Threatened Democracy
Threatened Democracy
Democracy throughout the world is being threatened, and the reason is not difficult to
discern; it has to do with the nature of power on one hand, and the frustration of democratic
compromise on the other. In a very real sense it was inevitable, primarily because true
democracy requires an appropriate environment in which it can be nurtured; most of the world
lacks such an environment.
One group of reasons is traditional: education, respect for property rights and rule of law,
and protection of minority rights; this is part of the climate that supports democracy, or more
appropriately republicanism. In a way, the next, though different, is related to the first, and that
is the ability to satisfy the lust for power. The final I might present is also related – everything
after all is related when it comes to governing and power – but differently: corruption.
Starting with corruption first, it exists everywhere; it is a factor of the human condition. In a
way democratic governing forms are designed to indulge it; George Washington Plunkitt of
Tammany Hall referred to it fondly as honest graft. There will be spoils – government
contracts, resource allocation decisions, appointments – they must be addressed in all forms
of government. Who is favored? We like to believe that the answer to that is merit; the most
deserving, the most qualified, the most justified should be chosen, but life is not like that;
favoritism will always be alive and well, but there is also the matter of difference of opinion,
and that will never go away. So corruption is relative, and the key to governmental success is
how disrupting it is, and that depends to a great extent on the amount of largess is available to
spread. But Plunkitt’s statement may not be as ridiculous as it sounds: individual corruption
is more threatening than institutional corruption, to a point. If the corruption, or favoritism, or
patronage, is considered as being appropriate for the good of the many (if not all) it has some
merit and might not be debilitating – to a point. That point is where it begins to impact good
governance. Now isn’t that a mealy mouthed definition? In the eye of the beholder, who is
and will always be prejudiced, and probably only apparent in retrospect.
Power, of course, is why people want to be in government in the first place: personal
power, power to get things done (for whatever reason), and power to help constituents (or
family or friends, or contributors). Sometimes, depending on who those folks are, use of
power for them may be justified – if, for example, their cause is the right one. Again the eye of
the beholder and retrospect. Which brings us to the first, which is the more familiar ground.
Essentially there must be “justice” or fairness, or some semblance of level playing field, or at
least an expectation of consistency if a democratic republic is to function as intended. It might
be noted that the importance of this is more economic than political, but I cannot separate
consideration of democracy/republicanism from economics; that’s the purpose of a
democratic approach in the first place: fairness and consistency in the spreading of resources
– not equally, but with respect to merit. That word again: merit; a murky word at best in the
lexicon of politics.
Democracy will always be threatened because sharing and compromise are not natural
or comfortable for human beings – selfishness is. So, having enumerated the environmental
requisites for its success, let’s consider the opportunities for non-success. They are pretty
well summed up by the first group of requirements for a democratic environment. Rule of law
and respect for property rights get in the way of those that gain by flaunting them; that’s why so
many frustrated democratic power hungry detractors push to change constitutions: changing
the law allows them to pursue their desires without changing environment, at least not
completely, at least not all at once. Those with power most often do not really relish sharing it,
and seek more and more, as they can, and democracy allows it to happen through attracting,
wielding and manipulating majority support which is exactly in opposition to the long range
success requirement for democracy: protecting minority rights. The path away is one often
trod – gaining control, suppressing the minority, changing the laws, accumulating more and
more power and then taking over; it can be pursued, and is with great regularity, without even
changing the democratic environment – at least theoretically, or until the threat of losing the
majority looms, as it usually does. It is then that democracy can become terminally
threatened, where majority power must take a different approach. Most fascism (a word that
has only been in existence since the middle 20th century follows a common path: assuming
power democratically by wooing a majority; consolidating it through nominal observance of
democratic principles tinged with manipulation; and solidifying it by dropping the subterfuge of
democracy and installing tyranny.
What have we missed? Perhaps the two most important aspects of the democratic
environment: education and respect. Those without education; meaning knowledge and
understanding, not necessarily formal schooling (although that tends to help); are more easily
manipulated through populism, propaganda and intimidation. Lack of respect, particularly of
the elite for others, does away with the very reason for democracy; the elite, the powerful, find a
dictatorial oligarchy preferable to democratic oligarchy, if they can swing it. But that’s nothing
new.
In the end it is education, leading to an independent middle class, a kind of alternate elite,
that makes all the difference – providing that education is oriented toward understanding and
appreciation for power sharing and all that it entails, including property rights, rule of law,
protection of minority rights – and mutual respect. Looking at where democracy is failing, in
Morales’ Bolivia, Putin’s Russia, Chavez’ Venezuela, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Castro’s Cuba,
and all over Central Asia we see a common trend, supported initially by ignorance that led
ultimately to what amounts to fascist control – because there was no effective middle class
power base to oppose it. What is most illuminating, however, is to analyze the challenge
associated with power and ignorance.
