Democracy

Author And Page Information

by Anup Shah
This Page Last Updated Saturday, January 28, 2012
This page:http://www.globalissues.org/article/761/democracy .
To print all information e.g. expanded side notes, shows alternative links,
use the print version:
http://www.globalissues.org/print/article/761
Democracy (rule by the people when translated from its Greek meaning) is
seen as one of the ultimate ideals that modern civilizations strive to create, or
preserve. Democracy as a system of governance is supposed to allow extensive
representation and inclusiveness of as many people and views as possible to feed
into the functioning of a fair and just society. Democratic principles run in line
with the ideals of universal freedoms such as the right to free speech.
Importantly, democracy supposedly serves to check unaccountable power and
manipulation by the few at the expense of the many, because fundamentally
democracy is seen as a form of governance by the people, for the people. This is
often implemented through elected representatives, which therefore requires
free, transparent, and fair elections, in order to achieve legitimacy.
The ideals of democracy are so appealing to citizens around the world, that many
have sacrificed their livelihoods, even their lives, to fight for it. Indeed, our era of
civilization is characterized as much by war and conflict as it is by peace and
democracy. The twentieth century alone has often been called the century of
war.
In a way, the amount of propaganda and repression some non-democratic states
set up against their own people is a testament to the peoples desire for more
open and democratic forms of government. That is, the more people are
perceived to want it, the more extreme a non-democratic state apparatus has to
be to hold on to power.
However, even in established democracies, there are pressures that threaten
various democratic foundations. A democratic systems openness also allows it to
attract those with vested interests to use the democratic process as a means to
attain power and influence, even if they do not hold democratic principles dear.
This may also signal a weakness in the way some democracies are set up. In
principle, there may be various ways to address this, but in reality once power is
attained by those who are not genuinely support democracy, rarely is it easily
given up.

This web page has the following sub-sections:

Introduction
1 Definition
2 Democracy Past And Present
3 Is Democracy A Western Or Universal Value?

4 State Of Democracy Around The World Today

2 Pillars Of A Functioning Democracy
Challenges Of Democracy
1 Low Voter Turnouts
2 Does An Elected Official Represent The People If Turnout Is Too Low?

3 Why A Low Voter Turnout?

Paradoxes Of Democracy
4 Voting In Non-Democratic Forces
5 Minorities Losing Out To Majorities
6 The Fear Of The Public And Disdain Of Democracy From Elites (While
Publicly Claiming To Supporting It)
7 Democracy Requires More Propaganda To Convince Masses
8 Limited Time In Power Means Going For Short Term Policies
9 Anti-Democratic Forces Undermine Democracy Using Democratic Means

10 Those With Money Are More Likely To Be Candidates

11 Confusing Political Ideology With Economic Ideology
12 Democracies May Create A More Effective Military
Democracy, Extremism And War On Terror; People Losing Rights
13 Fear, Scare Stories And Political Opportunism
14 Weak Democracies And Hostile Oppositions
15 Lack Of Inclusiveness Undermines Democracy, Strengthens Extremism
Democratic Choice: Parties Or Issues?
16 Representative And Direct Democracy
17 Voting
18 What Makes Voting Meaningful?
19 Evaluative Democracy
Election Challenges
20 Campaign Financing
21 Electronic Voting: Efficiency Or Easier For Corruption?
22 Media Manipulation And Ownership
23 Media Reporting
24 Campaigning On Personalities And Sound-Bites
25 Threats Of Violence And Intimidation
26 Disenfranchisement Of Voters
3 Democratic Governments And The Military
Powerful Countries: Democratic At Home; Using Power, Influence And Manipulation
Abroad
1 Election Corruption
2 Can Democracy Be Forced Upon A Country Through Military Means?
Democracy Of Nation States In The Age Of Globalization
3 International Institutions: Democratic Or Representing Those With The
Most Power?
4 Reality Of Foreign Policy

4
5

The Dangers Of Apathy In A Democracy

How Can Democracy Be Safe-Guarded?

Introduction
Definition
The word democracy literally means rule by the people, taken from the Greek
terms,demos (meaning people), and kratos (meaning rule). It is a political
concept and form of government, where all people are supposed to have equal
voices in shaping policy (typically expressed through a vote for representatives).

Democracy Past And Present

The Ancient Greek philosopher, Aristotle, the student of Plato and teacher to
Alexander the Great, is considered one of the most important founders of what is
now described as Western philosophy. In his work, Politics, he offered some
comparisons with other forms of government and rule, but also included some
warnings,
It is often supposed that there is only one kind of democracy and one of
oligarchy. But this is a mistake.
...
We should ... say that democracy is the form of government in which the free are
rulers, and oligarchy in which the rich; it is only an accident that the free are the
many and the rich are the few.... And yet oligarchy and democracy are not
sufficiently distinguished merely by these two characteristics of wealth and
freedom. Both of them contain many other elements ... the government is not a
democracy in which the freemen, being few in number, rule over the many who
are not free ... Neither is it a democracy when the rich have the government
because they exceed in number.... But the form of government is a democracy
when the free, who are also poor and the majority, govern, and an oligarchy
when the rich and the noble govern, they being at the same time few in number.

Aristotle, Politics , Part 4, 350 B.C.E

The following table offers only the briefest overview of democracy throughout the
years. Of course, the earlier forms of democracy were not close to what we
consider as democracy today, but were often important precursors or protodemocracies that laid down important foundations and principles. The examples
shown here are also not completeeach and every instance is not mentioned or
detailed, but a sampling of the more common or interesting ones to get an idea:

Period

Date

Ancient 600-5
B.C

Region/state

Notes

Ancient
Greece

Various forms of rule, ultimately resulting in

Athenian Democracy, a form of direct

democracy, as opposed to representative

democracy.
An exclusive club, however, as only adult
male Athenian citizens that had completed
military training could vote. Women,
slaves, and foreigners could not.
500 B.C Ancient
27 B.C
Roman
Republic

Planted the seeds of representative

democracy. Like other systems of the
same period, it was exclusive, and not like
democracies we consider today. After this
time, Rome had an emperor characterized
by dictatorial rule, and eventual decline.

600 B.C Ancient

400 A.D India

Early forms of democracy, republics and

popular assemblies, especially where
Buddhism and Jainism was more prevalent.
(Today, Hinduism is the main religion in
India, but in ancient times, Brahmanism, as
it has also been referred to, co-existed with
Buddhism and Jainism. While Brahmanism
was also the main religion then, Buddhism
and Jainism were far more widespread.)
The caste system, though not as rigid then
as it would later become, nonetheless
meant it was not a type of democracy we
think of today, just like Athenian
democracy and the Roman republic
systems would not be.
(See Democracy in Ancient India by Steve
Muhlberger, Associate Professor of History,
Nipissing University, for more details).

Middle
Ages

5th
Century
to 16th
Century

Throughout
Europe

Small examples of elections and

assemblies

1265

England

Parliamentary system. The Magna Carta

restricted the rights of kings. Election was
very limited to a small minority. The
monarchys influence over Parliament
would eventually wane.

1688

England

Revolution of 1688 saw the overthrow of

King James II, paving way for a stronger

parliamentary democracy, strengthened by

the 1689 English Bill of Rights
18th
1788
Century
to
Present

United
States of
America

Adoption of the Constitution provided for

an elected government and protected civil
rights and liberties. Considered the first
liberal democracy, but started off with
limitations: voting by adult white males
only (before 1788, propertied white males
only). Women and slaves (predominantly
African) would have to wait a long time
still.

1789

France

French Revolution and the Declaration of

the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, a
precursor to international human rights
conventions, for it was universal in nature
(but still only applied to men, not women or
slaves). This and the American Constitution
are considered influential for many liberal
democracies to come after.

1917

Russia

The Bolshevik Revolution saw the

autocratic Tsar replaced. Led by a MarxistLenin ideology, a form of democracy known
as Soviet Democracy was initially
supported where workers elected
representative councils (soviets). This was
a form of direct democracy.
However, the Russian Civil War and other
various other factors led this to be replaced
by a more bureaucratic and top-down rule,
ultimately resulting in Stalins authoritarian
rule and any remaining democracy
appeared only on paper, not practice. In
other words, democratic rule combined
with Communist economic ideology quickly
gave way to paranoia and authoritarian
rule combined with Communist economic
ideology.

World
War II

Europe

Democracies give way to fascists in an

attempt to retain or increase power. Allied
forces also become more militarized to
counter Hitler. With the help of the US, all
eventually become democracies after the
War.

Post
World
War II

Colonized
Third
World

Colonial breaks for freedom as Europe

weakened itself during World War II. Many
breaks for freedom saw fledgling

democracies overthrown by Western

Democracies who favored dictatorships to
retain key geostrategic control. Some new
democracies were claimed to be under
Soviet influence. In some cases this may
have been true, in many others, it was just
an excuse. (See this sites Control of
Resources section for more detail.)
Post
World
War II

Africa

Initially characterized by corrupt

dictatorships, now has over 40 countries
that have moved towards participatory
elections and democratic tendencies
though many challenges still remain. Some
are democracies on paper, while others
flaunt it as and when it suits (a recent
example seems to be Zimbabwe and
Robert Mugabe).

1947

India

Gains independence from British rule,

splitting into India, Pakistan, and East
Pakistan (later Bangladesh). India becomes
the worlds largest democracy, while the
other two struggle with both dictatorships
and democracy.

Post
World
War II

Latin
America

Initially characterized by numerous

dictatorships, often supported into power
by the US. Almost all are now democracies
now struggling more with economic
ideology issues.

Post
World
War II

Asia

Some countries remain dictatorships. Many

transition eventually into democracies.

Is Democracy A Western Or Universal Value?

Democracy is often described as one of the greatest gifts the West has given to
the world. It certainly is one of the greatest gifts to humanity. But is it Western
or more universal a principle? The previous table suggests there is some
universality.
A common Euro-centric view of world history describes ancient Greek democracy
as Western democracy, with ancient Greece as part of that Western/European
identity.
Yet, as John Hobson writes in his anti Euro-centric book, The Eastern Origins of
Western Civilisation, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), ancient Greece and
Rome were not considered as part the West until much later; that is, Greece
and Rome were part of a whole Middle East center of civilization, in some ways
on the edge of it, as more was happening further Eastward.

Western Europe adopted or appropriated ancient Greek achievements in

democracy as its own much later when it needed to form a cohesive ideology and
identity to battle the then rising Islam and to counter its defeats during the
Crusades.
And, as also noted much further below, it was the Middle East in the 9th 12th
centuries that preserved a lot of Ancient Greek and Roman achievements after
Rome collapsed (which Europe then thankfully also preserved when the Middle
East faced its own invasion and collapse by the Mongols.
The point here is that democracy is perhaps more universal than acknowledged
and that there is a lot of propaganda in how history is told, sometimes
highlighting differences amongst people more than the similarities and crossfertilization of ideas that also features prominently in history. After all, great
battles throughout the ages are often celebrated far more than cross cultural
fertilization of ideas which require more study and thought and doesnt make for
epic tales!
As discussed further below, there are elements within both Western and nonWestern societies that are hostile to democracy for various reasons.

