MEDP – Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems

After Haiti’s devastating earthquake, it is unfortunately apparent that the international community is still unprepared to deal with cataclysmic disasters which require coordinated and fast responses. Is it so difficult to call together, potentially at the UN since member states are all present, a series of conferences designed to create an international agreement detailing how each and every country will respond to a variety of crises?

It is not impossible to envisage Norway taking charge of critical airports and airspace; the USA, naval ports or strategic territorial border crossings; Canada hospitals safe for use or the construction and command of temporary hospitals; Russia for clearing debris, garbage, and sanitary functions; Germany for coordinating infrastructure repairs; Argentina, Cameroon, Australia, and Saudi Arabia for security; France and Japan for coordinating the government of the country in need with services provided by other countries and international organizations. This is all beyond what is already available by the UN and international organizations or local government. It is meant to produce an accountable strategic response whereby an overwhelmed system, like that of Haiti, can have its chaos quickly ordered. A good parralel can be drawn between the actions an ant colony undertakes when its hive has been breached: the Queen is moved to safety, the larvae are taken out of the sun and protetected in the shade, sentinels are posted to ward off invaders, and workers set to rebuilding, occupying, or finding a new hive. Yes, people are not ants and dangers come from individual citzens when they are put in desperate situations, but we can devise a system whereby security is overwhelming the capacity for violence and where order allows people the calm to be treated with dignity in their plights for survival. For goodness sake, we are not incompetents scrabbling with each other in the international arena and there should be no reason why modern living rooms are more sophisticated then our global disaster response program. Smarten up people, you are better than this.

Once MEDP’s website has its upgrade finished, we will resume our international conferences and efforts to build multinational relations for the enhancement of democracy. To gain a greater understanding of what is meant by democracy, please read the following articles that are under review for academic journal publication. I am trying to join my academic side with the practical work of MEDP as the organization is viewed to be the functional arm of my intellectual work. Furthermore, I may be joining Doshisha University in Kyoto, Japan (yes, my time is up at QUT in Brisbane, Australia) and hopefully will be able to engage students there in certain MEDP programs.

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31140/1/c31140.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31691/1/31691.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/31868/1/c31868.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32032/1/c32032.pdf

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/32276/1/c32276.pdf

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

There are currently two major types of terrorism found internationally. The first being non-hegemonic which means a group or individual that has no cohesive culture or class in particular but still commits terrorism to gain an end or lash out at abuses, etc. Non-hegemonic terrorism is typically the sort found in Al-Quaeda, the Taliban, and many other smaller terrorist groups. By attaching a piece of territory and a distinct group of people (whether culture or class), you’ve got hegemony. Hegemonic terrorism is the sort found in Georgia, the southern Philippines, Kurdish Iraq and Kurdish Turkey, as well as Corsica and other countries in the world with popularly disputed government legitimacy over the right to rule.  There exists, as well, a middle ground which can be a mix of the two.

Essentially, governments which have trouble in these areas can use two methods the help mitigate them. The first with non-hegemonic terrorism is to work to build the legitimacy of government and heighten trust of the government in their citizens. It is extremely important to recognize the sovereignty of the people within borders and represent their needs to the greatest extent. Without representing their needs, such opens the doors for other groups to supplant government and gain the trust and confidence of populations they are aiding. Hegemonic terrorism is different yet. The key therein is to recognize whether or not the population(s) living in the disputed territory is in majority wanting to separate. By borrowing from the Canadian referendum which gave citizens of Quebec the choice to separate or not, a country can ascertain the level of division within the disputed territory. It would then be essential to act as an arbiter and partner in developing a stable nation which is not conflicted with its minority populations but rather integrates them as citizens. Without doing this, there is risk of civil war.

These previous descriptions are both pretty condensed and simplified but they are here to give you a notion of what MEDP’s second international program is about. The International Association of Islamic Peoples Against Terrorism (IAIPAT) is a proposed international body that will allow governments with a history or terrorist attacks and supranational challenges to work collectively by sharing experiences and building stronger networks for greater communication between meetings. The reason “Islamic People” are the focus of the body is due to the fact that most terrorism occurs within Islamic cultures and societies. Whether this fact has to do with the long history of abuse many Islamic societies had to deal with during the rise of Europe and the “West” or the current state of inequality between cultures, it is still in the interest of the people of Islam to work together to help preserve peace and continue improving their lives.

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