Power is demanding, regardless of how it is wielded; to rule takes ability to wield power
without destroying that which is being ruled – a real challenge in the world of today. Ignorance
connotes dearth of understanding of how that challenge must be addressed. The primary
reason for pursuing power is lust for it – greed if you will – and that is the same primary
reason for wanting to hang on to it. But the secondary reason is lack of respect for those not
among the ruling elite – a lack of respect that is not unjustified, by the way – the non-elite just
don’t get it, and the elite feel it is its mission in life to do what must be done, because it knows
what is best. That, after all, is why those among it are elite; elite is more than actual
superiority; it is an egocentric conceit of that superiority that tells them their way is the best
way, the way things must be.
And that explains the first threat to democracy. Whereas the elites know how it should be,
the non-elites fall into two categories: one is perfectly happy to let the elites have their way, as
long as they are taken care of; the other only wants to be left alone to do their own thing. Once
the elites have their way, it’s too late for either of the non-elite groups to see where it leads; the
take care of mes find they are not taken care of and the leave me alones find they are not left
alone. But without middle class leadership it doesn’t matter much because the oligarchs are
in control. Yet, elites/oligarchs is being used as plural; although the dictionary lists elite as
singular, suggesting a monolithic group, which it is not. And that brings us back to power.
Even among an elite leadership group there must be he who is more equal than the others,
and when that individual dies or can no longer exercise his responsibilities, there is
competition, often violent, to replace him. Elite groups possess the same dynamics as all
other human groups: they contain those who lust for power and want to control.
So the threat to democracy is very basic to human nature: competition for power. It exists
at all levels of the democratic environment and can only be contained when it is balanced; and
there are always forces in action trying to unbalance it. Those forces are constantly at work in
our world, and will always be, attempting to consolidate, overthrow, manipulate and
discombobulate. The middle class is a counterbalancing force, without which democratic
republics are likely to fall apart if they can even form, but only when it accepts the other defining
facets for a democratic environment, discussed above; when it does not it can create merely
another player in the quest for power. Power, as we have been repeatedly told, corrupts. Lust
for it is the basic threat to democracy, and it is alive and well everywhere.
Democracy throughout the world is being threatened, and the reason is not difficult to
discern; it has to do with the nature of power on one hand, and the frustration of democratic
compromise on the other. In a very real sense it was inevitable, primarily because true
democracy requires an appropriate environment in which it can be nurtured; most of the world
lacks such an environment.
One group of reasons is traditional: education, respect for property rights and rule of law,
and protection of minority rights; this is part of the climate that supports democracy, or more
appropriately republicanism. In a way, the next, though different, is related to the first, and that
is the ability to satisfy the lust for power. The final I might present is also related – everything
after all is related when it comes to governing and power – but differently: corruption.
Starting with corruption first, it exists everywhere; it is a factor of the human condition. In a
way democratic governing forms are designed to indulge it; George Washington Plunkitt of
Tammany Hall referred to it fondly as honest graft. There will be spoils – government
contracts, resource allocation decisions, appointments – they must be addressed in all forms
of government. Who is favored? We like to believe that the answer to that is merit; the most
deserving, the most qualified, the most justified should be chosen, but life is not like that;
favoritism will always be alive and well, but there is also the matter of difference of opinion,
and that will never go away. So corruption is relative, and the key to governmental success is
how disrupting it is, and that depends to a great extent on the amount of largess is available to
spread. But Plunkitt’s statement may not be as ridiculous as it sounds: individual corruption
is more threatening than institutional corruption, to a point. If the corruption, or favoritism, or
patronage, is considered as being appropriate for the good of the many (if not all) it has some
merit and might not be debilitating – to a point. That point is where it begins to impact good
governance. Now isn’t that a mealy mouthed definition? In the eye of the beholder, who is
and will always be prejudiced, and probably only apparent in retrospect.
Power, of course, is why people want to be in government in the first place: personal
power, power to get things done (for whatever reason), and power to help constituents (or
family or friends, or contributors). Sometimes, depending on who those folks are, use of
power for them may be justified – if, for example, their cause is the right one. Again the eye of
the beholder and retrospect. Which brings us to the first, which is the more familiar ground.
Essentially there must be “justice” or fairness, or some semblance of level playing field, or at
least an expectation of consistency if a democratic republic is to function as intended. It might
be noted that the importance of this is more economic than political, but I cannot separate
consideration of democracy/republicanism from economics; that’s the purpose of a
democratic approach in the first place: fairness and consistency in the spreading of resources
– not equally, but with respect to merit. That word again: merit; a murky word at best in the
lexicon of politics.
