MEDP – Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems

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

Dear Millennium3,

Thank you for sharing your points concerning Bhutan. I am quite familiar with the Constitutional Monarchy that is currently reigning, the changes that were made to increase ‘democracy’, and the King’s highly decent work concerning the happiness of his ’subjects’ (the happiness question in the Bhutan census has sparked a great deal of work worldwide in the form of the Happiness Index, various happiness research institutions, and civil society bodies working to create greater happiness for all).

The institutions which we currently practice (such as representation, parliaments, etc) and typically associate with democracy or BEING democracy are in no way requisites of democracy (please see my long post to Aardvark, unless it is not clear, and if so please ask me to explain better). The people of Bhutan (there were a fair deal of calls commensurate with ‘royalist’ sympathizers to constitutionalise the monarchy, provide more checks and balances, and create access ‘democracy’) during their monarchy were still living their own style of democracy. They had their own understandings and confrontations concerning equality, the rule of law, political communication (between all bodies), and the way they select their rulers. They were also dealing with – to various degrees – the seven endemic problems in their quest to improve their unique human condition and achieve justice. I see nothing wrong with a monarchy as long as the ruler is there by the will of the plural citizenry. If he or she is not, that’s when you will see greater calls for the institutions our ancestors developed (like constitutions, parliaments, voting, representation, etc) to curb the power(s) of the monarch or lop off their head.

Frankly, there is no place in the world where the will of the plural citizenry is explicitly expressed in all of its general nuances as the way governments work are from the short- to medium-term with insufficient information gathering (and way too much irrelevant information bombarding public servants). It is a long-term process to ascertain these general nuances and to properly portray the matrix of a plural society’s will. I recommend the use of a ’super-census’ in my thesis.

The super-census increases the variety of information gathered from citizens (like focusing on happiness, work/life balance, environmental concerns, etc), starting at local governments. Once local governments have completed the super-census and analyzed the data (thus achieving their relevant matrix), this information is then passed up to regional and or state/provincial governments who do the same data compilation. They then pass it up to the state/provincial or country level for more data analysis. At the top of the pyramid, the country can decide to send its results to all other levels of governance and or to MNOs such as the UN to assist in gaining funding, or whatever needs the state has. It is a long-term process that takes years to do as the goal is to question every single person from 16 years of age and up, but ultimately provides far more information than has ever been achieved by the typical census, polling, surveys, voting analysis, or ‘bot’ searches. We just need the leadership to make it happen. I say legitimate governance cannot happen without legitimate information!

I look forward to discussing this more with you,

Jean-Paul

Dear Darth Bane,

I agree with you that issues concerning transparency are definitely in the realm of how much can be shown without risking security, profit, etc. What I meant to say concerning transparency is that it is an endemic problem because of the struggle to gain more transparency in government. Most often, calls for transparency are made when issues of corruption and accountability arise. Relational analysis of those terms showed that they are most often in conjunction with each other: in other words, whenever someone or something is acting on one, they are usually acting on the others as the terms are inter-related.

As for your other points, could you please explain them a bit more? I’m rather daft and have a hard time unraveling certain styles of writing. If you could please address the following in further detail?

1. Putnam’s Fish Bowl Effect
2. The differentiation between business and public transparency
3. Not forcing the right to vote…what kind of vote and by whom?
4. Restrictions on voting…tutors, etc.

I understand your call for ‘non-profits’ to be subsidized and provided with information so as to start grassroots campaigns, this is a common want. In fact, a lot of NGOs and MNOs as well as academics (like Dr. Moses Duruji from the University of Nigeria) are pushing to have grassroots programs fed by easy access to government and industry information.

The issue of the degree of transparency is not particularly difficult. Ultimately, it is up to the plural citizenry to define how much government, etc need to reveal. The act of actually establishing a general consensus of transparency and actually achieving that is much more difficult. International standards set by MNOs like the IPU, CCD, and UN are useful in this respect because these standards provide a basic level to achieve and build on. Currently, the degree of transparency in countries that practice a style of democracy is an indirect nexus of calls from a large variety of different interest groups, and supranational pressure from bodies like the UN.

Why do you think democracy is the best method known at this time?

Not all methods known have been tried.

Also, would limited democracy be better than universal suffrage?
__________________

Dear Smidgey,

I make this assumption that democracy is the best political system for humans (at this time mind you, I have no crystal ball and clearly understand the way something very useful today can be archaic in 500 years or less) based on the fact that I have studied, researched, taught, argued, published, and worked political science for quite a while now. I am not saying that because I have an ok amount of experience and knowledge that I am right, but just that historically we have tried and or theorized about different polities but have always been coming back to democracy from the very beginning of human governance (the archeo-anthropological argument). Please consult Jared Diamond to gain of better grasp of what that is.

