by Erik Koht
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and restrictions being released when a society goes democratic cause old grievances to come to the fore, cause outdated political attitudes to find new followers, cause religions to reemerge, and because the disrespect for police authority remains unabated, create the perfect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.