Those "buzz" words, democracy and freedom, seem inextricably intertwined — like love and marriage "you can't have one without the other". I can't imagine freedom without democracy, as long as one is talking about freedom for the many and not just the few. But, the other way around, democracy without freedom — could that work? Democracy is not a vague word, it's a clear, well defined concept — rule by the people — even though rule by democratic principles may find different expressions around the world. We have many democracies, but we don't have a single world-wide "democracy" formula. We do understand it to mean majority rule, though we are less clear when it comes to determining what constitutes a majority. Democracy is applied at local and national levels — but our world as a whole is still ruled as it always was, by the gun and by the laws of the powerful. Democratic nations must contend with an essentially undemocratic world stage on one hand, and face the grievances of permanent domestic minorities on the other. If it is true to say that we can't have freedom without democracy, then the world as a whole does not enjoy freedom. Also, democracy does not extend freedom to every individual member of a democratic society. By definition, that is not what democracy is about.
Though freedom is the air we breathe, it is like that gas, hard to grasp but still accepted unthinkingly. Only those that lack it know its true worth. We are asked to accept the word "freedom" which, singled out, may have special historical meaning to the people of the United States. Firstly, the word is closely associated with the founding fathers and the American Revolution. Secondly, it is key in the enduring struggle of the former slave population for equal rights. The trauma will persist in the population even should "freedom" be attained. US authorities and other sources exploit the "f"-word extensively to promote a great range of social, economic and political causes. We Europeans feel closer to the rallying cry of the French revolution: "Liberty, equality, brotherhood". Tentatively, we have learned to replace that word "brotherhood" with "solidarity". Our persistent traumas are those caused by poverty, hunger and war. Our national borders are literally drawn in the blood of generations. To us, liberty is not enough, we need a wider framework, extended to include compassion and equal worth. Achieving this among all the nations of the world in the absence of binding international obligations is totally unrealistic. For now, Europe is enough for Europe. Powerful nations, and those that dream of grandeur, are more likely to prefer a system based on expedience. Though the world depends on multilateral agreements, these are fleeting things, like kites held aloft by a passing breeze.
When it comes to the struggle for democracy and the international fight against corruption, breaches of human rights and wanton acts of violence, the world's attention is drawn hither and yon by no other logic than that created by the needs of some powerful player on the world stage or by some especially disruptive civil war. In this connection the buzz words turn into tools of propaganda, displayed for the occasion to motivate and provide legitimacy. Un-democratic and semi-democratic regimes fall into certain categories by how they are censured: Oppressive and criminal regimes that are deemed compliant when it comes to trade deals, the use of air space and bases, and that provide assistance when it comes to the "War on Terror", generally escape consistent condemnation. Maintaining a medieval infrastructure and ditto distribution of power are assets when tyrants want to be left alone with their slaves, serfs and secret police. We call those nations "inaccessible" or "closed societies" and let it go at that, they pose no threat. Let the oil rich states of Africa and the Middle East and the Central Asian republics serve to illustrate this point. The undemocratic nation that maintains some degree of law and order, have an acceptable infrastructure and in addition flaunt a decent industrial base is more at risk of being put under pressure. Cases in point: Cuba, Syria, Iran, Myanmar and North Korea. If you are as big as China, well, you can even document and publish your atrocities without fear of reprisal. Finally, there are nations, having attained democratic status according to world opinion, where civil liberties are set aside on a regular basis. Claims of being under threat provides the excuse for that regime as well as the community of democratic nations at large to refrain from addressing glaring breaches. Thus India is often called "the world's largest democracy" though all is far from well.
