“We The People.” For example I read in one report that
we “lend” Israel some 4 billion dollars a year, on the
condition that they spend 3 billion of that amount on armaments, bought,
of course from American manufacturers. The money that is lent is taxpayer
money, the beneficiary the armaments industry. One could argue that
it is in our “interest” to help Israel maintain its military
strength. But I don’t recall any debates over how much money
we should lend them for this purpose.
Maybe the future of our democracy will depend upon us, “We The
People,” deciding what our “interests” are. How
far should we be prepared to support Israel? What do we do if our
oil “interests” in the Middle East and Central Asia are
threatened? What if China invades Taiwan and seeks to expand its area
of influence to include the South China Sea which controls major shipping
routes. If North Korea threatens Japan, should we come to their defense?
Should we supply them with a missile shield? And so on.
Clearly we are not alone in the world. Who should we regard as allies?
Who are our enemies? Again grey, grey areas. In practice we decide
that our allies are those who support our “interests,”
but this makes for some strange and uncomfortable bedfellows –
as for example with our incestuous relationship with the House of
Saud (Saudi Arabia).
I’d like to suggest a different approach and one that is more
compatible with our form of democracy.
Instead of using our “interests” as the standard for our
alliances and trade, how about a democracy guage. It should not be
too difficult to define a country’s level of democracy on, say,
a 1-10 scale. Bear in mind that we are talking democracy tempered
by some sort of constitution that protects the individual. Let’s
say we give ourselves a 7. Europe a 6. Israel a 4. Most of the Middle
East a 2.India a 6. China a 1. And so on. These are, of course, very
rough figures just to give the idea.
The standard would not be whether or not they agree with us but simply
the level of their democracy. We could then agree that we should only
trade with those that are high enough on the list. This might not
necessarily always appear to be in our interest. For example we might
need to forgo the pleasure of buying cheap Chinese goods (China is
still run by a communist dictatorship) and buying more Indian goods
instead. It might mean that we stop buying oil from Saudi Arabia.
But in the long run it might well turn out better for our survival
as a democratic entity to have more truly democratic countries in
the world as allies.
I can see all sorts of problems and objections to my proposal, but
then there are all sorts of problems connected with our current system
of having a foreign policy based on unclearly defined “interests.”
One not very workable system of expanding democracy, a system that
we currently seem to be very much enamored of, is to attempt to force
democracy on others. We see this currently in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Are these countries ready for democracy? We should like to think so
but let’s look at them objectively. Iraq, for example, is predominantly
Shiite moslem. The second largest group are the Sunni moslems. The
two groups have been traditionally opposed to each other for centuries.
Any real chance of getting the two together to make a democracy work?
And even if by some miracle this occurred, it certainly would not
be a democracy of the kind we are used to since moslems do not recognize
a clear division between Church and State. To impose our kind of democracy,
which is what we are trying to do, is, of course not really democracy
at all. We may succeed, or appear to succeed, but not without 130,000
or so troops tied up for the foreseeable future. But, of course, it
is not really motivated by an altruistic wish for democracy but our
desire to protect our oil “interests.”
I’d like to end off with a look closer to home. By the time
this goes to press we shall be in the middle of election fever.
Although we have developed a great system and I would certainly encourage
everyone who can to vote, I do have a problem with the current two
party system. It gives the illusion that we have a choice. On the
vast majority of important issues there is very little difference
between the two parties.
There is nothing automatic about a two-party system. Sure, that is
what we have had here in America for over one hundred years. But England
has had three parties since my childhood. Other countries like France
and Israel have a multitude of parties. No doubt one can have too
many parties with the result that it becomes almost impossible to
reach any agreement. But is it so unreasonable to wish for a viable
third party? Or a third and a fourth?
The thorny issue is one of “wasted votes.” If one votes
for a Third Party, that is a vote that could have “counted”
for one of the major parties. Here in Florida this is particularly
relevant since it looks as though we are in for another “photo
finish.”
There would be one quite simple solution. When one votes, allow a
first and a second choice. Thus if one voted as first choice for a
Third Party, and that Third Party not unexpectedly does not make it,
then the vote would count for one’s second choice of one of
the main parties.
This is not a solution that is likely to be adopted in the near future
as neither the Republican nor Democratic Party want the competition
of a Third Party. But never forget that everything starts with an
idea. I am sure that the abolition of slavery and the support of women’s
right to vote were just as unlikely when first conceived.
Remember this, the majority of people in this country are neither
Republican nor Democrat. More than half the people who could vote
don’t. And that may be one of the biggest problems with our
democracy – indifference!
I appreciate hearing from you.
|
|
|
