People in power understand how the public responds. In a society based on class, politicians may be loath to reduce class differences if this will lead to the weakening of their power base. We know that government policies are closely connected to the level of unemployment, living conditions, social safety networks, army recruitment, supplies, prices, education, taxes, health and inflation. It is possible that those in power will try to create conditions that favour themselves, regardless if this means letting a situation deteriorate or simply keeping thing the way they are. Problem solving for society at large may not be their first priority. Though this is true for any type of rule, the democratic ruler is less likely to use measures that entail beating people over the head. What he needs are statistics and opinion polls that tell him how he is doing. In stead of rigging votes, he will be rigging choices. The hungry and the well fed have different priorities, this is easy to predict and almost as easy to manipulate. It is hard to tell whether this kind of manipulation takes place or not or to what extent it is successful. I think government would need to enjoy close ties with the business community and above average control of the media to make this kind of thing work. The same partnership needed to create jobs can also take them away. I suspect that solving practical problems is not the first priority of politicians. This is left to the "technocrats". The word "politics" evokes images of in-fighting and strategic positioning. Let's hope this is just a stereotype. True or not, we must suppose that being reelected will always be high on a politician's list of priorities.
The promise of democracy is "the elimination of alienation" — so they say. Being able to vote is supposed to make people identify with the aspirations of the society of which they are a part. This explanation may be a case of the tail waging the dog — it may be that widespread personal involvement may lead to a strengthening of democracy rather than democracy being the cause of involvement. I wager the claim that people are more likely to get involved in the business of government when there is a real prospect of impending change, either from wishing to promote or to stop the changes from taking place. Regular democratic channels such as political parties may not always be the best instrument for promoting particular issues. Dedicated people will work for their causes no matter the state of human rights prevailing, though giving voice to opposition may cause concerns about personal safety. We see too many people in well established democracies not caring to exercise their right to vote. This may be an expression of boredom or alienation caused by the fact that there is no prospect of change. Having seen the pride of nation in countries where democracy is weak or non-existent, I hardly think there is any universal long term effect of bonding between people and rulers caused by the implementation of democratic principles. There may be no connection between democracy and the degree of alienation and cynicism. The elimination of alienation may be implemented by other methods such as promoting nationalism or by creating a plausible external enemy. Also citizens may find other expressions of allegiance than by voting — bread and circus may serve as well. Having to vote often has proved detrimental to the democratic process, since each new ballot is likely to cause a dwindling voter response. In a weak democracy like Zimbabwe (2005) where the result of election was pre-determined, people lined up to vote as if it mattered. In Serbia, a new democracy, they had trouble electing a new president because their constitution required a minimum 50% voter turn-out that failed to materialise.
Democratic countries don't play by precisely the same rules everywhere. Voting age, gender quotas, various majorities required to change the constitution, procedural time limits, validity of absentee votes, minimum percentage of votes required to attain representation, all these and other considerations are variables, specified by national regulations. These regulations imply that there is a balance to be struck between what is fair from a mathematical point of view and what is required to make the system work smoothly, getting the job done. The outcome of elections is mitigated in order to obtain a certain effect. One such effect may serve to create a larger majority for the largest party, or for either blocking or securing the representation of small parties in the assembly. Each such regulation has to be judged on its merits. An unacceptable regulation would be one preventing changing the regulations themselves. We have to accept that we need some adaptations. Some, but not all. Recently, in the first election ever held in Saudi Arabia, only arab males above 21 years of age and not serving in the armed forces could vote. Only half the delegates were up for election, the royal house appointing the other half. The body thus composed could only make decisions about such things as sewers and local cultural events. Only 15% of those eligible to vote used that privilege. Obviously this election did not satisfy the basic definition of democratic rule.<\/p>