State Of Democracy Around The World Today

Wikipedias Democracy article collates interesting images from organizations
that research democracy issues. Some of these images show what countries
claim to be democracies, and to what degree they really are (or not) democratic:

As George Orwell noted, the word democracy can often be overloaded:

In the case of a word like DEMOCRACY, not only is there no agreed definition, but
the attempt to make one is resisted from all sides. It is almost universally felt
that when we call a country democratic we are praising it: consequently the
defenders of every kind of regime claim that it is a democracy, and fear that they
might have to stop using the word if it were tied down to any one meaning.
Words of this kind are often used in a consciously dishonest way. That is, the
person who uses them has his own private definition, but allows his hearer to
think he means something quite different.

George Orwell, Politics and the English Language

While most countries claim themselves to be democratic, the degree to which
they are varies, according to Freedom House, which surveys political and human
rights developments, along with ratings of political rights and civil liberties:


Perhaps it is no wonder Churchill once said,
Democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been
tried.

Sir Winston Churchill

On the one hand then, there has never been as much democracy as present. And
yet, many countries suffer from poor representations, election anomalies and
corruption, pseudo democracy, etc. While these issues will be explored further
below, first a look at some of the fundamentals of a democratic system.

Back to top
Pillars Of A Functioning Democracy
In a democratic government key principles include free and open elections, the
rule of law, and a separation of powers, typically into the following:

Legislature (law-making)
Executive (actually governing within those laws)
Judiciary (system of courts to administer justice)

It is felt that separating these powers will prevent tyrannical rule

(authoritarianism, etc). Critics of this may argue that this leads to extra
bureaucracy and thus inefficient execution of policy.

Not all countries have or need such a complete separation and many have some
level of overlap. Some governments such as the US have a clear separation of
powers while in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, a parliamentary
system somewhat merges the legislature and executive.
An edition of a Wikipedia article looking at the separation of powers noted that
Sometimes systems with strong separation of powers are pointed out as difficult
to understand for the average person, when the political process is often
somewhat fuzzy. Then a parliamentarian system often provides a clearer view
and it is easier to understand how politics are made. This is sometimes
important when it comes to engaging the people in the political debate and
increase the citizen [participation].
This suggests that education of politics is also important. The US for example,
attempts to teach children about their system of governance. In the UK, for
example (also writing from personal experience) this is not typically done to the
same extent (if at all). This may also be a factor as to why further separation of
powers in the US has been reasonably successful.
Some people talk of the difference between a minimalist government and direct
democracy, whereby a smaller government run by experts in their field may be
better than involving all people in all issues at all time. In a sense this may be
true, but the risk with this approach is if it is seen to exclude people, then such
governments may lose legitimacy in the eyes of the electorate. Direct
democracy, on the other hand, may encourage activism and participation, but
the concern is if this can be sustained for a long period of time, or not. (There are
many other variations, which all have similar or related problems; how to handle
efficiency, participation, informed decision making and accountability, etc.
Different people use different terms such as deliberative democracy, radical
democracy, etc.)
The historical context for some countries may also be a factor. Many examples of
successful democracies include nations that have had time to form a national
identity, such as various European or North American countries.
Other nations, often made up of many diverse ethnic groups, may find
themselves forcedto live together. A major example would be most African
countries, whose artificial borders resulted from the 1885 Berlin Conference
where European colonial and imperial powers, (not Africans) carved up Africa (for
the colonial rulers own benefit, not for Africans).
Such nations may find themselves in a dilemma: an intertwined set of branches
of government may allow democratic institutions to be strengthened, but it may
also lead to corruption and favoritism of some groups over others. Furthermore,
many such countries have been emerging from the ravages of colonialism in the
past only to be followed by dictatorships and in some cases social and ethnic
tensions that are freed from the restraints of authoritarian rule. As such, many
poor nations in such a situation do not have the experience, manpower or
resources in place to put in an effective democracy, immediately.

It is therefore unclear if what is determined as best practice for an established

democracy is necessarily, or automatically, the recipe for a newly emerged
democracy. For example, a country coming out of dictatorship may require a
strong leadership to guide a country towards further democracy if there are still
elements in the society that want the old ways to come back. This might mean
more integration of powers, to prevent instability or the old rulers attempting to
manipulate different branches of government, for example. However, in this
scenario, there is of course a greater threat that that strong leadership would
become susceptible to being consumed by that power, and it may become harder
to give it up later.
Getting this one aspect of governance right, let alone all the other issues, is
therefore incredibly challenging in a short time. As such, an effective democracy
may not be easy to achieve for some countries, even if there is overwhelming
desire for it.
In addition to those formal aspects of a functioning democracy, there are other
key pillars, for example,

Civilian control of the military

Accountability
Transparency.

Civilian control over the military is paramount. Not only must the military be held
to account by the government (and, be extension, the people), but the military
leadership must fully believe in a democratic system if instability through military
coups and dictatorships are to be avoided. (This is discussed further below.)
Indeed, some nations do not have full-time professional armies for the reason
that coups and military take-over is less likely. Others, notably the more
established powers, typically do have it, because they have had a recent history
of war and their place in the world stage may make it seem a necessary
requirement.
To achieve the openness that transparency and accountability gives, there is an
important need for a free press, independent from government. Such a media
often represents the principle of the universal right to free speech. This
combination is supposed to allow people to make informed choices and decisions
thereby contributing to political debate, productively.
Transparency and accountability also requires more bureaucracy as decisions and
processes need to be recorded and made available for the general public to
access, debate and discuss, if necessary. This seems easy to forget and so it is
common to hear concerns raised about the inefficiency of some governmental
department.
Efficiency, however, should not necessarily be measured in terms of how quickly
a specific action is completed or even how much it costs (though these can be
important too). The long-term impact is often important and the need to be
open/transparent may require these extra steps.

A simple comparison on procuring a service may help highlight this:

A responsible government may request a tender for contract. An open
process to document these and how/why a final choice was made is important
so that there is openness, understanding, and accountability to the people.
For example, the media, and citizenry can use this to determine whether or
not decisions have been made with the best interests in mind. Some of the
higher profile issue may require sustained public discourse and expensive
media coverage, too.
With a private company, the same process could be followed, but all
workers (especially in a large company) and shareholders are not equal, and
the companys board is usually entrusted to make many decisions quickly.
They do not have to record every single detail or even request an open tender
for contract if they dont want to. The market and the shareholders will
presumably hold the company to account.
Even when companies are subject to these same requirements of openness (to
shareholders, to whom public companies are accountable), governments may
have requirements that companies do not have, such as providing universal
access to a service such as health care. Companies, however, can chose what
market segments they wish to go for.
A government may therefore incur costs and expenditures that are not needed
by a private company. This raises legitimate concerns about excessive drives for
privatization being led by misguided principles, or the wrong type of efficiency.
Conversely, one could hide behind the excuse of democratic accountability if
accused of not acting quickly and decisively enough. Openness, transparency,
independent media, etc. are therefore key to assuring such processes are not
abused in either direction.
[Side note: To avoid claims of inefficient government being just based on
ideology, perhaps the cost of being open and transparent in all decision making
could be more thoroughly factored into these economic calculations. This is
something not typically required in private companies and organizations, for
example, which can then appear more efficient. There is also the counter point
that some things cannot be efficiently done or developed by committee, but
instead by specialized groups that get to focus on the task at hand.
There are, of course, many legitimate concerns and examples of
unnecessary/wasteful bureaucratic processes in government, as well as in the
private sector which do require addressing. A look at works by William Easterlys
White Mans Burden, or J.W. SmithsWorlds Wasted Wealth II would give many
detailed examples of this.]

Back to top
Challenges Of Democracy

Low Voter Turnouts

There have been numerous cases where democracies have seen leaders elected
on low voter turnouts. In the US for example, in recent elections, the President
has been elected with roughly 25% (one quarter) of the possible votes because a
full 50% did not vote, and the close election race saw the remaining 50% of the
votes split almost equally between the final Democrat and Republican
candidates. Other countries, such as the UK has also seen such phenomenons.

Does An Elected Official Represent The People If Turnout Is Too Low?

What does it mean for the health of a democracy if 75% of the electorate, for
whatever reason, did not actually vote for the winner?
Such a low voter turnout however, represents a concern for a genuine democracy
as a sufficient percentage of the electorate has either chosen not to vote, or not
been able to vote (or had their votes rejected).
Some countries mandate voting into law, for example, Belgium. Others require a
clear percentage of votes to be declared a winner which may result in the
formation of coalitions (oftentimes fragile) to get enough votes in total.
As far as I can find, there are no countries that entertain the thought of negative
votes, or voting for a list of candidates in order of preference that may help
provide some further indications as to which parties are really the popular ones.
For example, many accused Ralph Nader for Al Gores loss to George Bush in the
infamous 2000 US electionsignoring for the moment accusations that Bush
never won in the first place. If there had been the ability to list your preferred
candidates in order of preference, would many of Naders supporters put Gore as
their second option. Many right-wing alternatives may have put George Bush as
their alternatives too, but perhaps this would have encouraged those who do not
normally votesuch as those believed that their vote for a third candidate would
have been pointlessto vote?

Why A Low Voter Turnout?

There are numerous reasons for low voter turnout, including

Voter apathy
Disenfranchisement
Parties not representing people
Voter intimidation

The common criticism leveled at those who do not vote seems to be to blame
them for being apathetic and irresponsible, noting that with rights come
responsibilities. There is often some truth to this, but not only are those other
reasons for not voting lost in this blanket assumption of apathy, but voting itself
isnt the only important task for an electorate.

Being able to make informed decisions is also important. In many nations,

including prominent countries, there is often a view that the leading parties are
not that different from each other and they do not offer much to the said voter. Is
choosing not to vote then apathy or is it an informed decision? In other cases, the
media may not help much, or may be partisan making choices harder to make.
In some countries voter intimidation can take on violent forms and discourage
people to vote for anyone other than a militias favored group. (A recent example
is that of Zimbabwe where the leading opposition felt they had to withdraw from
the election process as voter intimidation by militias supporting Robert Mugabe
was getting too violent. Mugabes government decided to carry on with the
elections anyway, which seemed pointless to most but not to him; as he
obviously wouldand didwin.)
These concerns will be explored further later on.

Back to top
Paradoxes Of Democracy
Democracy, with all its problems, also has its paradoxes. For example,
People may vote in non-democratic forces
Democracies may discriminate the minority in favor of the majority
Those with non-democratic political ambitions may use the ideals of
democracy to attain power and influence
More propaganda may be needed in democracies than some totalitarian
regimes, in order to gain/maintain support for some aggressive actions and
policies (such as waging war, rolling back hard-won rights, etc.)
Regular elections lead to short government life-time. This seems to result
in more emphasis on short term goals and safer issues that appeal to populist
issues. It also diverts precious time toward re-election campaigns
Anti-democratic forces may use the democratic process to get voted in or
get policies enacted in their favor. (For example, some policies may be voted
for or palatable because of immense lobbying and media savvy campaigning
by those who have money (individuals and companies) even if some policies
in reality may undermine some aspects of democracy; a simple example is
how the free speech of extremist/racist groups may be used as an excuse to
undermine a democratic regime)
Those with money are more able to advertise and campaign for elections
thus favoring elitism and oligarchy instead of real democracy
Deliberate confusion of concepts such as economic preferences and
political preferences (e.g. Free Markets vs. Communism economic
preferences, and liberal vs authoritarian political preferences) may allow for
non-democratic policies under the guise of democracy
Democracies may, ironically perhaps, create a more effective military as
people chose to willingly support their democratic ideals and are not forced to
fight.

