Democracy is both one of the most misunderstood and highly valued concepts concerning US politics. The public at large greatly admires it, even if they don't seem to understand what it is. The politically powerful wield it as a tool to attack foreign populations or to claim "mandates" to do as they wish here at home. Intellectuals often admire democracy, but lament that the public is too ignorant to guide it well and that they are easily manipulated by politicians. The advocates of liberty often scorn democracy as being nothing more than mob rule and as being detrimental to freedom.
I think this is one of the areas where libertarians of all stripes seem to have gotten things all wrong. In fact, of the above groups, it seems to me that only 1 of them has gotten anything right about democracy, the general public and their admiration for it. They just need a better understanding of the principles that an ideal democracy is founded on.
To figure out what principles form the foundation of democracy once must determine what democracy is. To determine that, one must figure out what makes it so special, what makes it valuable. One can claim any number of possible definitions are appropriate for defining the concept which the word "democracy" is intended to describe, but the one that does the best at preserving the reason why democracy is so valued must be the one that is the most accurate because only that one can make the term as important to society as it has become. The value democracy affords people is the ability to protect their interests from those who would otherwise abuse them. Other aspects of democracy are merely incidental, it is the protective aspect of democracy that makes it unique and valuable. All forms of human interaction can thus be judged as to how democratic a system is depending on how much or how little the interests of each person is protected against those who would abuse them.
For example, the absolute rulers of ancient Egypt, the Pharaohs, ruled over a completely non-democratic system because they could abuse anyone's interests at whim without fear of retribution. They held sole and absolute power unchecked by anyone. A slightly more democratic system existed in the medieval era when there were kings whose power was reliant on the continued support of some minimum number of lords without which he would be defeated and replaced. This need for support limited the scope of their possible courses of actions by eliminating their ability to abuse the interests of at least that minimum number of lords his power relied on. This was effectively a minimal form of democracy where suffrage was extended to the King's lords, which afforded at least some number of them protection against the king.
The first fundamental principle of democracy, universal suffrage, has been applied more and more closely since then. At the founding of the United States suffrage was expanded to all property owning male, white, citizens. This protected roughly 50% of white, male, property owning citizens. Suffrage today has been expanded even further so that roughly 50% all adult non-convict citizens are having their interests protected by the democratic system (Or this would be the case if it were not for the interference of such things as gerrymandering and other similar factors).
Throughout modern western history it has been this sole principle of democracy, universal suffrage, that has been successfully focused on and attained. It should not be surprising, then, that this is the only principle of democracy that is readily recognized. But in order to reach a more ideal form of democracy, one that will preserve and greatly enhance the value of democracy, its ability to protect each of our interests from the abuse of others, the final two principles of democracy must be understood and applied. These two principles are locality, and unanimity.
One can establish that locality is a fundamental principle of democracy by recognizing that democracy always serves its purpose more effectively at relatively local levels than at others. This is for two reasons. The first is that each person's say (or vote) is much greater at local levels. Once voice among a thousand is much more effective than one among a million. Second, when issues are decided at relatively local levels each person is more likely to end up under a system they prefer. If an issue is decided at a national level, all "red" states might be forced to liver under a "blue" program or visa-versa, when, instead, if the issue was decided at the state level the majority of people in every state would be able to live under a program of their choosing. For both these reasons, democracy that is practiced at a more local level will always be more effective at attaining the central value of of democracy, protecting each person's interests from abuse. Therefore, the more local the democratic system, the more democratic it is.
The final fundamental principle of democracy, unanimity, can be identified as being such because the more acutely it is adhered to, the more the goal of democracy is accomplished. Even with universal suffrage only a bit over 50% of the people are having their interests protected at once. In order to protect more than the interests of that simple majority it is necessary to apply the principle of unanimity further. The more it is applied, the smaller the minority groups with protection would be. A fully unanimous democratic system would protect the interests even of the smallest minority, the minority that needs protection the most, the minority of 1.
Since universal suffrage is has been just about accomplished, further significant progress in our democratic system can only come from applying the other two fundamental principles of democracy.
But many people at this point would object that the further application of a principle like unanimous democracy is impractical because we can never get everyone to agree on anything. That it would be impossible to apply such a stringent system onto society. But, on the contrary, it has already been done throughout our society. Most human interactions between strangers in the US is done through the most ideal form of democracy possible, where all three of its principles are applied to their fullest extent. That is what all private market transactions are.
In every such situation the issue under consideration is taken down to the most local level possible, involving only those who are materially invested in the decision to be made, thus fulfilling the requirements of the principle of locality. The principle of universal suffrage is fully applied because everyone materially involved in the decision gets a very real and substantial say in what can or cannot take place. And every such transaction must be unanimously agreed upon by all of its participants before it can take place so the final principle is also adhered to. This, the most ideal form of democracy, is the only system that always protects the interests of each person from everyone else.
One might, at this point, object to this claim by exclaiming that this can't possibly be a type of democracy. After all, private market transactions don't even require voting! To this objection I have two responses; First, the reason why democracy is important to us is the value it offers us, the value of security from the abuse of others. Other aspects commonly shared with types of democracy are merely incidental, they are only optional tools that could be used in order to advance the value democracy offers us. Second, I would ask; Why would any unanimous democratic system bother tallying votes? When making a unanimous system decision there is no need to count how many people agree with the decision, you only need to ask if there is anyone who would object to it.
But of what importance is this point I'm making? Why does it matter whether we hold a particular understanding of democracy or not? I would say that it is important because democracy does hold a very important value to us all, and the public understands that, but the term has been hijacked by those who don't think highly of the principles of democracy at all. They are simultaneously claiming the moral high ground by claiming to be loyal to the principles of democracy, while sullying democracy with their actions that abuse its principles. This should not be allowed to continue for the same reason we shouldn't allow corporatism to masquerade as capitalism. But, from what I've seen, libertarians typically address these two situations very differently. They are more than happy to call out the corporatists and to logically demonstrate how their actions are inconsistent with the principles of free market capitalism, but in the case of democracy they seem to have been fooled by those who claim to support democracy and have thus attacked democracy itself instead of those who abuse it by refusing to fully apply its principles.
What do you think? Have I described democracy fairly? Do these democratic principles I've described make sense? How should advocates a a free society react to democracy?
No comments:
Post a Comment