Even real democracy with real elections is not perfect, it is like a helpless baby that need a million guardians standing by continuously. It needs the protection of the voters — rich or poor, to be sure, but also by the institutions of society, such as the law and the police, the media, educational institutions, the armed forces, people of influence, non governmental groups such as churches and all those that vie for influence and public funds, the bureaucracy and even of sympathetic neighbours and international bodies. All need to see that their long term interests are best protected by the survival of democracy — but will they?<\/p>
The Price of Freedom
Freedom carries the meaning independence. We strive for economic independence and the right to make choices about our own lives. Then at least we have no one to blame but ourselves when things go wrong. When our education doesn't lead to a job, when our partner wants a legal separation, when that business investment fails. Freedom entails this and more. A lot more people fail than are successful, but the failures and the successes have something in common, they are an integral part of a social infrastructure — meaning choices are based on what is possible in our society. Society has offered us the chance of an education, the legal system that will help untie those knots in our private lives, and the bank that may help us get back on our feet. These and other facilities exist even when we don't personally need them. We could opt for a life in the jungle and spurn every modern contraption, but most of us would die, and so would our spouses and our children. What I am saying is, there is no getting out of our social bonds. We are each beholden to society and in return society demands we fit our choices to its requirements, — so we may be free to run bare footed through the fields, but not to drive through them with a truck. Some of those limitations are second nature to us, they are part of our cultural upbringing and are easily accepted. Some times the requirements of society seem excessive, sometimes citizens are as unreasonable. To bridge this gap there are laws. Societies vary a great deal when it comes to providing for those that fail through having made the wrong personal choices. Individuals may also make use of provisions for those who suffer through the impositions or mismanagement of government. By making laws, nations exercises independence and freedom of choice and, like you and I, must face the consequences. For a nation these consequences entail the effect of legal practices on the society it governs and that nation's relationship to the world beyond.
No minorities being part of democratic nations have achieved independence — not by lawful means and not otherwise. Though some democracies have gone far in accommodating ethnic minorities, the line is drawn at the cession of territory. On the other hand, some unions have been dissolved. Any government will say that citizens can't threaten the integrity of the state itself. "State security" or or whatever they wish to call themselves, work to uncover threats from within. Often the greatest impositions on the rights of citizens lie within this area. It depends on how the authorities perceive themselves and what constitutes a threat against the state. When any critical comment voiced outside the closed chambers of a ruling elite is perceived as threatening, when a single party is defined by law to be irreplaceable and crucial to the existence of the nation, then freedom becomes an illusion. Any right of expression you think you have can be taken away in an instant. There is no government of the people and no reciprocity, just abuse of power. To my mind this relieves the citizens of any duty toward the institutions of the state. No matter what they say, a government can never be "the people" — but it can be "of the people" if the voice of the citizens are heard regularly and a government is composed to echo that voice. The burden of proof lies solely on the government.
By convention, all a citizen does is legal unless the law says otherwise. For governments the opposite should be true — all activities must be founded on law. Some countries also feel the need to protect specific civil rights in a charter telling lawmakers there is a limit to their jurisdiction. There may be a considerable differences between the civil rights within a nation and the human rights granted by international charters. Preferably national charters should align themselves with internationally accepted rights, providing only a supplement. International charters need to be passed into national laws so as to prevent rulers from cancelling them with the stroke of a pen. Often legislators may chip away at civil rights with impunity. Your national charter may grant you the right of inheritance, but other laws may determine that the tax on this inheritance is fifty or a hundred percent. Human rights specifically mention the right of access to clean water, but your civil rights may not include any such provision. If your country has not ratified this convention, you remain unprotected. You may lose your rights because your country steps out of an international treaty obligation. Only an independent judiciary branch can protect the rights of citizens, but no country has a truly independent judiciary since it has no independent income, often lacks physical protection and doesn't control the appointment of judges. The subordinate position of the judiciary may help introduce some degree of democratic control, but also provides an avenue of access for any other kind of influence. This is deplorable inasmuch as both democracy and the rights of the individual rely on the law for protection.