Some of these are discussed further, here:

Voting In Non-Democratic Forces

Two examples of this paradox are the following:
Hitler and his party were voted in. He then got rid of democracy and started his
gross human rights violations and genocidal campaigns as a dictator.
Hamas was also recently voted in by Palestinians. The International community
(really the Western countries) withheld funds and aid because Hamas is regarded
as a terrorist organization (though most Palestinians would seem to disagree).
The lack of aid, upon which the Palestinians have been quite dependent
contributed to friction amongst Palestinians who support Hamas and those that
do not and this has been amplified by the worsening economic situation there.
The Israel/Lebanon conflict also affected the Gaza Strip contributing to the infighting between various Palestinian factions.
The Hitler example highlights the importance media and propaganda play and
the need for continued open self-criticism to guard against these tendencies.
The Hamas example is complicated by the general Middle East situation and the
view on the one hand that American/Israeli power and influence in Palestine is
undermining peace between Israel and Palestine, while on the other hand, the
terrorist activities of Hamas and other organizations push American and Israel to
even more authoritarian reactions.
That the majority of Palestinian people would vote in Hamas suggests that they
have not seen the fruit of any recent attempts at a peace process (which has
long been regarded by the international community minus the US and Israel
as one-sided) and this has driven people to vote for a more hard line view.

Minorities Losing Out To Majorities

Another criticism of democracy is that sometimes what the majority votes for or
prefers, may not necessarily be good for everyone. A common example plaguing
many countries which have diversity in race and religion is that a dominant group
may prefer policies that undermine others.
Some quick examples include Nigeria which has large Christian and Muslim
populations; some Muslims there, and in other countries, want Sharia Law, which
not all Muslim necessarily want, let alone people of other faiths. If only a very
slight majority can override a very large minority on such an important issue as
how one should live, then there is a real chance for tension and conflict.
Another example is India, often help us an example of pluralism throughput the
ages, despite all manner of challenges. Yet, unfortunately an Indian government

report finds that its claims to religious integration and harmony are on far shakier grounds

than previously believed . Muslims in India, for example, a large minority, are also
under-represented and seem to be seen as Indias new underclass.

Wealthier countries also have similar problems, ranging from France with its
challenge to integrate/assimilate a large foreign population, to Spain which
struggles with a large Basque population wanting independence, to the US where
large immigrant populations are struggling to integrate.
To address such potential issues requires more tolerance, understanding, and
openness of society, such that people are not insecure due to the presence of
others (and so that they do not, as a result, turn to more extreme/fundamental
aspects of their own beliefs). This can come through various outlets, including, a
diverse mainstream media, institutions such as religious and legal ones,
schooling, family upbringings, etc
Equally important are the underlying economic conditions and situations of a
country. Generally, it seems, where economically people are generally doing well,
where the inequality gap is not excessive, people have less of a reason to opt for
more defensive, reactionary or aggressive policies that undermine others.
At the same time, concerns of undesirable social engineering would also need to
be addressed, and it is likely that in different countries there will be different
formulas for this to be successful, for the historical context within which people
live, the specific circumstances of the day and various other factors will differ
amongst and within nations.

The Fear Of The Public And Disdain Of Democracy From Elites (While Publicly
Claiming To Supporting It)
People often see democracy as an equalizing factor that should not allow the
elite or wealthy in a society to rule in an autocratic, despotic, unaccountable
manner. Instead they have to respond to the will of the people, and ultimately be
accountable to them. Furthermore and ideally, it should not only be the wealthy
or elite that hold the power. There should be some form of equality when
representing the nation.
However, this has also meant at least two accompanying phenomena:
Democracy is seen as a threat to those in power, who worry about the
masses, referring to them as a mob, or some other derogatory phrase
(tyranny of the majority is another), and
To get votes, parties may appeal to populist issues which are often
sensational or aim for short-term goals of elections.
Interestingly, leading up to the 2006 US mid-term elections, amidst all sorts of
allegations of corruption coming to light, in an interview by Democracy Now!,
writer James Moore, provided a classic example of political utility: Karl Rove, the
influential, but controversial, advisor and strategist for President George W. Bush,

despite actively campaigning to get the Religious Right to support Bush was
not religious at all (and possibly despised the evangelical Christian extremists
that he actively worked to get the votes of) and Bush himself apparently called
them wackos years earlier:
James Moore: What people do not realize about [Karl Rove] is that everything
about him is political utility. When he looked at what was going on with the
megachurches ... Karl decided he was going to take these gigantic churches on
the Christian right and to turn them into a gigantic vote delivery system. And
thats precisely what he has done. This is not a man who has deeply held
religious faith. Its a man who believes that faith can be used to drive voters to
the polls. In fact, his own president, in an interview withor an offhand
unguarded moment aboard the press plane with my co-author, Wayne Slater, had
referred to the Christian right and the fundamentalists north of Austin as
whackos. They hold these people in more disdain than these individuals are
aware of.

Karls Rove Secret , Democracy Now, November 2, 2006

This is just one example, where parties have simply targeted people to get votes
for power. And yet, many in the religious right believe that Bush represents them and
some even see him as an instrument of God , showing just how effective political
utility and manipulation has been.
Noting that different people refer to, and think of democracy in different ways,
(even some despots have called themselves democratic!), Bernard Crick
concedes that,
We must not leap to the conclusion that there is a true democracy which is a
natural amalgam of good government as representative government, political
justice, equality, liberty, and human rights. For such volatile ingredients can at
times be unstable unless in carefully measured and monitored combinations. Is
good government or social justice unequivocally democratic, even in the
nicest liberal senses? Probably not. Tocqueville wrote in the 1830s of the
inevitability of democracy, but warned against the dangers of a tyranny of the
majority. Well, perhaps he cared less for democracy than he did for liberty. But
even Thomas Jefferson remarked in the old age that an elective despotism was
not what we fought for; ... John Stuart Mill whose Essay on Liberty and
Considerations on Representative Government are two of the great books of the
modern world, came to believe that every adult (yes, women too) should have
the vote, but only after compulsory secondary education had been instituted and
had time to take effect.

Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press,

2002), pp.10-11
Democracy Requires More Propaganda To Convince Masses

In a democracy, people are generally accustomed to questioning their

government, and should be empoweredand encouragedto do so.
In some countries, healthy cynicism has given way to outright contempt or
excessive cynicism at anything a government official promises!
What this does mean, however, is that those with ambitions of power and ulterior
agendas have to therefore resort to even more propaganda and media savvy
manipulation, as Crick notes:
Totalitarian ... was a concept unknown and unimaginable in a pre-industrial age
and one that would have been impossible but for the invention and spread of
democracy as majority power. For both autocrats and despots depend in the
main on a passive population; they had no need to mobilize en masse....
Napoleon was to say: the politics of the future will be the art of mobilizing the
masses. Only industrialization and modern nationalism created such imperatives
and possibilities.

Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press,

2002), p.15
Media co-opting is one strategy that may be employed as a result, as Australian
journalist, John Pilger notes:
Long before the Soviet Union broke up, a group of Russian writers touring the
United States were astonished to find, after reading the newspapers and
watching television, that almost all the opinions on all the vital issues were the
same. In our country, said one of them, to get that result we have a
dictatorship. We imprison people. We tear out their fingernails. Here you have
none of that. How do you do it? Whats the secret?

John Pilger, In the freest press on earth, humanity is reported in terms of its
usefulness to US power , 20 February, 2001
(This sites sections on the mainstream media and propaganda looks at these issues
in more depth. The buildup to the Iraq invasion is also an example of the lengths
that governments of two democracies, the US and UK, would go to to gain
support for their cause.)

Limited Time In Power Means Going For Short Term Policies

Many democracies have rules that elections must be held regularly, say every 4
or 5 years. The short life span of governments is there for an important reason: it
prevents a party becoming entrenched, dictatorial, stagnant or less caring of the
population over time. Competition in elections encourages people to stay on their
toes; governments knowing they must deliver, and potential candidates/parties
knowing they can participate with a chance.

Yet, at the same time, the short-termism that results has its problems too. As
Crick also notes, in two of the worlds most prominent countries, democracy has
almost become a mockery of what it is meant to be:
Today, the politics of the United States and Great Britain become more and more
populist: appeals to public opinion rather than to reasoned concepts of coherent
policy. Political leaders can cry education, education, education, but with their
manipulation of the media, sound-bites, and emotive slogans rather than
reasoned public debate, [John Stuart] Mill might have had difficulty recognizing
them as products of an educated democracy. And our media now muddle or
mendaciously confuse what the public happens to be interested in with older
concepts of the public interest.

Bernard Crick, Democracy: A Very Short Introduction, (Oxford University Press,

2002), p.11
[Side note: Noam Chomsky also details many times how the national interests
have been used as a euphemism for the interests of only certain groups, such as
some industry group, the government, a military industrial complex, or some
other elitist/influential/powerful group.]

Anti-Democratic Forces Undermine Democracy Using Democratic Means

In a number of countries, governments may find themselves facing hostile
opposition (verbal and/or physical/military). Some governments find this
opposition has foreign support, or, because of their own failures has created a
vacuum (either a power vacuum, participation vacuum or some other failure that
has allowed people to consider alternatives seriously). When a legitimate
government is then deliberating, or taking, stronger actions, that government
can easily be criticized for rolling back democracy, acting dictatorially or in some
way undermining the rights of their people. This can then strengthen the nondemocratic opposition further.
There are unfortunately countless examples of such foreign and domestic
interference with potential and actual democracies to be listed here. It is
common for example, to hear of say the former Soviet Union doing this.
Unfortunately, while less common to hear about it in the mainstream, western
governments have also been complicit in overthrowing and undermining
democracies in other parts of the world in favor of puppet regimes, be they
dictatorships or pseudo democracies. Two useful resources to read more about
these include J.W. Smiths Institute for Economic Democracy and the Noam
Chomsky archives.
One recent example worth highlighting here is Venezuela, where Hugo Chavez
managed to reverse a coup against him. This coup was aggressively supported
by many in the Venezuelan elite media and also by the US. After the coup, news
channels that actively supported the coup in 2002 to oust Chavez, were still
allowed to remain in operation (which many democracies would not usually
tolerate).