Democracy will always be threatened because sharing and compromise are not natural
or comfortable for human beings – selfishness is. So, having enumerated the environmental
requisites for its success, let’s consider the opportunities for non-success. They are pretty
well summed up by the first group of requirements for a democratic environment. Rule of law
and respect for property rights get in the way of those that gain by flaunting them; that’s why so
many frustrated democratic power hungry detractors push to change constitutions: changing
the law allows them to pursue their desires without changing environment, at least not
completely, at least not all at once. Those with power most often do not really relish sharing it,
and seek more and more, as they can, and democracy allows it to happen through attracting,
wielding and manipulating majority support which is exactly in opposition to the long range
success requirement for democracy: protecting minority rights. The path away is one often
trod – gaining control, suppressing the minority, changing the laws, accumulating more and
more power and then taking over; it can be pursued, and is with great regularity, without even
changing the democratic environment – at least theoretically, or until the threat of losing the
majority looms, as it usually does. It is then that democracy can become terminally
threatened, where majority power must take a different approach. Most fascism (a word that
has only been in existence since the middle 20th century follows a common path: assuming
power democratically by wooing a majority; consolidating it through nominal observance of
democratic principles tinged with manipulation; and solidifying it by dropping the subterfuge of
democracy and installing tyranny.
What have we missed? Perhaps the two most important aspects of the democratic
environment: education and respect. Those without education; meaning knowledge and
understanding, not necessarily formal schooling (although that tends to help); are more easily
manipulated through populism, propaganda and intimidation. Lack of respect, particularly of
the elite for others, does away with the very reason for democracy; the elite, the powerful, find a
dictatorial oligarchy preferable to democratic oligarchy, if they can swing it. But that’s nothing
new.
In the end it is education, leading to an independent middle class, a kind of alternate elite,
that makes all the difference – providing that education is oriented toward understanding and
appreciation for power sharing and all that it entails, including property rights, rule of law,
protection of minority rights – and mutual respect. Looking at where democracy is failing, in
Morales’ Bolivia, Putin’s Russia, Chavez’ Venezuela, Mugabe’s Zimbabwe, Castro’s Cuba,
and all over Central Asia we see a common trend, supported initially by ignorance that led
ultimately to what amounts to fascist control – because there was no effective middle class
power base to oppose it. What is most illuminating, however, is to analyze the challenge
associated with power and ignorance.
Power is demanding, regardless of how it is wielded; to rule takes ability to wield power
without destroying that which is being ruled – a real challenge in the world of today. Ignorance
connotes dearth of understanding of how that challenge must be addressed. The primary
reason for pursuing power is lust for it – greed if you will – and that is the same primary
reason for wanting to hang on to it. But the secondary reason is lack of respect for those not
among the ruling elite – a lack of respect that is not unjustified, by the way – the non-elite just
don’t get it, and the elite feel it is its mission in life to do what must be done, because it knows
what is best. That, after all, is why those among it are elite; elite is more than actual
superiority; it is an egocentric conceit of that superiority that tells them their way is the best
way, the way things must be.
And that explains the first threat to democracy. Whereas the elites know how it should be,
the non-elites fall into two categories: one is perfectly happy to let the elites have their way, as
long as they are taken care of; the other only wants to be left alone to do their own thing. Once
the elites have their way, it’s too late for either of the non-elite groups to see where it leads; the
take care of mes find they are not taken care of and the leave me alones find they are not left
alone. But without middle class leadership it doesn’t matter much because the oligarchs are
in control. Yet, elites/oligarchs is being used as plural; although the dictionary lists elite as
singular, suggesting a monolithic group, which it is not. And that brings us back to power.
Even among an elite leadership group there must be he who is more equal than the others,
and when that individual dies or can no longer exercise his responsibilities, there is
competition, often violent, to replace him. Elite groups possess the same dynamics as all
other human groups: they contain those who lust for power and want to control.
So the threat to democracy is very basic to human nature: competition for power. It exists
at all levels of the democratic environment and can only be contained when it is balanced; and
there are always forces in action trying to unbalance it. Those forces are constantly at work in
our world, and will always be, attempting to consolidate, overthrow, manipulate and
discombobulate. The middle class is a counterbalancing force, without which democratic
republics are likely to fall apart if they can even form, but only when it accepts the other defining
facets for a democratic environment, discussed above; when it does not it can create merely
another player in the quest for power. Power, as we have been repeatedly told, corrupts. Lust
for it is the basic threat to democracy, and it is alive and well everywhere.