Hopefully laws will be clear about what is unlawful, and then go on to state exceptions to the general rule. It may state it's illegal to add some substances to edibles unless... Unless that edible is meant to be processed in a certain way, or the amount of additive is considered insignificant, or levels must be approved by some public authority. The law is shaped as a negative, though its purpose is positive: It protects the rights of the population to healthy food. Some producers of food additives are losing a right while the greater part of the population is gaining the right to healthy food. In the case at hand the legislature may blatantly place the burden of proof with the producers of food additives, assuming they are guilty of poisoning the food unless they can prove otherwise and thus gain approval. I could easily imagine the business of licensing being carried to extremes concerning what acts require licensing, the requirements that need to be fulfiled and what unrelated acts may lead to the loss of license. In any case this practice makes the lack or presence of a license document more important than the facts of the case or the purpose of the law. Corruption is a distinct possibility. It also means that no part of the population can add unhealthy substances to food, so in fact everyone has lost something and gained something, though most people will never feel the loss of freedom since they have no intention of making or adding anything in the first place.
A bill might be proposed to stop impaired people from bringing their wheel chairs into town in rush hour traffic. Most people would find such a law outrageous, even though they personally do not need a wheel chair. They could imagine needing one, thus the law would never see the light of day. But a bill might be passed that affected only a small group that no one would ever sympathise with — people owning large houses on small islands or people with odd dialects wanting to use their language and strange symbols in letters to public offices. The public at large couldn't care less. The loss of a freedom one would never need is not felt and hardly worth caring about. When it comes to freedom, we are fickle. In defending the circumvention of freedoms, we will hear such arguments as: "Those that have done nothing wrong will have nothing to fear." This is like saying that anyone finding the law undesirable have something to hide or wish to encourage irresponsible behaviour. We suppose that people defending communists are themselves communist, people defending lesbians are probably lesbian. The US has passed laws that permit the detention of any non-national and keeping that person imprisoned for the rest of his life without charges. The foreigner may not even be in the US, he could be apprehended anywhere in the world American forces operate. The American public couldn't care less, and anyone defending prisoners of war just don't love their country enough or are consorting with terrorists. When a human or civil right is breached by law, a precedence is created, thereby providing a way of limiting that right even further. Concerns about health, public safety, morality, libel, ethnic discrimination and national security may serve to weaken freedom of expression generally.
We have seen that democracies do not automatically guarantee individual rights, nor the rights of minorities, nor are we perpetually protected against the subversion of democracy. Here are some of the symptoms: We are told that fundamental changes in law are nothing but logical extensions of long established practice. There are hidden strings that unite that which should be separate. Some widely held opinions find no democratic outlet. We find laws reversing the burden of proof and others that work in confiscatory ways. Freedom of speech and expression is undermined by restrictions introduced through the statutes of various organizations, imposed by employers' rules, as well as by government censorship and peer pressures. The right of privacy is disregarded. Private companies store large quantites of information about private citizens. Private companies supplement or replace the duties of police and other public services that touch directly on civil rights issues, such as defense and internment. Access to information is blocked or turned "asymmetric", meaning some get to know more than others. Laws, expressions and ceremonies that have their origins in religious convictions gain significance. Laws will favour the very rich or set the interests of companies above rights of individuals. It becomes economically impossible for people of ordinary incomes to seek public justice. The gap between the very rich and the poor widens while the number of people of middle incomes shrink. Laws petrify, causing repercussions not foreseen by the law makers. The population is told that it is "free", as if the opposite of our valued freedom is slavery, slavery being defined as one person being the legal property of another. But if we define slavery as one person dispensing the human rights of another person, we will find that slavery abounds. Even on the highest levels of well-established democratic societies we find people who lack a fundamental understanding of democratic principles and requirements, always ready to make a case for exceptions for the "common good". In stead of finding ways of securing and widening the scope of human rights, the grip of government tightens. Police and intelligence agencies are reorganised and gain political power. People grow inexplicably fearful. In the name of tolerance, international co-operation or "the greater good" we are sometimes asked to accept the misuse of power and circumvention of human rights. This occurs when abuse is cloaked in "religious convictions", "national interests", or as "traditional values" such as "the sanctity of the family".
