MEDP – Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems

It physically pains me that I do not as of yet have enough to give to those who need;

It pains me to know that injustice can be cured (but is not);

It pains me to know lives are suffering;

It pains me to know there is greed in this world.

To be wealthy is not a vice should the power of money be used as a tool for justice and equality.

To be wealthy for the sake of wealth and at the expense of others is, however, a purest evil.

I call fo an avenger. A man or woman to be our modern Hood and punish the corpulent individuals stuffed and hedonised with currencies and materials.

For shame! I call; for shame! I say. If I had wealth, I would make the next day better for all and not just for me. So come forth sweet avenger, harbinger of man’s justice and do unto those as they have done unto us!

Hello everyone, this is an idea I have proposed in my PhD thesis. It is in its most basic form, but I think in this state it is clearest and should allow for logical criticisms, refutations, etc. I am interested in your opinions considering its logical assumptions. Please note that this work is copyrighted (Copyright Jean-Paul Gagnon, 2009). If you would like to use it for any reason other than reading, please be courteous enough to cite my work. I appreciate your consideration, thank you!

Endemic Governance Problems and the Element of Democracy

There are four basic democratic particles (which compose the ‘element’ of democracy – a scientific allegory) which every style of democracy has in its roots:

1) Selecting Rulers

a) Meaning the process by which the plural sovereign citizenry chooses who are to rule.

2) Communication

a) Political communication between all bodies of government, between government and all civil society bodies, industry, media, etc; communication between civil society and civil society; industry and industry; media and media, etc). This also includes information, and the practices of discussion, deliberation, compromise, etc.

3) The Rule of Law

a) The legitimate establishment of laws which government and citizens follow alike. Legitimately establishing laws is a huge discourse unto itself and is a process which should be defined by the plural citizenry expressing this right.

4) Equality

a) Whereas justice and pluralism were attached to this area they were argued out of contention in the democratic particles. Justice is in reality more attached to the rule of law, whilst pluralism is connoted with sovereignty of the people (the original ideological understanding of democracy).
Equality in this case means equity in all matters of state and society as well as the establishment of everyone having the same chances in life. I personally view money to be the final frontier in oppression (the Tyranny of Capital is what I label it) but do not want to attach this view to equality. The reason for this is that equality is a subjective thing, just like communication, the rule of law, and selecting rulers, as well as the sovereignty of the people. They are meant to be defined by the citizenry so that they are culturally relevant. The process of a citizenry actually defining such explicitly I think is ultimately unheard of, so we deal with the implicit effects of a complex political milieu. Using my thesis of endemic governance problems and democratic particles, we can paint a distinct picture of a democracy in any country of the world (democratically styled or not, including China, North Korea, Burma, Cuba, etc). Perhaps one day we will come to the stage of long-term explicit agreements made by a plural citizenry.

There is a new functional definition of democracy in my work:

“Let’s just jump back to democracy now. After the endemic problems took shape, I realized that I needed a more robust definition of democracy (each political theorist tends to demarcate what he or she means when writing of democracy so as not to confuse readers). The need for a definition came round because I devised the idea that if these seven problems were mitigated, then democracy would logically improve. Arguing that was quite the task, haha.

The necessity to define democracy also arose due to the nature my research was taking. Pzreworski, Stokes, and Manin (1999) minced no words stating that in well over 200 years, there have been no wholesale challenges to the institutions of democracy. What they were referring to there is that after the English, French, and American revolutions, the institutions of democracy have not evolved. What we are seeing today with all the political progress in our respective countries and from solid academics or thinkers is a piecemeal approach targeting the need to reform various areas and bring them up to constitutional scratch (to run the previously established institutions at the highest standard), or extending social rights (such as the emancipation of discriminated peoples, universal suffrage for both sexes and all ethnicities and cultures; promoting the representation of the poor), etc. What my work does is challenge the entire framework of democracy which so many polities are using at present around the world and that’s something that just has not been done in a long time (and never been done in the way I am doing it). So the idea of mitigating ancient problems that still affect us today is that institutional challenge.

The way I defined democracy was to examine every major and theorized style of democracy (liberal, conservative, neo lib, neo con, social, socialist, workers, aristocratic, communist, direct, representative, deliberative, e-democracy, etc) and conduct a comparative thematic analysis of them. Not surprisingly, there were a variety of shared themes between all of these styles. I collapsed those thematic categories into larger categories (i.e. information, discussion, compromise = communication) which resulted in the four ‘particles’. The rule of law, communication, selecting rulers, and equality plus the sovereignty of a plural citizenry is what every style of democracy is based on (previous to this academics and thinkers were trying to agree on a functional definition of sovereignty = democracy but couldn’t get there as sovereignty cannot express itself without each particle). Each style paints a different portrait when you use this perspective: some have more equity than others; some are poor on the communicative front but maintain an iron rule of law; others do not adequately allow the ‘people’ of which they refer to to select their own rulers. You can see how this elemental view of democracy can fit in any polity, be it a style of democracy like liberal, or a totalitarian government. I make this statement because of the evidence accrued thus far depicting what I call democracy to be a natural process for humans. I am going to state now for the first time in the public square that I reason my definition of democracy to be the universal definition and I ask all who read this to challenge it because I can’t believe it, hahaha. I also don’t want to publish this in peer review yet before letting better minds than mine to have a go at it.