The main media outlet, RCTV, aggressively anti Chavez, was denied a renewal
license in 2007, not because it was critical of Chavez policies, but because a preChavez government law did not look too kindly on broadcasters encouraging
coups (after all, what government would!). RCTV and their supporters tried to
insist otherwise; that this was an issue of free speech. The US mainstream media
has generally been hostile to Chavez (as has been the Bush administration itself),
and this was therefore added to the other mis-characterizations often presented ,
lending credence to the view that Chavez is a dictator. In essence a law enacted
during the previous dictatorial regime (backed by the US and others) is now being
turned around and used against Chavez as another example of power-grabbing.
If and when nations such as the US want to further undermine the democratic
processes in Venezuela, such incidents will be brought back into the mainstream,
without these caveats, and a more favorable/puppet regime may likely be the
aim.
Chavez is not helping his own cause by his often vocal and inflammatory antics,
but it should not be forgotten how much foreign influence may be contributing to
the undermining of democracy tendencies. Venezuela has been through a
succession of dictatorships and many supporters of the previous regimes are in
the anti-Chavez groups. Regardless of whether one is pro- or anti- Chavez, it
certainly seems that democratic participation has increased during his tenure,
given all the increased political activity, both pro- and anti-Chavez.
In another example, for a number of years now, in the US, a number of Christian
groups in various Southern states have been campaigning hard to get schools to
either reject teaching subjects such as the theory of evolution in science classes,
or to balance them off with things like Creationism stories from the Bible or
Intelligent Design ideas, in the name of free speech and academic freedom. In
mid 2008, Louisiana became one of the first states to pass a religiously motivated
anti-evolution academic freedom law that was described by Ars Technica as
being remarkably selective in its suggestion of topics that need critical thinking,
as it cites scientific subjects including, but not limited to, evolution, the origins of
life, global warming, and human cloning.
(On this particular issue, the point is not to ban stories on Creationism; they are
better taught in religious classes, not science classes. Instead, religious views of
the world have been pushed forward arguing that scientific theories are just that,
ideas without proof, and so religious-based ones should compete on a level field
allowing people to make more informed decisions. Yet, often missed from that
is that scientific theories are usually based on a well-substantiated explanation
that gets tested whenever possible, whereas religious ideas usually are required
to be accepted on faith. More generally in the United States, there is however, a
growing concern at the rise in an extreme religious right that wants to replace the
democratic system with a Christian State .)
Although we are accustomed to hear about Muslim extremists pushing for
relgious-based states in various Middle East countries, this example is one in a
democracy where despite the principle of a separation of Church and State,

Christian religious extremists push forward with their agenda, anyway.)

Those With Money Are More Likely To Be Candidates

It is a common concern in many democratic countries that those with sufficient
funds, or fund-raising capability are the ones who will become the final
candidates that voters choose from. Some criticize candidates for selling out to
mega donor, who then expect favors in return.
Others, who may be more democratic, but are either poor, or lack the finances of
the leading contenders, or will not likely support policies that influential mega
donors support, will often lose out.
In the US for example, campaign finance reform has long been a concern. It has
been common to hear leading candidates only wanting themselves to appear on
television election debates because of concerns about technicalities such as
the time needed to accommodate other candidates with no realistic chance of
winning. Yet, one would think in a democracy, time should be afforded to make all
popular voices hear, not just the leading four from the two main parties, as that
just results in the leading four becoming unfairly popular at the expense of the
rest, and makes the concern they raise into a self-serving argument.
Understandably, finding time for all candidates might not be practical if there are
many, but always limiting it to the four from the two leading parties results in the
same choices people have to chose from each time, limiting diversity (especially
when many feel the two leading parties are quite similar on many issues).
Attempts to suggest caps on finances of any sort to address this undue influence
are met with support from those who have little, but ferocious resistance from
those who stand to lose out.
Newspapers and other media outlets are often less than impartial in election
campaigns. The high concentrated ownership of major media outlets does not
always bode well for democracies as it puts a lot of influence into a handful of
owners. For example, Rupert Murdochs ownership of the Sun tabloid in the UK
and the papers switch from being a long time Conservative supporter to Labour
supporter was described by many as a key reason that Tony Blair first came into
power in 1997.
In the US, it can be argued that the differences between some Democrats and
Republicans are quite small in the larger context, and the media owners come
from the same elite pool, thus reinforcing the impression of vast differences and
debate on major issues. The result is that many get put off and the remaining
who do want to vote have access to just a few voices from which to make any
notion of informed decisions.

Confusing Political Ideology With Economic Ideology

As discussed on this sites neoliberalism section, and explored in more depth at

thePolitical Compass web site, the mainstream often mixes concepts such as
democracy, authoritarian/totalitarian regimes, with free markets and communist
economic ideologies. The terms of left and right wing politics is a gross
oversimplification:

See the neoliberalism section for various other graphs that show how most major
political parties and leaders of major countries are more neoliberal/right wing,
even if they may be considered left (e.g. the Labour Party in UK).
In summary, democracy does not automatically require free markets and free
markets does not automatically require democracy. Many western governments
supported dictatorships during the Cold War that practiced free market
economics in a dictatorial/fascist manner, for example.
Leading up to World War II, a number of European nations saw their power
determined by fascists, often via a democratic process. Today, many European
democracies attempt a social model of economic development ranging from
socialist to somewhat managed markets.
To the alarm of the US which considers the area its area of political influence,
Latin America has been flirting with various socialist/left wing economic policies
and direct/radical democracy.
In the Indian state of Kerala, for example, a party was voted in that has put
communist practices in place with some reasonable success. Of course, many
communist regimes in reality have also been accompanied by dictatorships and
despots in an attempt to enforce that economic ideology.
And during the beginnings of free markets, the major European powers
promoting it were themselves hardly democratic. Instead they were dominated
by imperialist, racist, colonialist and aristocratic views and systems.
The point here is that by not making this distinction, policies can often be
highlighted that appear democratic, or even could undermine democracy
(depending on how it is carried out) as many African countries have experienced,
for example. As a recent example, as South Africa came out of apartheid, it was
praised for its move to democracy, its truth and reconciliation approach and
other political moves. Less discussed however, were the economic policies and
conditions that followed.
A report describing a conference celebrating 10 years of South African
independence from Apartheid noted how difficult a democratic system is to
establish when combined with factors like regional and international economics
(i.e. globalization) which were identified as being responsible for some of the
problems in the region:

In the conditions of a unipolar world and the development of multinationals,

which are highly technologically advanced, it is hard for Africa to find an entry
point into this globalised context.... The conference examined the implications
of the globalisation context for the prosperity of the regions economic structure
and the implications for the consolidation of democracy. The question of how the
international world relates to and indeed is responsible for some of the problems
was also deliberated at the conference. While the consensus was on Africans ...
taking responsibility for their own welfare and problems, the conference
acknowledged the interconnectivity among local, regional, continental and
international economies. Indeed, some of the economic problems of the countries
in the region can be traced back to their relationships with former colonial
masters. More recently, the structural adjustment programmes of the 1980s
continue to affect the economic stability of SADC countries.... provisional relief of
debt has been linked to certain conditions, including political conditionality, which
is basically a commitment to a narrow form of democracy, and economic policies,
which have created deeper disempowerment. Some African scholars have
dubbed this phenomenon choiceless democracies.
The link between globalisation and democratisation was further debated in the
economic session of the conference. Suffice to say, democracy is threatened
when a state cannot determine its own budget. The conditionality cripples the
development of a socially transformative democracy. A number of the debt
rescheduling agreements have fostered cutbacks on social spending, and have
created conditions of further economic marginalisation and social exclusion of the
poor. In the long term, the consolidation of democracy is threatened because the
conditions have the effect of fostering social unrest.

Nomboniso Gasa, Southern Africa, Ten Years after Apartheid; The Quest for
Democratic Governance , Idasa, 2004, p.11
One irony noted by John Bunzl of the Simultaneous Policy Organization (Simpol) is
that the worlds leading democracies have, through the lobbying by corporatefriendly think-tanks, governments and companies, unleashed a corporate-friendly
form of globalization that even they cant fully control. As a result, even these
countries are finding pressures on their democratic systems, resulting in
unpopular austerity measures and cutbacks in cherished services and rights,
such as health and education (though nowhere near to the level that has
happened in the developing world, under the benign phrase Structural Adjustment
).
How this has happened is detailed by many people. One detailed source to go to
might be the Institute for Economic Democracy and the work of J.W. Smith.

Democracies May Create A More Effective Military

It may seem ironic to many, considering that one principle underlying democracy
is the desire for freedom, but democracies may create a more effective military.
Unlike a totalitarian regime, or, in the past, systems that used slaves,

democracies that do not have forced military service, might create a more
effective military because people have to willingly chose to participate in military
institutions, and may have sufficient pride in protecting their democracy.
Of course, in reality it is more complex than that and democracy may be one
ingredient of many, but potentially an important one that is hard to fully measure
quantitatively. For example, sufficient funding, technology, skills and so on, are
all required too, to transform an eager and enthusiastic military to an effective
one.
Crick, quoted above, noted Platos observation that often a democratic system of
rule would need to allow the few to govern on behalf of the many. This is what
modern democracies typically are. But, as Crick notes, this has historically meant
rule by the few always needed to placate the many, especially for the defense of
the state and the conduct of war. (Democracy, p.17) In other words, propaganda
is needed. This occurs today, too, as discussed earlier.
In some countries, the military will offer lots of incentives to join (good salary,
subsidized education, etc.) which may appeal to poorer segments of society, so
defending ones democracy may not be the prime reason for joining the
military; it may be an important way for someone in poverty to overcome their
immediate predicament.
People may also be free to chose not to participate in a military, and/or reduce
the money spent on it. Hence, a lot of fear politics and propaganda may be
employed to gain support for excessive military spending, or to wage war, as the
build-up to war against Iraq by some of the worlds most prominent democracies
exemplified.
Many political commentators have noted, for example, that since the end of the
Cold War, the US has struggled to fully demilitarize and transform its enormous
military capacity into private, industrial capacity, and still spends close to Cold
War levels. (This has been observed way before the so-called War on Terror.)
Many regard the US as a more militarized state than most other industrialized
countries.

Back to top
Democracy, Extremism And War On Terror; People Losing Rights
Fear, Scare Stories And Political Opportunism
The use of fear in a democratic society is a well known tactic that undermines
democracy.
For example, the US has also been widely criticized for using the War on Terror
to cut back on various freedoms in the US, and often undermining democracy
and related principles. By raising fears of another terrorist attack it has been easy

to pass through harsher policies ranging from more stringent borders, to

snooping on citizens in various ways.
Another example is the US military commissions act in 2006 which has increased
already formidable presidential powers further, rolling back some key principles
of justice such ashabeas corpus (the traditional right of detainees to challenge
their detention), allowing the President to detain anyone indefinitely while giving
US officials immunity from prosecution for torturing detainees that were captured
before the end of 2005 by US military and CIA. (It is also an example of how a
seemingly non-democratic bill is passed in through a democratic system. The
previous link goes into this in a lot more detail.)
Fear, scare stories and political opportunism have also been a useful propaganda
tools during election time. For example, A November 6 Democracy Now!
interview noted that the US government had long ago predetermined when the

sentencing of Saddam Hussein would take place: conveniently just before the 2006 midterm elections so as to try and get extra votes through the appearance of a
successful action coming to a close.

Another example comes from the Iranian hostage crisis where Iranian students
held some American hostages for over a year: A documentary that aired on a
British cable channel (cannot recall details unfortunately) explained how Reagan,
challenging Carter in the US presidential race, used a propaganda stunt that also
helped him achieve popular support: Reagan and George H. W. Bush had struck a
deal with the Iranian mullahs to provide weapons if they released the hostages
the day after he was sworn in as President, rather than before, during Carters
term.
This would allow Reagan to be sworn in with a very positive and triumphant view,
and provide an image of him that could be used again and again in the future to
help bolster him and his party, even though, as Robert Parry commented, The
American people must never be allowed to think that the Reagan-Bush era began
with collusion between Republican operatives and Islamic terrorists, an act that
many might view as treason. [Robert Parry, The Bushes & the Truth About Iran ,
Consortium News, September 21, 2006]
Cynics will note (rightly) that such tactics are not new and they happen all the
time. The problem is that many people (often cynics themselves) believe it, or
importantly, believe it at that time. Because these things have happened
throughout history does not automatically mean it should also happen in the
future too.
Supposedly, society becomes more sophisticated and improves its knowledge of
how these aspects work. We are supposed to be able to learn from past
experiences, and if that were true, knowing that such things can happen, and yet
they continue to do so all the time also signals a weakness or problem in the
democratic institutions if such actions are not held accountable for they deceive
the public into mis-informed decisions.