The European Union works specifically to promote democracy in Europe, making it a requirement for anyone seeking membership — in fact, without universal democracy the union wouldn't work. The British Commonwealth also requires its members be ruled democratically, but is somewhat more lenient, having only existing members to contend with. Some international organisations work continuously to promote human rights, others handle the subject on a case by case basis. The UN, preceded by the League of Nations, is a force for good and has specified many of the criteria for human rights, set forth in conventions and charters. The UN is not empowered to take action against breaches without the support of the permanent members of the Security Council. This is a bit of a paradox since several of these members have refrained from signing and ratifying human rights conventions, much less adhere to them. Still, the UN does valuable work by monitoring the situation in individual countries. But we must keep in mind that the Security Council members are able to interfere with this kind of information, even to the point of preventing it from being published. Some great organisations specifically avoid promoting democratic rule, the ones I have in mind are the International Red Cross, the International Olympic Committee, the Word Trade Organisation and various religious councils and movements. These organisations limit the use of their influence to promoting conditions needed to fulfill their particular tasks.
Power to the Who?
Implementing democracy by law is a slow and arduous process, transferring power from one type of governance to another, the process being one of experimentation and learning — negotiation is the order of the day. Or it may be introduced by a sudden upheaval sweeping away all resistance, even justifiable concerns. This way the learning process is lost. Yes, it is complicated and, yes, the democratic reflex is hard to come by. The shorter the lesson, the less likely it will stick. Democratic procedures, democratic institutions, democratic elections, democratic controls — these lessons take time. Ironically, it is almost impossible to initiate a conversion to democracy solely by democratic means. At the very least it requires some level of civil disobedience. It looks to me as if the pressures and restrictions being released when a society goes democratic cause old grievances to come to the fore, cause outdated political attitudes to find new followers, cause religions to reemerge, and because the disrespect for police authority remains unabated, create the perfect environment for mafia-type gangs.
Basically, democracy is a system by which "the people", meaning the citizens of a nation, gets to voice an opinion. This voice of the people is expressed by each adult person casting a vote. This in turn determines the composition of the national and regional assemblies. It matters not within the basic definition of democracy how the citizens came to hold those opinions. This procedure is called indirect democracy, because the opinions of the people are represented by proxy. People vote for other people — representatives — or for whole lists of people, not for separate political issues. Few states offer anything else on a regular basis. The person or people thus elected may share only a few general opinions and values with the people he or she is to represent. The shorter the list of candidates or parties, the smaller the likelihood of mutual compatability. The system is expedient and places responsibility, but it fact the system is only vaguely democratic and the representatives are only vaguely responsible for their actions. Almost anything representatives decide is automatically lawful, and they are not held to account for their campaign promises. If any other ruler than "the people" expressed power in such a timid manner, one would call him a figure head, more akin to a constitutional monarch or a ceremonial president. Paraphrasing the famous declaration of Louis XIV, "L'êtat c'est moi", the political parties may boast: "We are the people" in all matters concerning democratic decision making. Still, the system serves the country well as a whole. It prevents other, less savoury forms of rule from entrenching themselves, it establishes a reasonable pattern of renewal and — importantly — it also establishes an opposition, an institutional, legal scrutiny of the people and processes that govern the country. It's major weakness is that it does not by itself protect the rights of the minority — this has to be done with the help of various laws that contravene the principle of majority rule but may very well express the majority will. Legislation is the end product of the democratic process, what follows is the application of that product. The bench marks of democracies are found by comparing the total work environment and diversity of genuine opposition. In this evaluation we should include even the part of the opposition that is not represented in national and local assemblies.
The democratic process has a reputation for being slow, not a suitable instrument for meeting a sudden crisis. I have yet to hear of an actual case. People usually know what is needed and do their best when a situation arises that requires fast responses. On the other hand, these actions tend to get evaluated in retrospect. This scrutiny is a function of law and democratic controls. The critical event eventually becomes part of a greater learning experience, like a body producing antibodies enabling it to handle a similar danger in the future. As a result new laws will be written, old laws rewritten, knowledge is gained on many levels. I think, taking on special responsibility in a crisis is more likely the hallmark of a free-thinking and independent person, than that of someone who has been beaten into compliance by a tyrant. Admittedly, people react differently to unfamiliar situations and the absence of instructions, but in a general way, I think my point is valid. In other, calmer times, then sticking to established routines and familiar democratic channels, the slowness of democratic deliberations may do a lot to prevent unfortunate decisions. Someone pointed out that democracies have never gone to war on each other — that should count for something.