I reason that it is the definition of democracy because the sovereignty of the people cannot be expressed (realized) without those four particles. I’ve used this perspective time and again: in democracy’s history; in the present writings and attempted definitions of our day; in international organization and multinational publications (UN, TI, ParlCent, CCD, IPU, GOPAC, etc); and in all levels of governance. It fits. It fits everywhere, and explains democracy for what it is. The analogy I like to use is the peanut. Sovereignty is the nut itself, the democratic particles are its shell (thus to access the nut you must engage the shell), and the style of democracy practiced is the little dish the peanut is served in. This definition also fits with the new emphasis (started by Koffi Annan I believe) that democracy is something that must be culturally relevant – hence derived from a culturally distinct plural citizenry – for it to work. If you use my definition you will see that – for example – Canadians expressing their sovereignty through choosing who are to rule and how; what the laws are and are they legitimate; political communication between government bodies, civil society, industry, active citizens, the media, etc; and what they define equality as will determine the style of their democracy. This style will then be different (but also have a good deal of similarities) with say Iran’s democracy, or Scotland’s, etc. Every country has the potential to use this and define the the particles based on their relevancy to their culture. The caveat is that this process must be long-term, inclusive of all parties interested, and in a violence free environment. We can also use this perspective to paint a picture of a country’s current democracy: which particles does it emphasize? How has it defined them? How does it use them? How do they engage with endemic problems? How will the particles be affected and sovereignty accessed if the endemic problems are mitigated? And so on so forth.” – From my reply to Aardvark (page 2).

When people speak, write, or think of democracy they are most often thinking in terms of styles and institutions – this includes politicians, academics, political theorists, etc. Styles and institutions are not necessary for democracy, as they were invented over the past several thousand years. Democracy is simply the expression of sovereignty via selecting rulers, the rule of law, communication, and equality. You can have democracy without them – it is simply not possible. I am planning to make a documentary about this very thing.

Whereas I claimed it was the state’s responsibility to strengthen the element of democracy and mitigate the endemic problems, I would also like to include the citizenry, civil society, media, and other bodies. In most cases such is being done or has been done for as long as humans have had governance – save for long-term goals, an inclusive constitutional building process, and the Super-Census (see my thesis once finished publishing, I will update the information asap).

Seven endemic problems have been identified in the past 2,500 years of human governance (although they are probably much older). In every major historical governmental period, these seven endemic problems have and are still problematic. It is by mitigating these problems that the element of democracy can gain precedence in the state thus making government more accessible to the sovereignty of the people.

The seven endemic problems are:
1) Accountability
2) Representation
3) Transparency
4) Long-Term Goals
5) Constitutional Issues
6) Campaigning Methods
7) Corruption

End Result: Mitigating endemic problems will strengthen the element of democracy in all governments, at any level of government, in any culture, and regardless of official political linearity. This will hopefully result in the improvement of the human condition by streamlining government due to the maximization of its efforts in line with its citizen’s desires.

I have developed this work into a functional body, the international non-governmental organization called MEDP (Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems). You may view the work at MEDP: Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems – MEDP – Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems or attend a separate blog I’ve been slowly building at blog.med-p.org. MEDP is currently undergoing a fair bit of reworking so some of our programs, plans, and projects have either been postponed or canceled for the time being.

I hope this updated version of my work is more comprehensive and will open up a new line of argument from the public.

Warmest regards,

Jean-Paul Gagnon

I suppose this question has been one of the ages. There comes a time when a person is tired of thinking and wanting to act, or tired of acting and wanting to think. Both scenarios succumb to the same conclusions: in each, the player feels futile.  Suddenly the ability of the dramatis persona to stop violence occurring to innocents is no where near in our hands and no matter how hard we work – or wish, or pray – there is no way to protect them.

At night, I lie awake feeling helpless to protect the children, women and men being abused by carnal evils; in the morning, I despair over the paper wrought tidings of terrifying crimes against humanity in nearly all quarters of the earth; at midday, I cringe over the news of humans acting violently toward each other and the natural environment; in the evening, my heart reaches out to the poor and poorest of this earth who haven’t a scrap of what I take for granted; and at night the process begins anew.

Only the question remains: how to stop war?