This is an overly complex situation as it goes to the heart of society and

questions whether a society suffering this problem is truly democratic if
systemically the mainstream media fails to hold those in power to account, either
through fear of criticism that they are not being patriotic or through being part of
the same elite establishment that reinforces each others views and perspectives,
etc. The point is, perhaps regardless of whether this is easy to address or not,
there may be a fundamental problem: not enough democracy, openness,
transparency and accountability, thus letting these things happen, repeatedly.

Weak Democracies And Hostile Oppositions

It seems that where democracies are weak (e.g. through government corruption,
favoritism, or incompetence, or just because a nation is newly emerging, or only
recently moving out of dictatorship and towards democracy) there is a greater
risk in the rise of hostile opposition.
Sundeep Waslekar is president of the Strategic Foresight Group, a respectable
think tank from India. He captures these concerns describing how this can pave
the way for extremism:
Bangladesh has terrorist groups belonging to Islamist as well as leftist ideologies.
They gathered strength in the late 1990s in a political vacuum created by
constant infighting between the principal leaders of the democratic politics. The
situation in Bangladesh is similar to that in Nepal, which had autocratic rule in
one form or another until 1991. With the induction of democracy in 1991, it was
hoped that the voiceless would now have a space to press for their priorities.
However, those in power, in partnership with their capitalist cronies,
concentrated on the development of the capital region. They also engaged in
such a bitter fight with one another that democracy was discredited as a reliable
institution, creating a void that was quickly filled by extremists. In the case of
Nepal, the Maoists stepped in. In the case of Bangladesh, it was the extremists of
the left and the religious right. Having tested popular support, they have
developed a vested interest in their own perpetuation. The result is that the
Nepali political parties have had to accept an arrangement with the Maoists while
the Bangladeshi political parties are courting Islamic extremists.

Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.6
As Waslekar also argues, the forces of extremism can be more dangerous than
the forces of terrorism:
Terrorism involves committing acts of [criminal] violence.... As they tend to be
illegal, it is conceivable for the state machinery to deal with them. Extremism
may not involve any illegal acts. In fact, extremism may surface using democratic
means.

Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.14

Waslekar notes that extremism often takes a religious face, and is not just in
parts of the Middle East and other Islamic countries (Islamic extremism), but
growing in countries and regions such as the United States (Christian extremism),
Europe (racism and xenophobia of a small minority of White Europeans, and
Islamic extremism by a small minority of Muslim immigrants), India (Hindu
extremism), Israel (Jewish extremism), Sri Lanka (Buddhist extremism), Nepal
(Maoists), Uganda (Christian extremism) and elsewhere.
Furthermore Waslekar finds that a closer look at the patterns of terrorism and
extremism around the world reveals that there are some common drivers
grievances and greed leading to supply and demand. There is clear evidence
that young people are drawn to the terrorist or extremist mindset because they
feel excluded by the society around them or by the policy framework of the
state.
And it is not necessarily absolute poverty that has the potential to breed new
recruits for terrorist organizations, but more likely inequality and relative poverty.
People suffering absolute poverty are generally struggling for their daily lives,
and less likely to have the leisure to think about their grievances and injustices.
Another issue that Waslekar summarizes well is how terrorism is understood and
reported:
Whether it is the mainstream media or the blogs, the analysis of the global
security environment revolves around the mutual love-hate relationship between
Western and Islamic countries. The fact that there are more serious patterns of
terrorism elsewhere in the world is ignored by both sides. The fact that there are
issues bigger than the growing mutual hatred between Western and Islamic
countries is forgotten. In the eyes of the Western elite and its media, the death of
5000 odd people in terrorist attacks launched by Al Qaeda and its affiliates in the
last five years is the ultimate threat to global security. In the eyes of Arab public
opinion, the death of 50,000 to 500,000 innocent people in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Lebanon and the Palestine is the real tragedy. Both sides forget that their woes
are serious but that some 50 million children lost their lives in the last five years
since 9/11 due to policy neglect by a world that is overly obsessed with one
issue.

Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.20
What do these issues have to do with democracy? A functioning, democratic
society is ideally one that is able to take inputs from different segments of
society and attempt to address them. Issues such as inequality and
social/political differences may have a better chance of being resolved without
resort to violence in a process that actually is (and is also seen to be) open,
accountable and inclusive.

Lack Of Inclusiveness Undermines Democracy, Strengthens Extremism

Democracy by it self is no panacea as the various issues here have shown, but is
a crucial part of the overall process. A functioning mainstream media has a
democratic duty to inform citizens, but around the world the media repeatedly
fails to do so, and often reflects its regional biases or perspectives of an
established elite few. If concerns and grievances are not addressed, or if they
addressed through violence, Waslekar warns of an age of competitive
fundamentalism and is worth quoting again, this time at length:
The project of collaborative development of human knowledge and culture that
began under the sponsorship of Arab and Islamic rulers a thousand years ago
eventually became subject to the West. The Palestinian issue has been a symbol
of the continuation of the Western monopoly on power ... Iraq has been added as
another symbol not only of this Western power and arrogance, but also of
Western callousness. The rhetoric about Syria and Iran pose the risk of more such
symbols arising.
As the Arab elite have failed to provide an effective response to the Western
stratagem, Islamic preachers have come up with an alternative vision ... not in
harmony with Islams core message of peace, learning, and coexistence. On the
contrary, it presents an absolutist idea of the society. On the other hand, the
Christian Evangelical preachers and European xenophobic politicians present
visions of a closed society to their followers. It seems that the world is entering
an age of competitive fundamentalism.
While the West is obsessed with the Middle East, forces of extremism and
nationalism in Asia and Latin America pose the real challenge to its monopoly
and arrogance. Western discourse on terrorism and extremism is focused on the
Arab region at its own peril.... The conditions for relative deprivation prevail all
over the world, from Muslim migrants in Western Europe, the poor in the
American mid-west to farmers in Colombia and the Philippines. The intellectual
project to define terrorism only in relation to the groups in the Middle East turns a
blind eye to the growth of terrorism and extremism not only outside the Middle
East, in Asia and Latin America, but also in the American and European
homelands.
In the age of competitive fundamentalisms, human rights and liberties are
compromised. The states ... may indulge in human rights violations. And at times
they may use terrorism as an excuse to punish legitimate opposition. Several
people are more afraid of anti terrorist measures than acts of terror. Thus,
terrorism abets authoritarianism and undermines freedom. Since many of the
states today engaged in counter terrorism campaigns claim to be champions of
freedom, terrorist groups defeat them philosophically by forcing them to
undermine the freedom of innocent civilians. Terrorism wins when powerful
security agencies forbid mothers from freely carrying milk and medicine for their
infants on aeroplanes. Terrorism wins when democratically elected
representatives cannot allow their constituents to move about freely around
them. Terrorism wins when states use it as an excuse to kill their enemies, giving
birth to a thousand suicide bombers.
Competitive fundamentalism threatens trust between individuals and societies.

 Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, pp.24-25
Back to top
Democratic Choice: Parties Or Issues?
Democracies seem easy to manipulate in some circumstances. It may be during
election campaigns when issues are oversimplified into simple slogans (e.g.
education, education, education), and emotive issues (which may be hyped
and exaggerated, such as immigration). Or it may be during fund raising for
political parties (often from influential contributors with their own agendas), or it
may be when running government where corruption, lack of transparency and
unaccountability affects even the wealthiest of nations who are proud to be
democratic.
The free press should act as a natural check against these issues in a functioning
democracy, yet intertwined interests and agendas result in them often being
mouthpieces of parties or just a press-release machine that unwittingly follows an
agenda set by others resulting in limited analysis outside those boundaries.
Perhaps the way parties are voted into power is an issue?

Representative And Direct Democracy

Most democracies are representative democracies, whereby votes are usually for
parties who propose candidates for various government positions. By their
nature, representative democracies these days require lots of funding to get
heard, which opens itself up to corruption. There are usually constitutions to
check the power of representatives, but even this can be open to abuse.
One alternative is known as direct democracy where instead of voting for
intermediaries, votes should be cast on issues themselves. Direct democracy
may help prevent the perversion of democracy by those with power interests
through the financing of parties and their various machines to garner votes. On
the other hand, a possible risk with direct democracy may be that there is much
more emphasis on voting for issues, which may mean minority groups do not get
represented fairly, depending on the issues.
There is also the challenge of scale. Direct democracy may be ideal for small
organizations and communities, including thousands of participants. But what
about tens of millions? Referendums in various countries on all sorts of issues
have shown that direct democracy is possible, but how can this be applied to a
more daily routine on more routine and complex issues? Is it even possible, and
how would issues come to the fore? The risk of demagogy is therefore a concern.
For more details, benefits and challenges of each, see for example, the overviews
from Wikipedia on representative democracy and direct democracy .

In either case, informed opinion would be paramount, which places importance

on news media outlets to be truly impartial and broad in its diversity of issues
covered. With globalization today, and the accompanying concentration of media
in many countries, often owned by large global companies , the diversity and
variety of views are suffering.

Voting
An interesting aside is an Internet-based project called the global vote , to allow
direct voting on global issues, which go beyond national boundaries, or allow
people to vote on aspects of policies in the countries of others.
This is interesting in a few ways. For example, voting beyond the nation state is
something new, ironically perhaps afforded by globalization which some see as
undermining democracy. It is also enabled by modern technology (the Internet in
this case).
On the issue of technology, attempts to introduce other types of technology into
voting, such as e-voting machines have been plagued with problems of
insecurity, difficult usability for some people, lack of open access to the
underlying source code, and even incorrect recording of votes, or possible
manipulation. This is discussed further, below.

What Makes Voting Meaningful?

Voting in a democracy is based on the assumption of a free and informed
decision.
Without these you end up with an autocratic system pretending to be a
democratic system while people believe they have made a free and informed
choice. Over time, as a population becomes accustomed to living in such a
system a self-perpetuating belief takes hold where the population believe that
the system is democratic, even as informed opinion, political diversity and
choices are reduced. Such a system is then able to sustain itself, having grown
from the initial illusion of free choice.
The crucial challenge therefore is how to ensure the decision is free (and not
influenced unduly by propaganda or some other form of manipulation) and
informed (how does one get a full range of information? Is it even possible?).

Evaluative Democracy
Ensuring free decisions and informed decisions are of course are clearly
interlinked, and political scientist Stephen Garvey thoroughly argues that voting
the way it is typically done is so flawed that a more evaluative approach to
democracy would be a better way to judge progress, determine leaders, and
ultimately achieve a better (and real) democracy. This, he argues, is because an
evaluative democracy

 Minimizes the role of political influence and manipulation by making the

focus of political determinations on citizen evaluations which are based on the
collective interest.
Minimizes political campaigning.
Minimizes or eliminates the role of political organizations.
Minimizes the role of money.
Establishes accountability of political and governmental decision-making
through the standard of collective interest.
In essence, democracy (and the various issues raised for debate) would then
driven by the people, not by leading political parties who decide the agendas
based on their interests (which also results in a very narrow set of issues being
discussed, and often contributes to low voter turnout). This has the potential,
then, to be a much more people-driven (i.e. democratic) approach.
For more information see Garveys book, Anti-Election:Pro-Determination
(Inexpressible Publications, 2007) and the web site, Evaluative Democracy .

