|
|
Moreover, little that is said about government and
politics makes any sense - as evidenced by your own reactions at this
very moment since you are feeling some urge to turn away from what you
think might be a discussion of government and politics, and you wearied
of the nonsense long ago. But if you can stay with me for a few moments,
you can begin to see why traditionally such discussions are nonsensical,
and the beginnings of a way to look at these aspects which order and
control and direct and shape our lives - to look at these and find some
sense, some meaning, possibly even some considerable significance.
Certainly different from what you've been all too used to. And a way of
looking which pertains whether ye be democrat, republican, reform,
greenback or whatever.
And once we've seen this clearer way, then we can
say some important things about democracy and on behalf of democracy
which do make some sense. And which hold important keys to our lives and
the lives of our children.
Defining:
To begin with, please consider these two definitions of "democracy." One
of these definitions is useful and one is not. One is useful in that you
can look at a given situation and by that definition, assess pretty well
how much democracy is actually present in the situation. The other
definition, the standard dictionary definition of democracy, is not
useful in that you cannot use that to look at a given situation and
assess just how much democracy is actually there.
The standard dictionary definition, based on the Greek ‘demos,' the
public and ‘archos,' rule, is "rule by the people." Nice goal, but what
is the reality? Most national governments proclaim that they are
expressing and carrying out the will of the people. Hitler pursued a
mystical notion of the will of the German peoples though I think few of
us would consider his Third Reich much of a democracy. At first blush we
in America mostly think that what we have is, indeed, a rule by the
people, and that can often be true at local levels, but even where that
is the case (and in many or most instances and at non-local levels it is
not), using that definition can you look at specific situations and use
it to say just how much democracy in fact is present? Can you use that
definition to even say, this situation has more democracy in it than
that situation does? We may have an intuitive feeling that one situation
is more democratic, but there is nothing in the dictionary situation we
can use to make such a comparison.
The definition of democracy I use here:
There is a definition of democracy that you CAN use
to compare situations or even to assess within given situations just how
much "democracy" is actually present. This is that definition:
People having some meaningful say in the decisions which affect them.
People being consulted in the matters which affect their lives. People
having a meaningful chance to affect the outcome of a decision which
bears on their lives and livelihood. How much of THAT is happening in a
given situation? How much of that is happening in today's America, where
our national representatives no longer even pretend to read their mail,
only the polls? (And only the ultra wealthy and powerful get to look in
and say ‘hi.') Polls where even a slight change in wording of the
questions radically alters the expressed preference outcomes? So that
polls themselves are routinely shrugged off or dismissed with contempt.
- - And because people confuse polling with democracy, it becomes only a
matter of time before people begin dismissing democracy.....
Yet, if we look at that consultative nature of democracy, as we shall do
below, we see a fairly powerful case can be made on behalf of democracy,
and on behalf of the societies which have at least some democracy in
them.
Don't confuse "democracy" with "equalitarianism:"
Another definition of democracy which gives rise
to some confusion is equalitarianism - the idea and ideal of all people
being equal. (Or, historically, all of OUR kind of people being equal,
however you define "our kind of people.") Actually, there IS some
relationship between democracy and equalitarianism - but clearly these
are very different things. You CAN have some democracy in a situation
without equalitarianism (like an estate owner consulting his servants
before he makes decisions concerning the estate, or a general consulting
his staff before making his command decision). You also CAN have
equalitarianism without democracy, much as we have now in much of
America. What could be described as a "litigenocracy" is but one example
of such an equalitarianism without democracy. EVERYONE big and small and
(almost) however powerful, can be ruined and impoverished by an offended
party who has the right lawyer.
Further confusing some people is that "equalitarianism" exists in two
opposite and mutually exclusive forms. People routinely confuse the two
forms and refer to the two opposite meanings interchangeably. No wonder
our political thinking and dialog are such a mess! Those two opposite
meanings of equalitarianism are, of course - - -
1) Equalitarianism as the doctrine that everyone should be equal as
regards to opportunities, basic responsibilities, and rights before the
law.
2) Equalitarianism as the doctrine - only partly out of favor now since
the fall of Communism made such notions safer to entertain again - that
people should share equally in the good life. - - That people are
entitled to equal results, equal wealth, equally good living conditions.
