We know how funding can influence a vote. Most countries with democratic elections have had problems concerning the funding of campaigns. Questions are constantly being raised about the size, source and the disposition of funds. It is understood that the availability of funds has a lot to do with the outcome of elections. Democracy is getting short changed.
There are institutional spokespeople and other individuals who get a say every day of every year, though no one ever voted for them. Which people enjoy this influence will vary according to the type of society they are part of. They come from the public bureaucracy, private companies including the media, religious groups, the military, the legal profession, the police, universities, polling companies, and special interest groups such as environmentalists and the labour unions. All these institutions have apparatus aimed at exerting influence on the political process. Some go by way of lobbyists, some use the media in various refined ways. Even scientists and medical experts, philosophers, artists, movie stars and authors may exert political influence. Being able to deliver the premises — the basic raw material — of the public and political debate is of immense importance. Secret societies, criminals and the cloak-and-dagger boys also have methods by which to influence decision making. The voters have no way of knowing who is backing a candidate, which alliances exist and which special interests are promoted through each representative. Voters are kept in the dark, wilfully, and are themselves likely to be influenced by matters that have nothing to do with the politics at hand, such as looks or personal habits — to some extent they are even encouraged to do so, as the press goes digging for "dirt".
All too often government mismanagement and shady deals are revealed by someone other than the ones that are officially authorised to inspect and approve. Democracies install democratic controls and this is a good and valuable principle when applied to the run-of-the-mill business of government. The scandals we so often encounter do not have to imply the existence of willful collusion, cover-ups or even incompetence, but rather the familiarity of the established routines to all involved. Those that employ dishonest methods have the time and the expertise to search for loop holes. Funds move with the speed of light, stable doors do not. This is not a democratic malady alone, but does point to the need for letting non-governmental organisations and dedicated individuals do their work while making sure that "whistle blowers" have access to channels that will publicise their findings without fear of reprisal.
The basic building block of democracy is the voter. No voter is an island unto himself or herself. To a large part voters are products of the societies in which they reside, wrapped in the history and traditions, culture and religions, social structures and the economic layering that prevail. These elements are often self-perpetuating, since the political parties tend to select candidates that are sensitive to the currents that dominate society. Educational levels play no small part in the capability of each voter to take part in the democratic process, and the process of teaching and learning goes on throughout life. Sorting out the distortions and inaccuracies of political rhetoric is no mean feat. Life experiences will also serve to motivate or demotivate the voter for the election process as a whole. The voter is confronted with simple mathematics. His vote is a very small contribution in the overall scheme of things, his being one of several million votes cast. In no way does he see any direct connection between his vote and the resultant representation, nor is he in any way rewarded for his effort. Though a candidate may vie for his attention until the day of the election, the voter is of little importance the moment the voting booths close. The representative's bond is to the party and people who promoted his candidature, a bond that he is reminded of every day, not to the people who cast their votes for him. The individual voter is right should he exclaim: "What's the bloody use?" That is, if he chooses to forget that votes is the base on which all else is built: the laws, national security, the educational institutions, the social benefits, the work environment and the taxes. Though his vote may seem insignificant, and may not influence the outcome of an election, his vote is a vote for the system itself, and may hopefully help to counteract other, darker forces that would not serve him as well.
Few people ever get to experience a multitude of systems first hand, democratic or otherwise. Most will take the structure that govern their lives as "God given" and will think of it as ever lasting and "the best in the world". This is fundamentally wrong, but existing power structures, and thus also the educational system, will glorify the established system and strengthen the misconception. The democratic institutions are under constant threat of being abolished or subverted. In fact, many democracies have laws on hand to do just that. These are called emergency laws, rule by decree or marshal laws. At times the threat to democracy comes from lack of attention, people are simply not sufficiently aware of the mechanisms and rules, so they lapse. "Oh, ballot stuffing is something that happens elsewhere, not here, surely!" What each nation will perceive as democratic varies a great deal. In itself "democracy" is just a roof that need a profusion of pillars. Introducing legal changes to improve the quality or fairness of the democratic processes seem hardly feasible since doing so needs the co-operation of those who have gained power by the existing, unfair system, but that same majority may attempt to subvert the system so as to augment its own power. While international organisations may see to it that fair practices prevail when it comes to trade among nations and point out infringements of human rights, there is no general certification when it comes to democratic systems, nor is any nation obliged to take account of specific criticism. Any nation calling itself democratic by the right of a secret ballot, is free to infringe on individual liberties, practice blatant discrimination and overt and covert censorship. In these cases, the rights entailed by "national sovereignty" is placed higher than the pursuit of democracy. At some point the designation "democratic" no longer applies. We had a number of countries calling themselves "People's Democratic Republic" in the days of the "Cold War", though I don't think anyone was fooled. There are no established charter concerning the set-up of the democratic state. Any attempt at promoting democracy across national borders may be considered subversive. International guidelines concerning elections exist, but in real life, things get vague - what is "free and fair"? Who are "the people"? Is a contender in jail for legitimate reasons? How much cheating is acceptable? The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) provide advice as well as a physical presence to 55 member states on request. Unfortunately, leaders may apply the principle of national sovereignty to ignore international recommendations.