Back to top
Election Challenges
Campaign Financing
In countries that have representative democracies a problem with election
campaigning is that it requires a lot of money, and raising it often means
appealing to those who have sufficient money to donate.
In the US, this has led to the criticism that both Democrats and Republicans have
had to court big business and do not necessarily represent the majority of the
people, as a result.
Such enormous campaign financing has meant that other potentially popular
candidates have not been able to get further because they have not been able to
spend as much on advertising and marketing.
This means that not only do political parties court big financiers but that these
large entities/businesses and wealthy individuals can use the media to push their
own agendas and interests which may not necessarily represent majority views.
Numerous calls for limits are welcomed by those without money, but resisted by
those with it, for clearly one set of people would gain, while another would lose
out.
This very much sounds more like a system of oligarchy, rather than democracy,
as Aristotle had long warned of, quoted near the beginning of this article.

In the US, activists have been trying to raise the issue of campaign financing for
years, but it recently took on another dimension as limits to campaign financing
were removed. Kanya DAlmeida recently summarized this in an article in Inter
Press Service:
The richest one percent has hijacked the very foundations of democracy in a
country whose constitution of 1787 promised to be by the people, for the people.

[A US Supreme Court ruling in January 2010 that Congress cannot limit spending
by corporations in elections] struck at the very heart of what many U.S. citizens
have felt for years that despite a careful constitutional separation of the
executive, legislative and judicial branches of the government, corporate capital
had infected the body politic from head to toe.

Kanya DAlmeida, US: Money Isnt Speech, Corporations Arent People ,

Inter Press Service, January 21, 2012
This has also meant it has been hard to find out specific details about campaign
financing:
By ruling that the government cannot curb spending and lobbying by unions,
corporations or even powerful individual stakeholders, the Supreme Court greenlit the proliferation of Super PACs (political action committees) that are unfettered
by electoral laws or transparency and free to pour unprecedented amounts of
money into campaigns of their choosing.
Super PACs can also drag their feet on releasing hard data on how much money
actually changes hands during election cycles and, in the new arena of impunity
granted by the Supreme Court, can accept donations from registered 501(c)
nonprofit entities that are exempt from exposing the identities of those who
bankroll elections at will.
Much of this money is funneled directly into TV ads, the bulk of them bordering
on smear campaigns against opposing candidates.

Kanya DAlmeida, US: Money Isnt Speech, Corporations Arent People ,

Inter Press Service, January 21, 2012
In addition to using the media to push their agendas and equally important, the
US mainstream media also stands to gain:
According to investment banking and asset management firm Needham and Co.,

television stations this year will rake in as much as eight billion dollars from political
campaigns.

 Kanya DAlmeida, US: Money Isnt Speech, Corporations Arent People ,

Inter Press Service, January 21, 2012 [Emphasis added]
In a country that has a lot of concentrated ownership of media, is there a
potential conflict of interest; the mainstream media may not have as much
interest in discussing these issues in too much depth for they stand to benefit
from it.
In the US, this is just one of many other issues that affect the nations
democracy, which this sites section on the media in the US looks at further.

Electronic Voting: Efficiency Or Easier For Corruption?

In a Democracy Now! broadcast on November 6, 2006 (just before US midelections) the issues being discussed were various ways that people were being
prevented from voting .New York Times editor, Adam Cohen, who had been
following this also talked about the problems with electronic voting machines,
summarizing that they are really not very good at making these machines
because they had all sorts of problems, even registering the wrong vote (e.g.
some people put down a Democrat candidate and the summary page asking for
confirmation showed it said a Republican candidate).
An HBO documentary Hacking democracy exposed numerous problems with
electronic voting software/hardware in the US from a leading company, Diebold.
The documentary described how easy it was to tamper with the software and
hardware. The initial question it asked was how do you know if the vote count is
correct and accurate? How does America count its vote?
What they found was secrecy, votes in the trash, and how to change the course
of history through things like extremely easy manipulation of electronic voting.
An example they noted was during the Al Gore/Bush campaign, a computer
counted Al Gores votes backwards in Volusia County, Florida; he had negative
votes. An investigation established that it could not have been through a
computer glitch. Instead, it was thought it might have been tampering, but noone will know for sure; It is against the law to look at the software used in
electronic voting systems.
Furthermore, the documentary noted you cant necessarily rely on the vote
produced by the voting machines; As Democracy Now! had discussed above, this
documentary had footage showing that when a vote was cast for a certain
candidate, another candidate was repeatedly selected!
A concerned citizen-turned-activist discovered the code for GEMS the computer
software code for some 40% of Diebolds electronic voting software in use.
Passwords, specifications, etc were all available. That was when the wall of

secrecy around how these systems work, began to fall.

Computer Science PhDs at John Hopkins were shown the software code, and
found:
You could hack into the system without having to know how it works
Security holes allowed serious manipulations
It was not a problem limited to just Diebold
$55 million was supposedly spent on security, accuracy and other critical
features, a Diebold representative told Channel 4 News in UK. Yet the
computer scientists broke into the system in 10 seconds.
There were countless more examples showing just how problematic electronic
voting software has been even though the use of technology usually gives the
impression of sophistication and accuracy.
The problem is not limited to the US. The Open Rights Group, a technology
organization in the UK that works on civil liberties issues in relation to digital
technology reported on e-counting of votes cast in the 2008 London Elections . They
found that independent election observers were unable to state reliably whether
the results declared in the May 2008 elections for the Mayor of London and the
London Assembly are an accurate representation of voters intentions.
When the independent observers tried to actually observer the votes being
counted, they could not and were hampered by the technology put in place.
Furthermore, they found that an audit of the software used to count the vote
could not be published because of commercial confidentiality. As they noted, for
a public election these are very serious concerns because transparency in the
election process is crucial. And yet, the election software company is to be paid
some 4.5 million for delivering this solution (approximately $9 million).

Media Manipulation And Ownership

As discussed earlier, a free and impartial media is important for a functioning
democracy. However, as also detailed in other parts of this web site, a lot of

mainstream media suffers from concentrated ownership by a handful of companies that

usually results in less diversity of views being aired , as those owning companies
have their own interests to protect and promote.

In the US and UK for example, there have been various cases of media outlet
parent companies contributing to election campaigns or candidates/parties.
Famously, Tony Blair got support by Ruper Murdoch and the Sun tabloid, usually a
right-leaning paper, which helped him come to power in 1997.
In Italy when Silvio Berlusconi became Prime Minister (on more than one
occasion), he was a powerful media mogul and was able to use that to good
effect to promote his agenda andsometimes controversial views . As one of Italys
richest men he was also embroiled invarious allegations of corruption , including

from the influential Economist magazine. Berlusconi has been able to use his
influence in business, media and politics to avert much criticism and charges in
various ways.
In Venezuela there has been both an intense anti-Chavez mainstream media, but
also a state run channel where Chavez has had is own TV program. (As an
interesting aside, Chavezs recent election winan overwhelming winhas been
described by some foreign media as an example of amassing more power . The
irony here may be that he may have won a popular democratic vote, but because
he is not looked at favorably by nations such as the US, and because many of the
mainstream media outlets of those other nations often follow the
government/establishment position on such things, the reporting by the
mainstream media from there reflected that government position. Had Bush or
any other US presidential candidate won US elections with such a majority it is
unlikely to be described as amassing more power, but rather an example of
democracy and overall success and popularity of that candidate.)

Media Reporting
Danny Schechter, a media expert, wonders out aloud why we see some repeated
good quality analysis (after an election) of why election reporting may have been
problematic, and yet those problems occur again the next time:
After every election, there are post-mortems and then, after that, come the
studies to confirm the presence of many institutional and deep seated flaws in
our ritualized electoral-democracy.
Annually, journalists acknowledge their own limits and mistakes. The honest ones
admit there was a uniformity of outlook in which the horse race is over-covered
and the issues under covered.
They concede that there was a focus on polls without explaining their limits
adequately or how polls in turn are affected by the volume and slant of media
coverage. There are criticisms of how negative ads and entertainment values
infiltrated election coverage, what Time magazine calls "electotainment." They
bemoan the fact that there was more spin and opinionizing than reporting along
with less investigative reporting.
And then they do it all over again.

Danny Schechter, The 2006 Election: Another Nail in our Democratic Coffin?,
ZNet, December 11, 2006
While Schechter is specifically commenting on US elections, these similar
concerns often apply to many other countries, rich and poor.

Campaigning On Personalities And Sound-Bites

Schechter above commented on the negative ads in US. This involves a lot of
excessive and pointless attacking and degrading of opponents, rather than
focusing on issues. It often involves a form of spin and slanting just to make the
other candidate look bad, and both Democrats and Republicans get involved in
this.
In the UK recent elections have been accompanied hype on populist issues such
as immigration which, while the have issues, have been exaggerated and blown
out of proportion to the issue itself.
The image of the candidate is often paramount, in that they must appear to
support or not support a particular issue. Some media reports will try to make the
most out of some minor issue such as appearance on a particular day and see if
they can read any signals from it. The personality of the candidates themselves
also become major issues.
Such tactics are arguably a waste of resources, and divert attention away from
real issues which then get less time to be debated. Unfortunately these tactics
will always be pursued because some of these do affect peoples views and
opinions. It is well known that appearance, for example, does affect peoples
opinions, regardless of whether it should or should not.

Threats Of Violence And Intimidation

For developing countries in particular, the road to democracy is often fraught
with dangers. In some cases militias threaten violence if their supported leaders
are not voted for, or if some people choose to vote at all.
In East Timor militias supporting (and some accuse, supported by) the Indonesian
ruling regime at the time resorted to enormous levels of violence, killings and
intimidation to prevent people voting. Nonetheless in this case, the majority did
vote, and achieve independence. Democracy has not automatically solved all the
problems since, but it is a start.
In Burma/Myanmar, the military junta simply imprisoned/house-arrested the
democratically elected Aung San Suu Kyi.
In the Democratic Republic of Congo, as well as inheriting elements of brutal
colonial past, the nations rich resources have been a curse. Numerous
neighboring countries and corporate interests (e.g. diamonds, mineral
companies) have interacted into what has became numerous wars. Attempts at
meaningful peace have proven largely unsuccessful.
Sierra Leone and many other countries going through conflict have militias that
intimidate people to vote a certain way.
Zimbabwe has had similar problems of militias intimidating, even killing
opposition supporters leading to the June 2008 elections, as noted much earlier.

It is extremely difficult in countries whose borders have been artificially imposed

in recent decades. Countries such as the United Kingdom have had centuries to
eventually integrate peacefully (Northern Ireland perhaps being an exception, as
it is also a more recent struggle). Poorer countries, that have been around mostly
only since a decade or two after the Second World War not only have had a
shorter time span to consider, but also have another major factor affecting them:
foreign influence and interference in democratic decision-making and election
processes.