When mentioning the idiosyncrasies of democracy, I have often been told: "Yeah, but it's the best we can do" or I am given a lesson in history explaining the oddities that exist. The British House of Lords, the American electoral college and the presence of royalty in some countries, all seem to indicate there is room for the irrational within the machinery of state. As long as these quirks do not impede that machinery or distort the will of the people, by all means, let us keep them. This way we pay tribute to our history as nations. We look on with wonder and a bit of pride as the ceremonies unfold and gawk at gold braided uniforms and fluttering banners. We are suckers for symbols and rituals. Choosing democracy should not entail being stripped of pomp and circumstance. There is something reassuring to me about the state I can see as it goes about the business of confirming existence and celebrating due process. At some point we may want to do away with this and that, simplify or replace some litany. Traditions serve us only as long as they remain meaningful and appropriate in the given context and do not stand in the way of reasonable changes. After all, we have been able to do very well without peace pipes, town criers and public executions, we may be able to live without 21-gun salutes, too. I shall probably not live to see the Buckingham Palace turned into a home for the aged, it is sufficient to know I live in an age when doing so is doable.
Every type of rule invented by man is about limiting freedom and placing responsibility, limiting the freedoms of some while dispersing it to others. Democracy adds elements of reason and fairness, bases acts on transparency and predictability, removes the haphazard and arbitrary in the treatment of individuals. Gracious gifts handed down from above are replaced by self-evident rights. At least, that is how it is supposed to work. Thus I can say that systems of majority rule that either fails to establish an extensive pattern of renewal, fails to establish and protect a viable opposition, fails to protect minorities or fails to create a reasonable system of justice are failed democracies. Securing the integrity of ballot boxes is not enough, a system must entail something more than the right to vote in order to call itself democratic. Not everything walking on two legs is a human being, it might also be a duck. Historically, slavery and democracy have existed under the same roof simultaneously. Though we see this as irreconcilable today, our forefathers did not. If democracy were to develop further, our grandchildren may find the democracies of today as skewed, exclaiming: "You actually had to register to vote — why on earth, why?"
Any political minority can subscribe to the democratic principle as long as it has hope of winning through at some future point in time, itself gaining the seat of power — and knowing that its rights and purpose as opposition meanwhile are adequately protected by law. Human rights thus become a counterpart to democracy, without which the structure will tilt and fall. This means that the good companion of democracy isn't freedom at all, it's law. Note also; Most minorities are not defined by their political opinions. These minorities are based on other things, like physical and mental health, religion, age, income, class or caste, geography, sexual preferences, even by their language and family ties. Most democratic elections ensure some kind of geographic representation, though this may not be the most important or reasonable type of differentiation even in a homogeneous society. Some democracies ensure that women are "adequately" represented. But no one is suggesting that age, vocation, education, faith or health should be criteria for proportional representation or quotas. In some democracies people with a certain vocational background or within a certain income bracket are more likely to be chosen to serve in the national assembly. The cause may be that small matter called opportunity. We also observe the rise of a class of professional politicians, people who have never held any other job, rising through political youth clubs, through local and regional politics, finally emerging on the national stage. The political torch may also be passed on from one generation to the next, as in the case of the Bush family in the US and the Ghandis of India.