The rule of law and democracy stops at national borders. This is reasonable on the basis of the "no legislation without representation"-principle, even though the nations that refuse to ratify international guidelines were fairly represented at the time when those principles were put in writing — they just didn't like the result. International negotiations are very much a game of "my way or no way". The fact that a person sits at the negotiating table on behalf of a democratic country is not saying that he has been selected for that job by any democratic process or that he is subject to democratic controls — he may simply be a professional negotiator or diplomat with a limited and secret mandate. The system of parliamentary post-negotiation ratification of treaties is supposed to compensate for this. This raises questions about democratic validity of the whole system of parliamentary after-the-fact ratification of international treaties, by which the elected assembly neither furnishes the premises, take part in negotiations, nor is given the opportunity of renegotiating terms. International treaties are not governed by international democracy — no world-wide democratic legislative assembly exists — but by international law and international courts. Regrettably, all laws and all courts are not recognised by all nations, nor do the courts that do exist have jurisdiction over all bi- or multilateral treaties.
Among other things sovereignty means the right of governments to shield its citizens from outside influences. But that can't be right, unless you think of the state as owning its citizens. A nation's sovereign right to manage its own affairs is fundamental to international law, specified in the Geneva Conventions. Some nations use this convention to ward off criticism against its domestic affairs and to keep its citizens from enjoying the protection of human rights. Those citizens may not even know which rights are being withheld from them. I think the Geneva Convention had another purpose — that of making espionage and fifth columnist illegal. These spies are the real "unlawful combatants". It seems self-evident that each nation should have the right to ward against secret agents, provocateurs and high-tech surveillance. In real life nations have had few qualms about breaching each other's sovereign rights, stealing civilian as well as military secrets, so it is pretty much up to each country to take appropriate defensive measures. The Geneva Conventions give each country the right to do just that. Unfortunately, the promotion of democracy and human rights ideals are covered by the same blanket that covers intelligence operations.
In Europe 25 independent nations have perceived total sovereignty to be an impediment to progress and co-operation. The resultant mix of national independence and international obligations have proven highly efficient in the prevention of war and unfair business practices. The thinking is: if my neighbour does well, so will I. Individually some of these nations might have done better on their own, at least in the short run. Notably, most of the integration process has been managed through EU directives, rather than by national laws. This has come to be known as the EU's "democratic deficit". Though there is an elected EU parliament, the EU has not been ruled by democratic institutions but, rather, through negotiations handled by national representatives in various EU bodies. The directives are routinely passed by the national assemblies into national laws, thus overriding the democratic principle. The national assemblies have became rubber stamp parliaments in regards to matters concerning the European Union. The integration process has not made the citizens of the EU countries more free. Though they have freedom of movement, they can no longer escape the confinements of national regulatory laws, since the laws are likely to apply equally throughout the union. The EU has proved more apt at ensuring the free movement of capital, products and services, than easing the movement of qualified people, since levels of competence and certificates are still not universally accepted. Also, the profusion of languages is not to the advantage of anyone wanting to launch a career in another EU country. Pimps, whores, beggars and mafia have no such problems.
It is strange indeed to contemplate the fact that parliaments very often are rubber stamp parliaments. Despite beautiful words to the contrary, real power lies elsewhere. This has nothing to do with foreign influences, it is simply the result of normal decision-making processes on the national level. It hardly matters if the assembly consists of representatives from a single party, or two or several. Parties in the national assembly will have mechanisms in place to ensure that votes are cast as ordered. This may be known by such euphemisms as "enforcing party discipline". The real power in the democratic process lies with the group that holds the power to initiate proposals, and then delivers the premises and wording of these proposals. If a single party holds the majority vote — which is always the case in a one- or two-party system, then the actual power lies with the majority party's central committee. If two or more parties share the majority in an alliance, then the final wording of new bills will be formulated wherever those parties meet — most likely at cabinet level. Only if a minority party or minority alliance have attained a position of power, may the majority — although being split — have a real say-so on the floor of the assembly. Even then this influence may not be expressed in the main assembly, but in closed chambers of various parliamentary sub-committees. In all cases, it is the composition of the parliament that determines how the decision making process flows, but this may not guarantee a democratic result — meaning a true expression of the will of the majority of the people.
There are also matters of detail with which the assembly will not concern itself. The laws it passes may need to be fleshed out by various regulations. These regulations should be kept within the framework of each law. The power of regulation is passed on to the bureaucracy. Though the bureaucracy is subject to various "democratic controls", this kind of control is often vague, and laws may be subject to a great deal of "clarification", meaning a wide interpretation. Below the level of regulations there may also be a set of instructions telling government employees how the regulations should be handled. Thus the bureaucracy attains a position of power outside the confines of democracy. Often as not we find politicians taking a public stance against laws they themselves have helped pass. It's no wonder. The work of implementation is handed on from the assembly, first upward to the cabinet, then out through the ever widening circles of public offices. There is no bond of allegiance strong enough to hold through this lengthy chain of command. A recent change of political leadership is also known to cause increased bureaucratic inertia as methods, strategies and goals change. Traditions vary from country to country as to whom will be held ultimately responsible for failures of implementation or errors of content.