Disenfranchisement Of Voters
In a Democracy Now! broadcast on November 6, 2006 (just before the US midelections) the issues being discussed were various ways that people were being
prevented from voting . The broadcast interviewed New York Times editor, Adam
Cohen, who had been following this concern in detail and gave various examples
of attempts to try and use rules that appear fair but are actually designed to
prevent a certain group of people from voting so that a certain party will win. If
parties can do it, they will try, he implies.
Furthermore, if you look back at the history of voting in the United States, there
has always been an attempt to use rules of various kinds to stop certain people
from voting. Its always been a partisan thing. One party realizes if it stops a
particular ethnic group or racial group from voting, it may win, and they adopt
rules that appear to be neutral, but actually arent neutral at all.
As shocking and concerning as some of these tactics are, these issues of course
are not limited to the US, and in some countries, attempts to prevent groups of
people from voting are far worse, including use of violence as noted above. The
US was chosen as an example here because of the high regard people have for
its democratic process. If democratic principles are easy to violate in the US, then
many other countries will have even worse problems.

Back to top
Democratic Governments And The Military
In a truly functioning democracy, the military has to be subservient to the people.
The US and most other industrialized democracies are a good example of this.
The military pledges to serve the purpose of protecting democracy. (Ignore for
the moment the issue of democratic governments waging war on other countries,
sometimes against the wishes of their population.)
There are times when we witness military coups in a country where the generals
coming into power claim it is in order to route out corruption that has made a
mockery of their democratic systems, or some other such reason. The rule, they
say, is temporary and necessary, but only until conditions are okay to restore
democracy.
Yet, many times this has either been an excuse, or, even when intentions may

have been genuine, dictatorship lingers on. One example is Pakistan. Enormous
corruption in the democratic government was a reason cited by by General
Musharraf when he lead a military coup. He promised a restoration of democracy
as soon as possible. Many years later, the world was still waiting. Finally, rather
than keeping to his promise, it was intense pressure (and miscalculation by his
group, or those who favor him, by assassinating opposition leader and former
Prime Minister, Benezir Bhutto) that led to Musharraf to give in, allowing elections
in February 2008.
During this time, numerous other democracies looked the other way, as
Musharraf was useful in the war on terror and some Western media eventually
started to refer to him as President Musharraf, even though originally he was
referred to as General Musharraf (which is what the media will often use when
reporting on such rulers in in hostile countries. Ironically in Venezuela, former
General, Huge Chavez, has occasionally been referred to as General Chavez, to
give the impression that the country is a fake democracy being run by a military
person. That would be equivalent of say someone like General Wesley Clark
becoming President of the US and referring to him as General Clark).
Thailand has also seen a similar situation to that of Pakistan. And time again will
have to tell if the military dictatorship is genuine in its desire for establishing
democracy or not.
Another major factor for military coups and dictatorships that have overthrown
fledgling governments is because of external factors, such as when the US,
during the Cold War, overthrew many fledgling democracies in favor of puppet
dictatorships.

Back to top
Powerful Countries: Democratic At Home; Using Power, Influence And Manipulation
Abroad
Foreign policy issues hardly feature in election campaigns of countries such as UK
and US, and yet their influence around the world is immense. Recall the 2000
elections between Bush and Al Gore, where both virtually agreed with the other
in a televised debate on foreign policy matters. (Admittedly, many parties feel
their target audiences are not as interested in foreign policy. Perhaps that will
change in near future as issues such as the war on terror, the rise of Asia, climate
change, and other issues become more prominent.)

Election Corruption
Elections are typically local and national events. Foreign involvement in a
national election, however, does happen, and depending on the circumstances
and perspective, it can be seen as anything from providing assistance and
support, to political interference and undermining of the democratic process (if it
is seen at all).

There are countless examples in recent decades, too many to list here, but some
recent ones include the external funding of democratic parties often by some
Western countries in parts of the developing world.
For instance, in Iran one of the opposition groups to the ruling regime is a
monarch descendant and not necessarily democratic as such, but gets Western
backing nonetheless.
In Nicaragua leading up to the 2006 elections, the US actually warned
Nicaraguans not to vote for for Ortega. (In the mid 1980s, the US had actively
supported Contra guerrillas in a war against the Nicaraguan government . Ortega was
leader of Nicaragua at that time.) The US went as far as threatening economic
sanctions and withdrawal of aid if Ortega won . Even Oliver North and Donald
Rumsfeld went there to tell people not to vote for Ortega (though Rumsfeld
denied he went for political reasons). North was one of the main people involved
in the Iran-Contra scandal, the US deal to sell weapons to Iran and use proceeds
to fund the bloody contras against Ortega and the Sandinista movement there,
despite a congressional ban to do this (i.e. being against both US and
international law).
A scandal caused around 2000 was when there was feared Chinese influence in
US elections at that time the media and politicians were (rightly) outraged at
foreign interference, but ignored the immense number of incidents (and
sometimes far worse) foreign interference their own country had taken part in, in
other countries, before and since.
Recently, Russia has also been accused of interference with some of its former
satellites (sometimes unsuccessfully such as with the the Ukraine velvet
revolution).
By its very nature, it is hard to detect this kind of interference. Sometimes it is
visible but accompanied by so much subtle propaganda that it seems benign,
while other times it is only years later that the information comes out, by which
time the damage has been done (and many peoples lives have been affected).
Yet, nations and organizations doing these things will often feel they have to for
their own agendas and national interests. Of course the more powerful and
influential countries will be able to pull this off far better than poorer ones, and is
yet another tool in the arsenal of more powerful countries to try and maintain
their position of advantage in the international arena. While it is easy to say and
hard to do, transparency in all parts of a democratic process is key to help
minimize or avert this kind of perversion of democracy.
(For far more detailed examples, including in particular the history of Western
companies and front organizations funding groups to overthrow governments in
the name of democracy but really to achieve various foreign policy interests, see
the works of J.W. Smith from the Institute for Economic Democracy , and the
various writings from Noam Chomsky . Whenever some of these things come to

light, the mainstream and politicians of these interfering nations often claim
these were mistakes that should not have happened, but Smith, Chomsky and
many others show how systemmatic this has often been, implying it is part of a
foreign policy agenda to shape the world, where possible, with governments that
are friendly to their interests, democratic or not.)

Can Democracy Be Forced Upon A Country Through Military Means?

One part of the US neo-conservative movements ideology was highlighted in the
buildup for war on Iraq : the use of military force, if necessary, to extend or
maintain is super-power status in the world. The Middle East clearly suffers from
ineffective, or no democracy. The American neo-conservative movement felt the
US should use its military might selectively to enforce democracy where it wants.
Yet, as experience in Iraq has shown, and what many scholars and activists had
long-predicted, democracy cannot be enforced from the outside; it has to be
home-grown. Not only must it be home-grown, but must be genuine and seen to
be genuine.
(As noted earlier, the US has also funded many supposedly democratic
movements in various other countries, often for ulterior motives. In so many of
those cases it has turned out that those groups have become puppet regimes or
pseudo democracies. In many other cases, the US has actually supported the
overthrow of a democratic government. As more and more people around the
world have become aware of this, the legitimacy of such overt foreign influence
has often been met with suspicion and domestic elections and democratic
processes then suffer through the perception of them being tainted and not
genuine. In worst cases, the consequences can include political instability and
conflict, so it is a dangerous game to play. It is often done unaccountably too, as
interference can be justified with that overloaded term in the national
interests.)

Back to top
Democracy Of Nation States In The Age Of Globalization
As noted further above, the international arena has an affect on most countries
today. Both democratic and non-democratic forces may be voted in that then
institute policies that are in some way affected by globalization (for example,
supporting aspects that are described as overly corporate friendly at the expense
of local people, while benefiting a few wealthy elite, or reacting negatively to
some of the effects of globalization such as whipping up hysteria against
economic migrants, etc.)
In the case of Africa noted earlier, many countries have found themselves subject
to harsh conditions for debt relief, which on paper sound fair, but in reality leads
to an undermining of democracy.
When globalization challenges national borders and is international in scope, how

meaningful are some national elections? Even when a party is voted in based on
some sort of criticism on the way globalization is affecting their nation, there are
numerous times when those very parties have been unable to do much other
than go with the pressures globalization brings (e.g. poor countries opening up to
foreign investment, mostly by large western companies, thus undermining any
local sector which cannot compete against such established actors or breaking
some promises made to electorates).
Some time leading up to the November 2000 US presidential election, I recall
hearing on radio (cant recall details, unfortunately) how a farmer in an African
nation lamented how he could not vote in the US elections for what happens
there has far more effect on his country than whatever vote he could make in his
own country.
The challenge will remain; richer nations, supported by the wealthy and powerful
companies that come from their territories are pushing for others to open up, as
this will benefit their companies and possibly their own nations more generally
(or at least the wealthier segments of their own society). Poor nations are open to
the idea of globalization and international institutions to discuss these processes,
but repeatedly find that international meetings at the IMF, World Bank and World
Trade Organization are far from democratic.
British economist John Maynard Keynes, is considered one of the most influential
economists of the 20th century and one of the fathers of modern
macroeconomics. He advocated an interventionist form of government policy
believing markets left to their own measure (i.e. completely freed) could be
destructive leading to cycles of recessions, depressions and booms. To mitigate
against the worst effects of these cycles, he supported the idea that
governments could use various fiscal and monetary measures. His ideas helped
rebuild after World War II, until the 1970s when his ideas were abandoned for
freer market systems.
Keynes biographer, professor Robert Skidelsky, argues that free markets have
undermined democracy and led to this crisis in the first place:
What creates a crisis of the kind that now engulfs us is not economics but
politics. The triumph of the global free market, which has dominated the world
over the last three decades has been a political triumph.
It has reflected the dominance of those who believe that governments (for which
read the views and interests of ordinary people) should be kept away from the
levers of power, and that the tiny minority who control and benefit most from the
economic process are the only people competent to direct it.
This band of greedy oligarchs have used their economic power to persuade
themselves and most others that we will all be better off if they are in no way
restrainedand if they cannot persuade, they have used that same economic
power to override any opposition. The economic arguments in favor of free
markets are no more than a fig leaf for this self-serving doctrine of self-

aggrandizement.

Bryan Gould, Who voted for the markets? The economic crisis makes it plain:
we surrendered power to wealthy elites and fatally undermined democracy , The
Guardian, November 26, 2008
Furthermore, he argues that the democratic process has been abused and
manipulated to allow a concentration of power that is actually against the idea of
free markets and real capitalism:
The uncomfortable truth is that democracy and free markets are incompatible.
The whole point of democratic government is that it uses the legitimacy of the
democratic mandate to diffuse power throughout society rather than allow it to
accumulateas any player of Monopoly understandsin just a few hands. It
deliberately uses the political power of the majority to offset what would
otherwise be the overwhelming economic power of the dominant market players.
If governments accept, as they have done, that the free market cannot be
challenged, they abandon, in effect, their whole raison d'etre. Democracy is then
merely a sham. No amount of cosmetic tinkering at the margins will conceal
the fact that power has passed to that handful of people who control the global
economy.