As a voter I would feel less comfortable being represented by a billionaire than by a woman or a farmer, even though I am neither. It seems strange to me that representatives should supposedly be incapable of looking beyond the needs of some arbitrary region they are called on to represent, while they are thought to be fully capable of looking beyond the needs of their own vocation, income bracket or religious persuasion. The system demands of me that I cast my vote for a person from "My County" even though neither he nor I may have lived here for more than the duration of the nomination process. I can't discard these addresses and cast my vote for someone whose general life situation — let's say age, marital status and income — is more like my own, but living somewhere further afield. People suffering from bad health are not likely to be among the delegates to the local and national assemblies. The under-aged have no representation at all except through somebody's parents. You are not likely to find migrant workers or artists in your national assembly. We simply have to accept that our representation is based on politics and geography and isn't a demographic representation of society. This is a weakness and makes strict democratic rule badly suited to some countries, especially those countries where there are profound divisions along other lines, such as tribal roots, ethnic or religious differences. Since the English and Americans have been eagerly exporting their brand of "winner-takes-all" electoral system to nations that would have done better with proportional representation, democracy is getting a beating in some countries. The result is the establishment of legal dictatorships, a type of democratic rule where a shift of power can no longer come about by legal means. Among the democracies we find cases of intentional disproportional representation benefiting a group, area or ruler. Since this serves those in power, such distortions tend to get worse, not better, by the passage of time.
The people get to vote every four years, but who they get to vote for has already been decided at some earlier point in time. This is done through separate nomination processes and by party congresses. Within each party they determine their own rules and their procedures may not be very transparent. The Chinese Communist Party Congress and the American Republican National Convention may present different visual aspects, but the importance of the delegates is about the same. They provide the applause and an outward show of strength. The deliberations happen in closed rooms and the laws of the land have no provisions to ensure due process or transparency. As a result, the general public may know little more about the party than its name and the name of some charismatic leader. A party may be deeply split and have one agenda in one region and entirely different plans in another. That charismatic leader who gathered so many votes for his party may even be deposed by another faction in the middle of the electoral period. In all, a democratic regime may be based on some very undemocratic machinations. No parties at all might be preferable to a system of party machines that insert themselves between the voters and the national assembly. That would leave it to the voters to vote for individuals on their individual merits. That way the representatives will be owing allegiance to those voters and not to the back room boys at party headquarters. The occasional referendum held in European countries show that voting "yes" or "no" to some proposal seldom follow party lines. Even those parties may be divided. People are not as clearly "left" or "right" on issues as the ready-made boxes of established parties seem to indicate.
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.
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.
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?
The Price of Freedom
The word "freedom" indicates something outside the rule of law, something irresponsible, but it also conjures up images of an individual fighting some expression of collective power, be it the law or various types of discrimination. In fact, the idea of freedom as a separate entity is confusing, even dangerous by its ambivalence. It certainly is a goal for all people to enjoy freedom on an individual basis, but who is to define what those freedoms are, and to what extent they should be countered by reciprocatory responsibilities? The typical conflict scenario consists of a powerful person or company exercising freedom by exploiting some basic common resource to the detriment of a weaker, unprotected group or individual. When an oppressed minority demands its freedom, that could either mean a justified demand to end discrimination or express a wish to set up a whole new state. This neat piece of semantics has been used to confuse the issue and cause fear. The word may carry different meanings according to who uses it — a nation may be "free" while some or all of it's citizens are not.
A different use of the word "freedom" appears in connection with the description of basic human rights as in "freedom from hunger", "freedom from fear", "freedom from poverty" and so on. Truly these are oppressive conditions, still we do not know that a crowd calling for "Freedom Now!" is calling for any of these freedoms. The semantic problem of the "freedom from.." usage is due to the oppressor changing from being "someone" to being "something". Actual blame and responsibility evaporates. One could argue that anyone taking on the task of alleviating the situation is also implicitly taking on the blame.
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".
By law, men, women and children, everybody, are equal. We obviously need laws that afford women and minorities extra protection, that is for each country to resolve according to need, but we must not accept laws that serve to keep women and minors "in their place" meaning subdued. Such laws provide the exact opposite of protection since it delivers them into the hands of others — meaning men. Such discriminatory laws very often have a religious implications. We should neither accept such laws nor accept the advice of people who ask us to accept such laws. Because religion claims the moral high-ground, it means that allowing abuse and discrimination to take place in a religious setting gives such infringements the appearance of moral righteousness. By tolerating it, we are accepting it and thus making it appear in some way justifiable, inevitable and fair. Religion does not have "carte blanche" to set aside human rights despite the fact that freedom of worship is in itself a human right. The conflict occurs when religion goes from being a matter of private convictions of faith to being an instrument for shaping society. Note that we often have laws forbidding certain practices, they are simply not being applied, which means they serve only as face savers.