Under the rules of parliamentarism the national assembly is the top organ of society, controlled only by itself. This works well if there is an active and vociferous opposition, but in matters concerning the body itself and its individual members, such opposition is missing. We will find most national assemblies passing laws to protect and reward itself by such measures as immunity against prosecution, magnificent pay packets and a profusion of fringe benefits. Of course, it's all perfectly legal. It should be obvious to all that this practice makes the representatives less attuned to the plight of those that bear the full brunt of the laws passed by the same representatives. Reducing the rights of your constituents may result in desired cuts in spending or better security for the nation, while reducing privileges for yourself and your colleagues cut much nearer the bone. We will often find members of the assembly and government enjoying fringe benefits that are highly taxable or downright illegal where others are concerned. Often we hear the argument that these special measures are needed to attract highly qualified people to political careers, but hear no ensuing debate about whether this actually works or is indeed desirable. One might argue that these highly qualified people are serving the nation better if they keep working within the vocation of their main competence - high pay is as likely to attract screwballs. The Italian parliament 2004 gave the prime minister total immunity, even to the extent of stopping ongoing legal procedures against him. Technically and legally, this could happen anywhere. Also, the representatives are likely to be thinking in the cycles of election intervals even though the needs of society may demand planning well beyond this scope. No doubt, political agendas are greatly influenced by the four year cycle of elections. Special considerations dominate the pre-election period. This may have a profound effect on society, making some reforms unfeasible and maintenance needs less attractive in political terms — politicians want to be remembered for air ports, not sewers.
So many democracies are affluent societies, we come to think there is a cause and effect. That may very well be the case, but it is somewhat less clear which is the cause and which the effect. We observe that there are measures and reforms that are very hard or downright impossible to carry out in democratic societies. We may all understand the need for ecological measures, but we do not adopt them lightly. Species die while measures are being debated. Jobs and wealth, welfare and modern comforts are among the priorities of politicians. The drive towards increased affluence is a major consideration. They say democracies are programmed for self-destruction, simply because the people will demand ever greater gratification — thereby democracy becomes ever more costly until it can no longer satisfy the demands of the masses. But it seems this impetus serves to strengthen democracy, not undermine it — Golden Geese live long a fruitful lives. The ancient Greeks alternated democracy and tyranny. Who knows, we may be heading in that direction before long.
Few people ever get to experience a multitude of systems first hand, democratic or otherwise. Most will take the structure that govern their lives as "God given" and will think of it as ever lasting and "the best in the world". This is fundamentally wrong, but existing power structures, and thus also the educational system, will glorify the established system and strengthen the misconception. The democratic institutions are under constant threat of being abolished or subverted. In fact, many democracies have laws on hand to do just that. These are called emergency laws, rule by decree or marshal laws. At times the threat to democracy comes from lack of attention, people are simply not sufficiently aware of the mechanisms and rules, so they lapse. "Oh, ballot stuffing is something that happens elsewhere, not here, surely!" What each nation will perceive as democratic varies a great deal. In itself "democracy" is just a roof that need a profusion of pillars. Introducing legal changes to improve the quality or fairness of the democratic processes seem hardly feasible since doing so needs the co-operation of those who have gained power by the existing, unfair system, but that same majority may attempt to subvert the system so as to augment its own power. While international organisations may see to it that fair practices prevail when it comes to trade among nations and point out infringements of human rights, there is no general certification when it comes to democratic systems, nor is any nation obliged to take account of specific criticism. Any nation calling itself democratic by the right of a secret ballot, is free to infringe on individual liberties, practice blatant discrimination and overt and covert censorship. In these cases, the rights entailed by "national sovereignty" is placed higher than the pursuit of democracy. At some point the designation "democratic" no longer applies. We had a number of countries calling themselves "People's Democratic Republic" in the days of the "Cold War", though I don't think anyone was fooled. There are no established charter concerning the set-up of the democratic state. Any attempt at promoting democracy across national borders may be considered subversive. International guidelines concerning elections exist, but in real life, things get vague - what is "free and fair"? Who are "the people"? Is a contender in jail for legitimate reasons? How much cheating is acceptable? The Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) provide advice as well as a physical presence to 55 member states on request. Unfortunately, leaders may apply the principle of national sovereignty to ignore international recommendations.
So many democracies are affluent societies, we come to think there is a cause and effect. That may very well be the case, but it is somewhat less clear which is the cause and which the effect. We observe that there are measures and reforms that are very hard or downright impossible to carry out in democratic societies. We may all understand the need for ecological measures, but we do not adopt them lightly. Species die while measures are being debated. Jobs and wealth, welfare and modern comforts are among the priorities of politicians. The drive towards increased affluence is a major consideration. They say democracies are programmed for self-destruction, simply because the people will demand ever greater gratification — thereby democracy becomes ever more costly until it can no longer satisfy the demands of the masses. But it seems this impetus serves to strengthen democracy, not undermine it — Golden Geese live long a fruitful lives. The ancient Greeks alternated democracy and tyranny. Who knows, we may be heading in that direction before long.