Written history, for the most part, has been settled by violence. Civil wars, battles for independence, battles of oppression, international wars for a myriad of reasons. Why? We have the means to settle disputes through reason and peace, respecting the value and utter sanctity of human, animal, insect, and plant lives. This last line does hark of Jainism and it is nonetheless rooted in a fundamental reasoning that humans have the ability to set aside violence and solve disputes through other means. But history, art, and philosophy have been over all of this already. It turns out that humans have complex psyches which are affected by – inter alia – pride, group mentality, and nationalistic/cultural/political fervor.

Knowing that our own mentalities are probably the primal cause of violence, how can we stop war? We can’t re-wire ourselves.  It would be amazing to have superpowers to defend the weak, the abused, the poor, the innocent…but then that would be above the law, but what is law during a war of atrocities?

Perhaps the answer lies in the might of the international community, which is arguably the ultimate collective of governments. This I currently highly doubt due to the performance of said communities during many episodes (Burma relief after Tsunami, ethnic cleansing after Vietnam War, ethnic cleansing in Rwanda, ethnic cleansing in Burma, human rights abuses in Tibet, failure to uphold the rule of law in Somalia, failure to stop war in the DRC, etc.).

Or does it lie in the knowledge of individuals that are engaging in violence?  What kind of person hurts a child, woman, or man that has done nothing to harm them (obviously not legitimizing violence except in the circumstances of self-defense)? So much violence depends on context too…pedophiles are a war against children, rapists a war against women and men, ethnic cleansing a war against a people. How can it stop?

I think we can learn from some of our more collective leaning fellow creatures. What do ants do if there are several massive obstacles that need overcoming? They work together, in great numbers. Perhaps this is the path that needs to be taken. Humans must have the knowledge to know how to of course which imparts the necessity of education for all (universal and free preferably).

So if this is the method to stop war, I beg humanity of this:

- If you see a child, woman, or man being abused online or in person, please report it to the police without delay.

- If you are afraid of a different culture, please get to know it and not destroy it.

- If you see a forest being cut down illegally, please stand up to preserve it.

- If you are dumping chemicals or garbage because you are too poor or unwilling to pay for it, look up how to safely dispose of it or ask for assistance from civil society or government.

- If your country is entering a war with another, or seems to be, stand up for peace and demand that non-violent action be taken by voicing your opinion to government, media, foreign embassies, and anyone who will listen.

A list like this could continue being written until my hands, bent and cripple, could type no more, and there would still be more to write. Please, remember this line from Edmund Burke if nothing else: The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil, is if good [people] do nothing.

– Jean-Paul

As it is in most things around life, politics play a large role. The perspectives and practices that may vary from one person or another are often defined by political theorists to simplify and organize knowledge. One of the most current and practiced of these categories is Neoliberalism. Recalling McChesney in Chomsky’s Profit Over People (p. 7), Neoliberalism is defined as the “policies and processes whereby a relative handful of private interests are permitted to control as much as possible of social life in order to maximize profits.” This is exactly the type of practice that I avoid as a CEO. Not because profits are a bad thing, but because it is my duty to put my organization’s goals at the forefront which move to improve democracies, humanity, and the natural environment among other things.

Neoliberalism is often times the defining method of operation for most CEOs as profits are what drive the market economy. However, I feel that there is a shift approaching which is very much attached to the global environmental crises and modern telecommunications. Power as defined by Neoliberalism, is in my opinion, on the decline. More and more over the world people are gaining better educations, learning about the vices and virtues of democracy, and are calling for increased transparency, accountability, and equality. All these areas are a drive towards removing the secrecy of past power politics and are acknowledging that many things in life are more important than profits. There is also a growing trend amongst many European and North American people of rejecting classical perceptions of power such as materialism. Focus is being given to the importance of people, environment, experiences, and social awareness. Telecommunications is allowing for civil society to unite on a global scale which is one of many processes which erodes the jingoistic and often negative aspects of nationalism such as a hate for another country or nation without regard that people of that country or nation may have the same interests and opinions as you.

Business culture is often a mirror of popular political behavior and this growing shift in our societies away from classical notions of power such as Neoliberalism is probably one of the factors leading to the burgeoning ranks of “social” companies, or more transparent businesses, and the “green economy.” Oddly enough, businesses and politicians are doing this inherently to maintain power and profits but it is a growing trade off. Profits are not a bad thing, but like power, there is a limit before things become absurd. Unless you are an active philanthropist (someone has shared with me that Rockefeller (H.D?) donated over 500,000,000$ US to various charities) supporting many positive activities, why would you need tens of millions of dollars? For more cars? A bigger mansion or big screen TV in the bathroom? How can these empty items derive any pleasure…it’s just not obvious to me.

The touch of a loved one, beaming parents, the smile of a child, the proud thanks of an aid beneficiary, the sigh of relief from someone helped after a catastrophe, the look of admiration given in men’s eyes after many good deeds are done; these and many many more are the true diamonds in life. To hell with Lamborghini and Gucci, I’ll take the trowl and lay the next brick in the house for humanity.

- Jean-Paul