Similarly, when people ask me to accept politically motivated abuse in other countries, I start to wonder who will ever do anything about it, if we are so busy being tolerant? We are letting commercial interests at home and abroad decide who gets to enjoy basic human rights. While the WTO is looking for hidden subsidies and breaches of copyright laws, we permit business people to stomp on the human rights of factory workers and farmers in other countries, something that incidentally gives their businesses a competitive edge. Typically, business enterprises love places where labour unions are forbidden or totally corrupt. Once these bilateral business connections have been established, voices are heard that promote lenience toward breaches of human rights, at home as well as abroad, by preaching the gospel of competitiveness — claiming that human rights are too costly for good business. Commercial interests all through the established democracies will start working to reduce social benefits and human rights at home, so as to create conditions similar to the ones they enjoy abroad. Firstly, producers profit by exploiting the cost differences based on breaches of human rights in one locale then selling in another where wealth is created within a democratic framework. No reason to think business people will strive to undermine this sweet deal, its a win-win situation for business. Secondly, the threat of taking their profits elsewhere is used as leverage at home. The destruction of a century's worth of social reforms is the price to be paid. The myth being promoted is that human rights and welfare will eventually reach the developing nations as soon as their standard of living rises, but without the underlying democratic structure in place, how can they? Instead we are destroying what we have built at home and are supplying the abusing governments abroad with the arguments they need: "Why change things when everything is going so well" and "Our abuses have now been accepted".
In principle nothing should be secret in a democracy, since "the people" is boss. But we have told to accept that "national security" comes before all else. This has grown to include a wide range of information, and being secret we can't verify the legitimacy of the need for secrecy. We are statistically safe in assuming that documents outside the realm of national defense should not be secret and that secrecy is not truly required. By this reasoning it should be perfectly legitimate for citizens to seek out and read so called secret documents because there is no other way of telling whether they actually have anything to do with national security or that they have not already been divulged. On the other hand it is the duty of governments to keep all strategic information safe. By this line of argument, it is the people who fail in keeping the secret who is committing a crime, that of negligence, not the person seeking the information. Bad losers generally see this differently. Transparency may be painful for some, but generally a society profits by he free flow of information.
At present, religions are coming to the fore. It should be noted that none of the world's religions make democracy an article of faith — that is to say, democracy is only promoted by clergy when this in turn is conducive to the spread of their own message. As to power: No state is more utterly unreal in it's composition than the Vatican, a country with no children, totally dependent on other countries supplying it with citizens. How many human rights are denied? All of them, I think. Some religions are being used as instruments of social repression and for lending government policies a mantle of righteousness. Democracy spread victoriously through Europe in the 19th and 20th centuries, borne by the spirit of humanitarianism, not on the wings of cherubs.
Criminal gangs are permitted to exist even though their habitats are known to the police, to governments, to aid organisations and the media. Thousands upon thousands are made to suffer needlessly through trafficking, slavery, piracy, extortion, abductions, narcotics trade, black market racketeering and arms smuggling. The rule of law and openness is being used as a weapon against society, thus you and I who live in democratic societies are also victims, because criminals subvert and overload the police and judicial systems. It is hard to fight the god fight within the confines of the law. This fact is an argument much used by those that wish to pervert democracy. Thus we cast a vote for the police state the minute we look the other way when any criminal act takes place or enjoy some portion of the fruits of criminal acts. Since the amounts being extracted from ordinary commerce are so huge, cutting off the financial paths of criminal syndicates is an interesting way to fight these leaches on society, though this may be easier said than done. Another threat to democratic rule are lawmakers making laws that are pure politics and good intentions, for instance by declaring that every person has a right to gainful employment. Laws that no democratic authority can hope to implement or enforce serve to create disrespect for laws in general and also for the people who make them.