Bryan Gould, Who voted for the markets? The economic crisis makes it plain:
we surrendered power to wealthy elites and fatally undermined democracy , The
Guardian, November 26, 2008
Despite Keynesian economics getting a bad press from free market advocates for
many years, many are now turning to his policies and ideas to help weather the
global economic crisis .
Rich nations have long felt the pressure from the business sector and elsewhere
to reduce spending on various social programs, and in most democratic elections
the sound bites are about parties promising to uphold those social programs as
best they can. If rich countries are struggling with this question, the challenge for
emerging/developing nations is greater.

International Institutions: Democratic Or Representing Those With The Most Power?

International institutions such as the WTO, IMF, WB, UN (or more specifically the
UN Security Council) are themselves far from democratic even though most of
them give the impression of being an international forum where nations can be
fairly treated. But many of them prescribe policies on poor countries in such a
way that it undermines those countries, even if they are democratic ones. Under
such conditions, corruption is not uncommon.
The IMF and World Bank have come under criticism lately for their long non-

democratic leadership, and are now beginning to address that balance. This has
not come about because of democratic tendencies of the leading contributors (all
Western democracies), but because a handful of developing nations, such as
China, India and Brazil, have now become politically strong enough to gather
sufficient backing to demand these Western-backed/influenced institutions open
up and let them in and share power more fairly if they are to be truly
international organizations that they want/claim to be.
It is very early days to see what will happen; will the emerging nations just
become another group leaving the poorer ones still under-represented, or will
they be able to fight for better global representation?
The World Trade Organization is another such problematic organization in this
regards, while the UN, generally universal, suffers from the problem of the nondemocratic UN Security Council with its handful of veto-power nuclear powers.
For example, during various rounds of WTO talks, developing countries frequently
complained that rich nations keep circumventing established procedures or just
prevent developing countries taking part or even produce documents and drafts
so late in the process (e.g. the night before they are discussed) that they do not
have time to analyze them sufficiently. Any of these things undermine
negotiation processes for countries already limited by resources. The Green
Room antics whereby rich countries selectively invite a few poor countries to
closed door meetings, telling them how things will proceed, smells of divide and
conquer. In the meanwhile industrialized country officials will celebrate these
talks as being open and transparent, blaming developing countries for some
unexplainable reason for being unreasonable when things go wrong.
(And when mainstream media outlets of wealthy countries rarely report these
meetings, let alone the concerns and perspectives of poor countries, their
officials, who sound like they genuinely want to help the poor but cannot
understand why they wont accept their offer, get away without being held to
account as to why their offers to poor countries were actually so harsh and unfair
in various ways.)
Although sounding boring for most of the public, these talks are some of the most
important in the world, for they affect the lives of all citizens. Promises by
wealthy countries of openness, transparency and other democratic like behavior
are just that; promises. In reality this is politics, dirty negotiation tactics and
doing anything that one can get away with in order to push ones own interests in
the international arena (which, unfortunately is somewhat understandable from
the perspective of those individual nations doing it; they are trying to get the
best for their own interest, even if they often present it as being best for
everyone). [For additional details, see also this sites page: WTO Meeting in Hong
Kong, 2005 ]
Of these international institutions, the UN is perceived to be far more democratic
and inclusive in comparison. However, it too is tainted, this time by the 5
permanent members of the UN Security Council who have veto powers over

many decisions, thus giving them more power, regardless of any overwhelming
international opinion or even votes by the UN General Assembly.
These 5 are permanent members with excess powers because they have nuclear
weapons, helped form the UN (in the case of US, UK and France), or were invited
in for Geopolitical balance (in the case of the former Soviet Union, now Russia,
and China).
Military power, it appears, is the final arbiter of justice. This is ironic when key
democratic principles include an independent judiciary and a military subservient
to the people.
But what recourse do poor countries have? To whom can they complain and go to
when wealthy countries violate the principles upon which they make grandiose
claims of following?

Reality Of Foreign Policy

Of course, as history also shows, any desire for democratic like behavior between
nations is wishful thinking, perhaps nave; powerful nations will always do what
they can to preserve or extend their power. Democracy at an international level
would reduce their advantage so it would not be in their interest to extend power
and privilege to too many others (a few are needed).
Perhaps desire for democracy at the international level should be dismissed as a
waste of time. Poorer nations would surely understand this more than people
from richer nations who have not had to typically face the full brunt of someone
elses power and influence for a long time.
Yet, they still take part in the international arena. Some of that might be because
they hold on to democratic ideals, but there may also be an understanding that
as some powerful nations emerge such as Brazil, China, India, and some others,
such nations may (for now) be useful allies in international political negotiations.
This may be one reason why the developing world as a whole was able to derail
parts of the WTO Development Round talks in 2003 when the wealthy countries
tried to unfairly impose extra issues and actions onto poorer countries without
agreeing to almost anything themselves.
However, the diverse interests of poor nations also meant that at the follow up
2005 WTO round, rich countries were able to manipulate poor nations by appealing to
some of the more powerful ones such as Brazil and India and get them to agree
to weak drafts on behalf of the rest for a few small concessions of their own,
while doing away with any pretense of a democratic, open and transparent
process in the way the talks were held.
The other reason they may still be involved is that they have little choice; like it
or not, their nations are more vulnerable to the forces of globalization. They

almost have to try and get involved, even if it is an unequal system, just in case
they can get some concessions or have their voice heard.
Why is democracy at the international level so important?
There may clearly be cases where at all levels a committee/consensus type
approach may be inefficient (e.g. to respond to a natural disaster, where some
command/control approach may help immediately), but even there, a democratic
process can be useful to feed back into the decision making so that the
command/control structure does not become close-minded.
Clearly though, a more democratic set of international institutions is one way to
try and address inequalities caused by projection of power. Furthermore,
understanding our commonalities, not just differences may help solidify
humanity, which currently seems on a trajectory of distrust and violence.
Sundeep Walsekar, mentioned earlier is worth quoting again to show just one
seemingly small, but perhaps significant example:
It is generally believed that much of modern Western thought has its origins in
Greek philosophy. In the post-Roman Empire period, many important Greek works
were destroyed. It was largely to the credit of the Islamic rulers of the 9th to 12th
century that some of these works were recovered, translated and analyzed. The
Arab, Persian and Jewish scholars of the time built upon the knowledge they had
gathered. Trade with China and India provided access to the knowledge
developed in the Eastern societies for centuries. The scholars in the Middle East
further created their own ideas and innovations.... In a historical twist, their
works were destroyed by Mongol invaders and others but Western universities
secured and preserved some of them. Critical and independent inquiry is needed
to ascertain to what extent the evolution of knowledge is a result of crossfertilization of ideas between people from different parts of the world.

Sundeep Waslekar, An Inclusive World in which the West, Islam and the Rest
have a Stake , Strategic Foresight Group, February 2007, p.29
Dwelling a bit further on this notion of humanity with more similarities than
differences, a common Euro-centric view of world history describes ancient Greek
democracy as Western democracy, with ancient Greece as part of that
Western/European identity.
Yet, as John Hobson writes in the excellent anti Euro-centric book, The Eastern
Origins of Western Civilisation, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), ancient
Greece and Rome were not considered as part the West until much later; that
is, Greece and Rome were part of a whole Middle East center of civilization, in
some ways on the edge of it, as more was happening further Eastward.
Western Europe adopted or appropriated ancient Greek achievements in
democracy as its own much later when it needed to form a cohesive ideology and
identity to battle the then rising Islam and to counter its defeats during the

Crusades.
The point here is that democracy is perhaps more universal than acknowledged
and that there is a lot of propaganda in how history is told, sometimes
highlighting differences amongst people more than the similarities and crossfertilization of ideas that Waslekar alludes to. This better understanding, which
would take a long time to permeate into mainstream society, would contribute to
creating a more tolerant, hence eventually a more democratic, society.

Back to top
The Dangers Of Apathy In A Democracy
Though it is ancient wisdom, Aristotles warning against concentrated power and
wealthin which democracy can be perverted into oligarchyis applicable today.
The more excessive this power, the more this oligarchy will tend towards
monarchy and rule by individuals not laws:
If the men of property in the state are fewer than in the former case, and own
more property, there arises a second form of oligarchy. For the stronger they are,
the more power they claim, and having this object in view, they themselves
select those of the other classes who are to be admitted to the government; but,
not being as yet strong enough to rule without the law, they make the law
represent their wishes. When this power is intensified by a further diminution of
their numbers and increase of their property, there arises a third and further
stage of oligarchy, in which the governing class keep the offices in their own
hands, and the law ordains that the son shall succeed the father. When, again,
the rulers have great wealth and numerous friends, this sort of family despotism
approaches a monarchy; individuals rule and not the law. This is the fourth sort of
oligarchy, and is analogous to the last sort of democracy.

Aristotle, Politics , Part 4, 350 B.C.E

All citizens of democracies should watch out for this. Even in the richest countries
in the world, if citizens do not continue to hold on to their democratic tendencies,
unchecked power and use the platform of democracy to concentrate wealth,
power, decision-making, and ultimately, the future of the citizenry.

Back to top
How Can Democracy Be Safe-Guarded?
Some feel that occasionally, a government may need to suspend democracy in order to
save it. For example, a rollback on fundamental rights and decision making may expedite
decision-making at times of threat and danger.

Governments may hand over power to the military, or more commonly, some in the
military may take it on themselves (sometimes with pressure/support from outside) that
their country needs saving from their government, and will step in accordingly (a coup).
It is hard to know if such coups were ever with the best intentions in mind, because it
seems most coups have resulted in long term military dictatorship. The stability sought
in such cases appears not to have been to ensure democracy, but perhaps to ensure
stability for those with money and power, and ulterior agendas.
In other situations, the US War on Terror being perhaps the most obvious in recent times,
the government has decided to roll back power of the people itself, and assume a stronger
and more disconnected ruling regime.
Perhaps when a nation faces a direct threat of invasion, or some other pending disaster, a
more efficient system of decision-making is needed, but in all these other circumstances
to save democracy, is a temporary roll back of democracy warranted?
What about strengthening democracy, by increasing it? If a democracy is struggling due
to corruption, a faltering economy or various social, political or other economic woes, or
a threat of terrorism, is less democracy a cure? Could more democracy be better, by
increasing accountability, participation and transparency?
As mentioned earlier, the idea of voting as it is practiced today might be flawed because
of the potential for so much misuse, abuse, and peoples lack of access to full
information, free from manipulation. Alternatives such as the Evaluative Democracy
approach described earlier, and others, need far more mainstream discussion (which is
hard to get when so much of the mainstream media and political establishments benefit
from the current arrangements).
Just as Aristotle warned of apathy, another bit of ancient wisdom might be appropriate
here, summarized by Professor Steve Muhlberger recounting a situation whereby a king
of Maghada in ancient India, who wished to destroy the Vajjian confederacy, sent a
minister to the Buddha to ask for his advice and whether his attack would be a success or
not? In his response, the Buddha said the people of Vajjia could avoid decline if they

continued their open and inclusive tradition.

The Buddha saw the virtues necessary for a righteous and prosperous community,
whether secular or monastic, as being much the same. Foremost among those virtues was
the holding of full and frequent assemblies. In this, the Buddha spoke not only for
himself, and not only out of his personal view of justice and virtue. He based himself on
what may be called the democratic tradition in ancient Indian politicsdemocratic in that
it argued for a wide rather than narrow distribution of political rights, and government by
discussion rather than by command and submission.
Steve Muhlberger, Democracy in Ancient India , February 8, 1998