It is possible in the future that we could devise a new form of governance, but I still think it will resemble democracy. Please see the post to Aardvark that I made for a better understanding of what I mean. If I were to try and predict the future, I would think that governance would become more accessible and more decentralized (only due to a much more refined central body and local government). I am not sure whether an oligarchy of states or personages or some form of global dictatorship will arise unless some kind of global catastrophe occurs and security takes over democracy.

I honestly can say that limited democracy has been tried over and over again and it does not work. Nobody likes inequality, especially socio-political. Universal suffrage has been a struggle for well over three thousand years, I think it’s safe to say that’s the way things should be going.

I agree with you that not all methods have been tried. There are lots of techniques to improve the expression of the sovereignty of a plural citizenry – especially due to improvements over how we communicate. But like previously stated, these techniques won’t be alien to democracy, they will most likely serve to improve it. And they will be the new cutting edge techniques, not historical oppositions to more inclusive democracy.

Could you please specify a bit more about what other methods you are thinking about? Plato’s Republic is something I am familiar with and he recommends an aristocratic style of government. Democracy, that is rule by the masses, was not something he looked kindly upon (nor did any of the Sophists and the majority of Greek and Roman philosophers). Aristocratic government was tried in Poland from around the 16th century to about the 1800s. The powerful barons met in assembly style (Sejm) with the Church and Monarch, townsmen were effectively suppressed (see Keane, 2009), but were swallowed up due to what I call ‘intellectual inbreeding’. Because the barons viewed themselves to be superior to the “masses”, they did not have a heterogeneous enough opinion and missed a lot of growth opportunities (such as improving military techniques and acting on new technologies). The Polish-Lithuanian Empire (once the strongest in Europe, defender against the Ottoman Empire) was subsequently wiped off the face of the map for several centuries by a combination of different polities. Limited democracy does not work.

Would you be referring to James Mill by chance? J.S. was more radical than his father but you must understand that progressive ideology for that time was lowering the franchise to males below 21, and lowering minimum property qualifications – not removing them, and even more radical was to include women (I think JS and J both thought women should get the franchise). We cannot apply these historical arguments today as they are retrograde: they were progressive then and applicable to the political situation of that era. They do not apply in that form to what we are experiencing now. If we practiced limited democracy or Plato’s republican version there would be insane riots for the simple fact that we have more educated people on Earth than we have ever had. Many people would not tolerate retrograding social, civil, and political rights.

Thanks for your post and I look forward to any rebuttals you may have,

Jean-Paul

Dear Youcanhandlethetruth,

I should have defined what I meant by ‘constitutionalism’. What I mean by that is constitutional issues. I do not, at all, think constitutions are bad. I do, however, think that they were – and are – all not correctly made (i.e. by elitists, and not in a long-term process, and not reflecting the plural interests of all parties in the polity, and most often not in non-violent environments). An unwritten constitution thus has its advantages in this respect, but then again it is disadvantaged at times due to a non-established bill of rights except those defined in legal precedent or the civil code.

It is always a hard thing to see the intentions of a government as such a thing is a highly complex milieu. But by shifting our perspectives and applying different lenses, we can see that there are a large amount of initiatives, long-standing efforts, and at various levels of government in that milieu to mitigate most of these endemic problems and to better establish the democratic particles. I am by no way saying my political recommendations are being achieved, but there are a variety of endemic problems and democratic particles which are being targeted and improved the world over (this can be seen by conducting a frequency and proximity analysis of NGO, INGO, MNO, etc, publications of endemic problems and democratic particles).

I do agree with you that a more inclusive government is needed. We can move beyond the elitist establishment of representative democracy to allow people who desire to engage with their governments: such is possible with new information communication technology (ICT) developments. I also agree that special interests need careful monitoring so that corporate industry does not manufacture consent and try to plot the direction of society. I am, unfortunately, not familiar with the New World Order perspective and will have to read up on it.

Thank you for answering my question and I hope that I have provided an adequate reply to your post.

Thanks again,

Jean-Paul

Dear Clippo,

Thank you for the welcome and explanation of certain represented factions within this Forum. My personal opinion is that a diverse variety of ontology is most often a useful happenstance when seeking the weaknesses of a particular idea (as I am within this thread).