We must not regard our human rights as something like a gift from a ruler, but learn to view them as birth rights that can't be sold, doled out, cancelled, forfeited, transferred or donated. Rights must be guaranteed by irrevocable laws. We are not served by such ambivalent words as "freedom" to cover this field, it needs to be replaced by a sturdier pillar — I think "justice" will do. A prison sentence implies confinement, nothing else. It does not include degradation, rape and torture, nor the loss of civil rights or repercussions for friends and family. We must demand that people are equal before the law , enjoy integrity of the body, that our minority rights are protected in the broadest sense, and that we have the right of access to information and freedom of expression — the list goes on. Only by protecting these rights can democracy survive in real terms. In three major powers — the US, Russia and China, important democratic controls are disabled. We observe the growth of unbridled capitalism, the spread of gangsterism, and threat of nationalism. Independent media is dying, is dead or never saw the light of day in the first place. The EU has some trouble applying democratic principles since the right of veto still applies, but we have to keep in mind that the EU isn't a nation. As an international organization the extent of co-operation and integration goes beyond anything the world has ever seen, but because of this, it does have a negative effect on democratic rule within each of the member states.
Is democracy failing? I think maybe it is — surely it is true to say that democratic rule is being undermined and distorted. One apparent cause is the trend toward unofficial but real bonding of government to private capital strategies, one becoming the instrument of the other. A disquieting similarity between American authorities and businesses appears as authorities export prisoners of war to countries where laws are lax and inspections non-existent, so as to avoid taking account of American laws, much in the manner of companies using off-shore tax havens. This coalition is making power monolithic, every measure judged by competitiveness and profitability. If a similar bonding were to take place between church and state, the disaster would be complete. Churches are often demanding exceptions from various human rights laws on religious grounds. Furthermore, religious convictions have a negative influence on educational content. This has already happened in many muslim countries and should serve as warning to others. No academic research of value emanates from these countries. Fortunately, important work goes on elsewhere.
We may pass any number of laws, still we must depend on people seeing the sense in them and hope that they will abide by them without rigorous police enforcement. Thus democratic societies require both faith and good will — the faith of the legislators and the good will of the citizens. This may be asking too much. The power by the people is fading. We witness the rituals of democracy on TV and confuse ritual for reality, but in the halls of power the democracy game is just one of many ploys at readiness for keeping us distracted — fear, insecurity, lies, collusion, manipulation, circumvention, subversion, threats and disinformation are others. The political choices we are given are not many, spanning but a few degrees on the length and width of the political spectrum. Protecting us against ourselves, I suppose. International law and human rights are spurned by nation after nation. The news is turned into entertainment, propaganda and vehicles of advertising, confusing us with manipulated images, misleading catch phrases and incomplete facts. The rights of citizens are curtailed in the name of national security. My friends distort their e-mail messages and hesitate expressing opinions of their own. Are they fearing that their lawful acts of today may be turned against them tomorrow? On the other hand, even the most ruthless of dictators understand that elections provide legitimacy. They still want to make it to look right. The flames of democracy and human rights burn slightly brighter in those nations that feel they must hide their transgressions — they at least know what is right, even though they disregard it. Places where transgressions are openly practiced and defended are worse off, their rulers have not yet read the writing on the wall. We see pressures being brought to bear on governments that won't abide by some level of human rights. This gives reason for hope, so does the number of democracies in the world. The mere size of populations, the mass of data and the speed of innovation should make rule by manipulation unsustainable. Shutting down the flow of inter-personal communications is getting increasingly hard. As of this writing [2005] a giant battle of wits is taking place between 50 000 Chinese government web censors and the hackers of the Chinese diaspora trying to penetrate the self-contained mainland web. In the long run no one can't keep people from talking to each other, comparing notes. We even have a common language now. Such things may prove a better defense of democracy and the freedom of the individual than all our laws. Maybe the reason for this is that — often as not — our laws just go to confirm already existing attitudes. Only free men and women are in a position to pass laws safeguarding liberty, equality and solidarity.
