Democracy

Being democratic is widely regarded as a desirable, good quality in government, organizations, making rules, deciding goals and policies. Because of this ‘democracy’ and ‘democratic’ have come to have an approbative, commendatory quality as part of their meaning. They are conventionally partly used to express or indicate approval, to commend or praise. ‘Undemocratic’ conventionally is often derogatory, pejorative, expressing or indicating disapproval. It is used in part to deprecate, censure, denigrate, disparage, chide, put down, etc. ‘That’s not democratic’ is often like saying ‘That’s not fair’. ‘Democratic’ is perhaps not so evaluative in meaning as ‘dictatorial’, ‘fascist’, ‘repressive’, ‘elitist’, ‘brutal’, etc.

The descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’ and its cognates, though, is (like that of many terms in philosophy, social theory, politics, art, literary theory, religion, etc.) rather woolly or nebulous in common (and often specialist!) use. In ordinary, standard use ‘democracy’ is not used to pick out (not clearly, closely tied to) a specific set of clearly definable (in principle intersubjectively verifiable and falsifiable) characteristics or features. (Cf. ‘20th wedding anniversary party’, “university’, ‘by-election’.) Rather ‘democracy’ is used to loosely indicate a feature (or features) in a certain range which is not clearly specified. It seems that speakers/writers do not have some specific, definite property or kind of thing clearly in mind when they (albeit correctly) use ‘democracy’. Speakers/users are unable to pick out confidently what would be democratic and what not, or to specify what are verifiable democratic-making characteristics – criteria, truth/application conditions.

Descriptive meaning of ‘democracy’. The underlying, loose idea behind ‘democratic’ is something like : a government, business, corporation, movement, non-profit society, community association etc. such that ordinary people/all members have a real say in running the organization as opposed to its being run by an elite or privileged group, and /or such that it is run for the real benefit of ordinary/all members not for the benefit of an elite or privileged group. Democracy is contrasted with government by church (theocracy), hereditary monarch or chief, aristocracy, big business, the military, dictatorship, the upper classes.

Sharpening the meaning. Specific criteria might be listed to give clearer, sharper definition to ‘democracy’.
Freedom to form different, opposing, rival political parties which the government may deem are not in the best public interest (even some which seek to abolish certain freedoms or rights).
Freedom to publicly criticize the government and laws.
Some media not directly controlled by the government.
Toleration of different values, belief systems, disagreement about priorities.
Freedom of access to information about government spending and policies.
Freedom to vote and run for office (political, judicial, police, military, civil service) regardless of class, religion, political affiliation, ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation.
Safeguards for keeping patronage appointments, nepotism, favoritism, and pork barreling to a minimum, e.g. strict rules for government tendering, and for hiring in the civil service and schools and universities; membership of some boards determined by lot rather than appointment.
Mechanism to allow for peaceful change of government.
The ultimate basis of political power lies in the expressed consent of the majority of citizens.
Minorities have certain rights.
Opportunities for the disadvantaged (females, poor, ethnic minorities) to have higher education and rise to office and good jobs in the professions, academia, etc.

There is something semantically odd about saying ‘A is a democracy’, or the equivalent in another language, where A lacks 2 or more of the preceding characteristics.

Some communist and totalitarian countries calling themselves democratic are not democratic according to the analysis given. We might speak of communist, Marxist, totalitarian, or religious democracy versus liberal democracy (without the sneer word ‘bourgeois’). A communist (or religious) supposed democratic ideology holds that there are two classes of people : those who have seen the definite truth about God’s law, social reality, ultimate reality, or the historical process and those who have not. Those who do not accept the truth represented by the ‘correct’ religious/political party are corrupt, unenlightened and should be excluded from political power and input. (Notice the similarity here between totalitarian democrats and some politically correct liberal democrats.) Those to be excluded may be peasants, landlords, capitalists, bourgeois liberals, western decadents, atheists, non-members of the ‘correct’ party, or those who make remarks deemed to be damaging or offensive to the disadvantaged or minorities. Furthermore, on this view, dictatorship of the ruling party, proletariat, or religion is not undemocratic because it in fact represents the true underlying free will of each individual in so far as this is not perverted.