Democratic countries don't play by precisely the same rules everywhere. Voting age, gender quotas, various majorities required to change the constitution, procedural time limits, validity of absentee votes, minimum percentage of votes required to attain representation, all these and other considerations are variables, specified by national regulations. These regulations imply that there is a balance to be struck between what is fair from a mathematical point of view and what is required to make the system work smoothly, getting the job done. The outcome of elections is mitigated in order to obtain a certain effect. One such effect may serve to create a larger majority for the largest party, or for either blocking or securing the representation of small parties in the assembly. Each such regulation has to be judged on its merits. An unacceptable regulation would be one preventing changing the regulations themselves. We have to accept that we need some adaptations. Some, but not all. Recently, in the first election ever held in Saudi Arabia, only arab males above 21 years of age and not serving in the armed forces could vote. Only half the delegates were up for election, the royal house appointing the other half. The body thus composed could only make decisions about such things as sewers and local cultural events. Only 15% of those eligible to vote used that privilege. Obviously this election did not satisfy the basic definition of democratic rule.<\/p>
Freedom carries the meaning independence. We strive for economic independence and the right to make choices about our own lives. Then at least we have no one to blame but ourselves when things go wrong. When our education doesn't lead to a job, when our partner wants a legal separation, when that business investment fails. Freedom entails this and more. A lot more people fail than are successful, but the failures and the successes have something in common, they are an integral part of a social infrastructure — meaning choices are based on what is possible in our society. Society has offered us the chance of an education, the legal system that will help untie those knots in our private lives, and the bank that may help us get back on our feet. These and other facilities exist even when we don't personally need them. We could opt for a life in the jungle and spurn every modern contraption, but most of us would die, and so would our spouses and our children. What I am saying is, there is no getting out of our social bonds. We are each beholden to society and in return society demands we fit our choices to its requirements, — so we may be free to run bare footed through the fields, but not to drive through them with a truck. Some of those limitations are second nature to us, they are part of our cultural upbringing and are easily accepted. Some times the requirements of society seem excessive, sometimes citizens are as unreasonable. To bridge this gap there are laws. Societies vary a great deal when it comes to providing for those that fail through having made the wrong personal choices. Individuals may also make use of provisions for those who suffer through the impositions or mismanagement of government. By making laws, nations exercises independence and freedom of choice and, like you and I, must face the consequences. For a nation these consequences entail the effect of legal practices on the society it governs and that nation's relationship to the world beyond.
No minorities being part of democratic nations have achieved independence — not by lawful means and not otherwise. Though some democracies have gone far in accommodating ethnic minorities, the line is drawn at the cession of territory. On the other hand, some unions have been dissolved. Any government will say that citizens can't threaten the integrity of the state itself. "State security" or or whatever they wish to call themselves, work to uncover threats from within. Often the greatest impositions on the rights of citizens lie within this area. It depends on how the authorities perceive themselves and what constitutes a threat against the state. When any critical comment voiced outside the closed chambers of a ruling elite is perceived as threatening, when a single party is defined by law to be irreplaceable and crucial to the existence of the nation, then freedom becomes an illusion. Any right of expression you think you have can be taken away in an instant. There is no government of the people and no reciprocity, just abuse of power. To my mind this relieves the citizens of any duty toward the institutions of the state. No matter what they say, a government can never be "the people" — but it can be "of the people" if the voice of the citizens are heard regularly and a government is composed to echo that voice. The burden of proof lies solely on the government.
By convention, all a citizen does is legal unless the law says otherwise. For governments the opposite should be true — all activities must be founded on law. Some countries also feel the need to protect specific civil rights in a charter telling lawmakers there is a limit to their jurisdiction. There may be a considerable differences between the civil rights within a nation and the human rights granted by international charters. Preferably national charters should align themselves with internationally accepted rights, providing only a supplement. International charters need to be passed into national laws so as to prevent rulers from cancelling them with the stroke of a pen. Often legislators may chip away at civil rights with impunity. Your national charter may grant you the right of inheritance, but other laws may determine that the tax on this inheritance is fifty or a hundred percent. Human rights specifically mention the right of access to clean water, but your civil rights may not include any such provision. If your country has not ratified this convention, you remain unprotected. You may lose your rights because your country steps out of an international treaty obligation. Only an independent judiciary branch can protect the rights of citizens, but no country has a truly independent judiciary since it has no independent income, often lacks physical protection and doesn't control the appointment of judges. The subordinate position of the judiciary may help introduce some degree of democratic control, but also provides an avenue of access for any other kind of influence. This is deplorable inasmuch as both democracy and the rights of the individual rely on the law for protection.