Those "buzz" words, democracy and freedom, seem inextricably intertwined — like love and marriage "you can't have one without the other". I can't imagine freedom without democracy, as long as one is talking about freedom for the many and not just the few. But, the other way around, democracy without freedom — could that work? Democracy is not a vague word, it's a clear, well defined concept — rule by the people — even though rule by democratic principles may find different expressions around the world. We have many democracies, but we don't have a single world-wide "democracy" formula. We do understand it to mean majority rule, though we are less clear when it comes to determining what constitutes a majority. Democracy is applied at local and national levels — but our world as a whole is still ruled as it always was, by the gun and by the laws of the powerful. Democratic nations must contend with an essentially undemocratic world stage on one hand, and face the grievances of permanent domestic minorities on the other. If it is true to say that we can't have freedom without democracy, then the world as a whole does not enjoy freedom. Also, democracy does not extend freedom to every individual member of a democratic society. By definition, that is not what democracy is about.
The European Union works specifically to promote democracy in Europe, making it a requirement for anyone seeking membership — in fact, without universal democracy the union wouldn't work. The British Commonwealth also requires its members be ruled democratically, but is somewhat more lenient, having only existing members to contend with. Some international organisations work continuously to promote human rights, others handle the subject on a case by case basis. The UN, preceded by the League of Nations, is a force for good and has specified many of the criteria for human rights, set forth in conventions and charters. The UN is not empowered to take action against breaches without the support of the permanent members of the Security Council. This is a bit of a paradox since several of these members have refrained from signing and ratifying human rights conventions, much less adhere to them. Still, the UN does valuable work by monitoring the situation in individual countries. But we must keep in mind that the Security Council members are able to interfere with this kind of information, even to the point of preventing it from being published. Some great organisations specifically avoid promoting democratic rule, the ones I have in mind are the International Red Cross, the International Olympic Committee, the Word Trade Organisation and various religious councils and movements. These organisations limit the use of their influence to promoting conditions needed to fulfill their particular tasks.
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.
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.
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.
We may pass any number of laws, still we must depend on people seeing the sense in them and hope that they will abide by them without rigorous police enforcement. Thus democratic societies require both faith and good will — the faith of the legislators and the good will of the citizens. This may be asking too much. The power by the people is fading. We witness the rituals of democracy on TV and confuse ritual for reality, but in the halls of power the democracy game is just one of many ploys at readiness for keeping us distracted — fear, insecurity, lies, collusion, manipulation, circumvention, subversion, threats and disinformation are others. The political choices we are given are not many, spanning but a few degrees on the length and width of the political spectrum. Protecting us against ourselves, I suppose. International law and human rights are spurned by nation after nation. The news is turned into entertainment, propaganda and vehicles of advertising, confusing us with manipulated images, misleading catch phrases and incomplete facts. The rights of citizens are curtailed in the name of national security. My friends distort their e-mail messages and hesitate expressing opinions of their own. Are they fearing that their lawful acts of today may be turned against them tomorrow? On the other hand, even the most ruthless of dictators understand that elections provide legitimacy. They still want to make it to look right. The flames of democracy and human rights burn slightly brighter in those nations that feel they must hide their transgressions — they at least know what is right, even though they disregard it. Places where transgressions are openly practiced and defended are worse off, their rulers have not yet read the writing on the wall. We see pressures being brought to bear on governments that won't abide by some level of human rights. This gives reason for hope, so does the number of democracies in the world. The mere size of populations, the mass of data and the speed of innovation should make rule by manipulation unsustainable. Shutting down the flow of inter-personal communications is getting increasingly hard. As of this writing [2005] a giant battle of wits is taking place between 50 000 Chinese government web censors and the hackers of the Chinese diaspora trying to penetrate the self-contained mainland web. In the long run no one can't keep people from talking to each other, comparing notes. We even have a common language now. Such things may prove a better defense of democracy and the freedom of the individual than all our laws. Maybe the reason for this is that — often as not — our laws just go to confirm already existing attitudes. Only free men and women are in a position to pass laws safeguarding liberty, equality and solidarity.