Democracy is associated with egalitarianism : the idea that people are in some way of equal value or worth and should have equal opportunity even though there are differences in ability and character.

In a democratic association all members have input into what qualifications are required for membership and for holding a particular rank. In this respect many professional associations and trade unions are democratic whereas the Catholic Church is not. In a democratic country it might be that all people with relevant skills and expertise, not just association members, should have input into criteria for membership in an association or union and pay scales in so far as these have a monopoly on certain jobs (frequently paid for by the general taxpayer).

Democracy (either liberal or totalitarian) is compatible with distinctions of rank and with some degree of meritocracy. Thus, to impose a test for voting or holding office of basic literacy, cultural, historical, and political knowledge might be deemed ‘undemocratic’ in a loose sense but it is not so according to the more precise analysis given. What matters for democracy in the precise sense is equality of opportunity, open critical thinking, concern for the well-being and development of others especially those with a poor start in life, and respect for individual liberty/autonomy – allowing for disagreement, differences of opinion. Democracy in the precise sense does not entail a philosophy of idealizing or sentimentalizing the poor, non-achievers, criminals, drug addicts, etc.

Rule of Law

It is difficult for a community (or social group, e.g., non-profit society, religious group, school, sports club, housing co-op) of only 100 fairly homogeneous people to function without rules and regulations. Sometimes there will be unanimous support for a rule. Sometimes an individual member who supports the rule will break it when he thinks following the rule in a particular case is unduly detrimental to his benefit. (Sincerely supporting a rule means being willing to follow it even when so doing involves some inconvenience or loss of benefit.) Sometimes an individual will follow a rule because it has been adopted by the community (or social group) of which he is a member even though he personally finds the rule not the most fair or reasonable of alternatives. The notion of a community rule implies some sort of penalty for those who violate it, e.g., a fine, loss of privileges, suspension, expulsion, being assigned to unpleasant chores.

Each rule may require specific assent by all members (or a majority) of the community, or (some) rules may be decided by a ruling body (and perhaps be put to the general membership for ratification). Again, penalties for infringement of rules may be decided by all (or a majority) of the community or by a ruling body.

Where a state, country, nation, or whole society is concerned we speak of laws rather than rules. When a community has over 1000 members it becomes impractical to require unanimous consent of all members (consensus) for each rule or penalty. With communities over 50,000 it becomes impractical to require specific assent of the majority to each and every rule and related penalty. In large, complex societies rule, i.e., law (and policy) making becomes invested in a small portion of members, i.e., a ruling body, legislature, or government. (The membership may change but the ruling institutions stay the same.) Sometimes the law-making body is at arm’s length from the executive or government. Along with a legislature or government there is usually a somewhat separate judiciary for examining alleged violations of laws, and a police force for enforcing the laws.

Important questions arise. When does a law-making body have the moral and rational right to impose laws and penalties? When is its law-making status legitimate, reasonable, justifiable? Are there kinds of activity which it is unfair or unreasonable to legislate? Under what conditions, if any, is it fair or reasonable for a citizen to not abide by the law – is a citizen sometimes morally or rationally justified in disobeying a law made by a de jure government or legislature?