Obviously, given the bewildering and wondrous variety among human
beings, you can't have both equal opportunities (unless it's a total
dearth of opportunities!) and equal results at the same time.
What you CAN have, that smacks of both, is equal opportunity and some
sort of quick recycle back into productive opportunity for those who
fail. But you do have to have the opportunity to fail and thus some
incidence of failure in the situation. Without the opportunity to fail,
there is no opportunity to succeed.
Relationship between democracy and equalitarianism:
If more people get to have a meaningful say in the decisions which affect
them, then - other things equal - there is more democracy in that
situation.
When you have a broader distribution of opportunity in a society, more
of the people there can discover or develop their talents to contribute
within the community, so that society begins to become richer and more
productive. - - - Compared to traditional hierarchical authoritarian
societies where people could only operate within a rigid, predetermined,
narrowly defined role.
Ancient Athens, even though confused about the two opposite forms of
equalitarianism, drew on the talents of more and more of its people and
led classical Greece into an extraordinary flowering which laid much of
the basis for several civilizations including our own.
In recent centuries America has led the way among societies drawing upon
a wider range of its citizens and their talents. Many of the resultant
advantages are still with us.
(At least some elements of) democracy compounded the advantages for both
Athens then and America recently. To understand how and why, take a look
at Jeremy Bentham's Utilitarianism, which laid the philosophical bases
for all modern "democracies:"
Bentham, you may recall, originated the goal and value of "the greatest
good for the greatest number." As we look to increase that good.....
People generally have a better idea of what will benefit them than does
some far-off ruler. (Unless something goes terribly wrong with society's
education system the way it has with ours.) Therefore, knowing better,
if they have a real chance to inform the decisions which are being made
on matters which concern them, those decisions have a much better chance
of being in their own best interests (and therefore, by Utilitarian
principle at least, in the best interests of society).
A further power in democracy:
Historically, democratic procedure has been an awfully sloppy way to get
things done. But when the need gets clear enough, when people can in
fact get pretty agreed on something and have been well-invested in the
process of getting there, that people is virtually unstoppable. Perhaps
history's most dramatic examples of this were Athens just prior to and
during the second Persian invasion of Greece, and America's recovery in
the early days of World War II after losing half its fleet at Pearl
Harbor. In the Athenian example, faced with the prospect of a second and
greater Persian onslaught, nearly everyone in Athens set to with a will
to make the necessary preparations. Athens was thus able to build, from
scratch, a fleet which amazingly crushed and defeated Persia, the
world's mightiest naval force, at Salamis.
When a democracy gets it together, it really gets it together.
The weak point in the basic case is, alas, the assumption that most
people know better what's in their own interest than does some far-off
ruler. Were that assumption true, decisions would in fact be informed
and democracies would get it together on many points, many issues. The
unfortunate fact we see in America today is that the majority of
Americans neither know nor care to know. Our schools have seen to that.
But even if our great American public today falls well short of Jeremy
Bentham's ideal, it seems questionable that the far-off ruler is doing
any better in the decisions now being taken without a meaningful
democratic consultation. (Topic to be discussed later: why I do not
consider taking polls, so subject to sound bytes and the way questions
are asked, a "meaningful democratic consultation" any more than our
flawed election process and system are.)
On the whole, at least some of us are better informed about our own
affairs than some far-off ruler would be. If there were a way such few
of us as are and who care, could once again have some opportunity to
meaningfully inform the decisions which govern us, we'd get better
decisions and a society at least somewhat better off. We do still have,
despite impoverishment by our schools, a strong though improvable
equalitarian opportunity for a wide range of our people to discover
and/or develop their varied talents. The third strength cited, however,
that of a democracy really getting it together, seems currently beyond
our reach.
If I still have two readers left at this point, on topics which few
Americans today know about or care about, perhaps there is hope of
somehow eventually rekindling interest with discussions which are not
muddled, confused and nonsensical because of confused definitions. - - -
If the definitions we specifically offered here are any help to such
clarification: the "opposite twin" definitions of equalitarianism; the
definitions of freedom just below; and the idea of democracy as a
consultancy.
And if I still do have two readers left at this point on these topics,
I'd best better offer at least the opportunity now to clarify one more
related topic, that of "Freedom."