In a large, post-industrial, pluralistic, multicultural society there are many areas where some fairly loyal, law-abiding citizens feel strongly that existing or proposed legislation by a more or less legitimate government and legislature is not morally or rationally justifiable, e.g., gun control, same sex marriage, recreational drugs, prostitution, euthanasia, immigration, capital punishment, abortion, upper limits on income, wealth, and inheritance, disincentives to procreate, discouragement of the private automobile. Part of living and maturity is learning to accept some difference and disagreement in basic values, priorities, and beliefs (and to yield to the wishes of the majority). You can’t expect everyone else or the majority to share your particular convictions; what is meaningful, enlightened, profound, God’s truth to you may not be so to someone else; someone is not necessarily stupid, ignorant, or corrupt because he doesn’t agree with you; others have their blocks, hang-ups, emotional investment, blind spots, triggers, dark side but then so do you; your convictions may be just as much the product of your flawed, human psychology (projections, fears, defence mechanisms, rationalizations, prejudices, unquestioned, unexamined presuppositions) as others’ convictions seem to you the product of their flawed nature. No use claiming your convictions come direct from God. How do you know this claim is not itself a warped belief (perhaps sent by the Devil!) Also, others make the same claim about their different convictions.

Is the government/legislature legitimate? Some considerations. Can citizens of different religions, political affiliation, class, gender, race, ethnicity (except minors and perhaps those serving time for basic crimes, e.g. robbery, assault, fraud, of which they were convicted with due process) run for political office? Can they become members of the judiciary, police force, army, civil service? Can all citizens (except perhaps minors and certain criminals) vote? Is public criticism of the government/legislature, laws and legal system allowed? Is there a peaceful mechanism for changing the government/legislature? Is citizenship (voting) open to all contributing long-term residents, e.g. those working and paying taxes in the country for 2 years or more?

Are there activities beyond the legitimate scope of legislation (criminal as opposed to regulatory)? Those between consenting adults in private which do not harm a minor?

When might civil disobedience be justified? Breaking a law to save a life or prevent serious injury? Willingness to pay some penalty for breaking the law. Not concealing your violation. That you strongly and consistently disagree with the law (perhaps believing it is against the higher law of God) is not sufficient, e.g. someone who is opposed to photo radar, speed limits, or gun control, not just for himself but in general.

Imposing laws on those who do not want them. Some individuals are opposed to legislation imposing speed limits, gun control, banning spousal or child assault or abuse, or offering sex education or comparative religious studies in school. The belief is that these areas should be left to individual discretion (or the family) not subject to state interference or control. However, society (the state) has an obligation to protect the innocent and to ensure that liberties for certain individuals do not negate the basic liberties of others. Interestingly, many who oppose state encroachment on individual liberty in some areas are strongly in favour of it in others, e.g. recreational drugs, prostitution, homosexuality, assisted euthanasia.

Imposing taxes for services on those who do not want the service, e.g. health care, schools, social assistance, parks, sports facilities, hospitals, social services, roads, military, police force, judiciary, prison system, old age pension, drug and alcohol control, food inspection, welfare, unemployment benefits, water, sewers, garbage collection, recycling, fire department, public transit. Again, society has an obligation to ensure that all children have opportunities for education, care, a decent quality of life, and access to good jobs. A child’s chance in life should not depend largely on parents’ or grandparents’ wealth whether acquired through good luck, connexions, hard work, or shady dealings. A child should not be unduly penalized for having negligent, abusive, or thriftless parents. Notice that the justification for imposing taxes for a community service does not of itself entail that the service should have a public rather than private provider.

Society is morally and rationally entitled to take from the rich (without their explicit consent) in order to help the children of the poor. Parents naturally try to secure an unfair advantage for their own children. This does not mean they have a moral right to do so.

Ideally, perhaps, those independent, self-sufficient individuals who never use a public benefit should get a tax refund. In practice, it is difficult to say that an individual does not benefit from some public amenities, e.g. military, police force, parks, roads, customs, transportation inspection.

Romantic individualism – childish sense of entitlement, unrealistic expectations, an exaggerated sense of the superiority of one’s own talents, insights, opinions, tastes, values, and beliefs – must be tempered by the recognition that there are billions of us on a planet with finite resources. I am not more wonderful, hard working, ill-treated, highly qualified, talented, or deserving than millions of others. There is no reason why my community, country, or the world should adopt my opinions or give me special recognition or status. Indeed, in world terms perhaps I already receive more than a fair share.