Three very different kinds of "Freedom" - which one are we talking
about?
Again, people have mostly talked about one thing and meant another, and
left discussions in a hopelessly meaningless muddle. When people talk
about "freedom," they mostly mean any one of three very different
things:
1) The medieval Christian definition of "Freedom:" Making yourself
content with what you have, so that you FEEL free.
2) Absence of negative constraints - like children bursting out into the
playground after too long cooped in the classroom. The opposite of the
condition cited as the complaint about authoritarian bureaucracy:
"anything that isn't required is forbidden."
3) Availability of positive, desired choices. - - Like shoppers
stampeding into a most attractive mall with pockets bulging with money
and credit. Wide range and number of desirable choices open to you.
Today ours is "a free country" in terms of # 3. We have lots and lots of
# 3. We have very little if any of # 1. I get the sense, however, that
when most people say "we're a free country," they're not thinking about
# 3 but about # 2. But # 2 is a very different matter. We've lost much
or most of Freedom # 2 and are rapidly losing the rest of it.
Relations with Equalitarianism and Democracy:
Historically, the emergence of democracy has been accompanied with an
upsurge in both the second and third types of freedom. More and more of
the people in the society have gotten free of the negative constraints
which have held them in place their varied talents unexpressed - that's
Freedom # 2. More and more options opened up through which their varied
talents could be discovered, expressed and developed - Freedom # 3 - and
this third type of freedom gets compounded by the growth of the society
- and its general wealth - in which these things are happening.
How do these things get lost, as - historically - they always have been,
sooner or later? That will have to be the subject of another paper. Or
perhaps - either of you two remaining readers - YOU can write that
paper, just from what you can observe by looking around you today.
One more Consideration to Conclude With:
Even town hall meeting democracy is flawed, as are our legislative
bodies, when conducted by the usual parliamentary procedure or Robert's
Rules of Order. Small town meetings come close to democracy in reality,
but the larger ones engage Parliamentary Procedure or Robert's Rules,
which are ways to shut communications down so that business can get
done. How well do such procedures fit with what democracy is supposed to
be about? How can we actually better make democracy democratic?
Please examine "Dynamic Format"[http://www.winwenger.com/dynform.htm],
to see how readily that everyone even in large groups can experience in
full, and provide one-another in full, a richly Socratic experience. An
experience where, instead of competing one-liner put-downs, everyone can
be drawn out on his subtler, richer thoughts and perceptions, at length
and in depth, on whatever matter is set to hand. Where parliamentary
procedure is a way to shut communications down so that business can get
done, Dynamic Format is one of several easily-used methods to open up
communications within a group so that genius-level business can be
transacted.
If the idea, of Socratic Method and "Dynamic Format," ever catches on,
we might see the beginnings of a healthy return to democracy.
Endnote: Contrast the joke about a hippopotamus being an
animal put together by committee (which presumably follows Roberts' or
some form of parliamentary procedure), with the incredible record of
Socratic Method, throughout the past 2300 years of history, for drawing
out people's subtlest and deepest awareness on whatever topics and for
generating astonishingly large numbers of world-class geniuses during
the process. To study this matter further, besides the article at
http://www.winwenger.com/dynform.htm , you might want to study
the article at
http://www.winwenger.com/feed1.htm and, in the same website,
the "winsights" articles numbered 33, 55, 56, 57, 63 and 72.
Postscript: What people mostly mean when they speak of "Freedom" is the
second of our three definitions, the absence of or freedom from
constraints. That has largely disappeared and its remnants continue to
disappear. Within the foreseeable future, there is only one way to head
off further loss of this freedom, only one way to possibly retrieve some
portion of this lost freedom. Later in this book we will demonstrate
this way. While this present monograph is only an article and not yet
part of our forthcoming book on Freedom, please see the free online book
"Incentives As A Preferred Instrument of Corporate and Public Policy,"
found at
http://www.winwenger.com/ebooks/incentive.htm Also relevant to
this topic are two further articles, at
http://www.winwenger.com/5paths.htm and
http://www.winwenger.com/mixedecon.htm . Also relevant to
matters of freedom is the article at
http://www.winwenger.com/part60.htm . These further articles should
give you some sense of our forthcoming book on Freedom.
|
|