To answer your question concerning direct democracy would require a good deal of research using my ontology on several different Cantons (thus a comparative methodology). I have just returned from living in Geneva (for only 6 months, interning and on mission with the UN), but unfortunately did not have the opportunity to experience their distinct style of democracy or study it for that matter.

However, in my experience, a quanititative frequency analysis of government texts from a canton using endemic problems as explicit search words will allow you to see which problem is currently the most focused on, and inversely, which is least. Furthermore, you may also wish to conduct a relational (proximity) analysis of the endemic problems to understand how their are linked within the Canton’s unique circumstances.

In the international arena of democratisation (thus multinational, transnational, and international NGO bodies) the current major focus is on the rule of law (a fundamental parameter of the democratic element), representation, accountability, transparency, corruption, campaigning methods, and political information (namely access to and accountable data). Equality and constitutional issues are rather more “medium” to “small” concerns; whilst the selection of rulers and long-term goals in politics are virtually ignored. Perhaps this general pattern will be reflected in Swiss Cantons, but I cannot say that for sure. Let me know if you try this analysis, or I will let you know if I get into it (or a grad student of mine does).

Cheers,

Jean-Paul

Dear Aardvark,

The individual who has stated (and soon to be done in peer-review) that there are 4 basic democratic ‘processes’ (I now refer to them as ‘particles’ which compose the ‘element of democracy’) and seven endemic governance problems: is me. Let me explain the way this came about. My whole life I was told through school, the media, contacts with society, and from family, etc that democracy was the best form of governance (often times called the ‘lesser evil’). However, I always wondered why there were still so many problems in the world. Democracy cannot be that great then surely? It was the cumulative effect of taxi drivers and barbers winging to me about how rotten the politics are (and this was always in ‘democratic’ countries) so I applied to do a Masters (which led to the PhD) to research why there are issues if democracy is said to be so great.

That was over 3 years ago. I started my investigation of the literature by defining my ontology (a mixture of Socrates, Nietzsche, John Raulston Saul, and Karl Popper); investigating what I mean by ‘democracy’ (as no current universal definition exists as of yet aside from sovereignty resting with the plural citizenry); and then looking for problems in democracy to better understand what my taxi drivers and barbers were on about (my mom is quite the armchair activist and got me into thinking about politics too).

So I used Pierre Rosanvallon’s and Girling’s historical approach methods and started at the beginning of democracy: the archeo-anthropological approach (Jared Diamond, see his ever popular Guns, Germs, and Steel, 1997 I believe). Diamond argued that institutions of deliberation, discussion, compromise, etc are inherent to human nature. He came to this conclusion through a variety of archeological studies and anthropological work with secluded – and small – tribes in Papua New Guinea. It was from this (coupled with Aristotle, Plato, and Thucydides’ work on mixed constitutions) that I came to view democracy as an ever present element in all governments, regardless of official political demarcations.

I then scrutinized and devoured literature from Ancient Greek city states (not just Athens); Republican Rome; the ‘Dark Ages’; Italian City-State Republics; USA, French, and British revolutionary periods; political philosophers and academics of (what I termed) the ‘modern period’ (1800s – present). It was during this time that I noticed there are always the same recurring issues, under different contexts and circumstances, in each of these periods – hence the heavily supported evidence of 7 distinct endemic problems: accountability, transparency, corruption, constitutionalism, campaigning methods, long-term goals, and representation.

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.

So that is how, truly simply and condensed, I came to understand, argue, and ultimately state that there are 7 endemic problems, 4 democratic particles, and a universal definition of democracy. I would like to ask all again to challenge my reasoning. Have I missed any published materials, thinkers, or logical perspectives that have done what I have done and blown it all away? Is there a fundamental flaw somewhere? Have at it guys, you are honestly doing me a great favor by it. I just ask that we maintain respectful language, and treat all those who are posting here with decency.

Finally, to answer your question Aardvark which I believe was partially touched upon by Wessexman, there is actually a large history of polities engaging with these endemic problems and also the democratic particles as people tried, tried, and tried again to establish their sovereignty. I strongly recommend the newly published book by John Keane (2009) The Life and Death of Democracy which is the first complete global history of democracy in about 150 years. Keane (the Professor of Political Science at Westminster University I believe) does a fantastic job (I am reviewing it at present and there are only minor scruples) and provides a lot of evidence that I have never been taught or have read. He actually shows that democracy was not invented by Athenians, their claims to that title were spurious, as democracy began in early Sumeria (evidence of assemblies, and early reaches to sovereignty and limiting monarchy or oligarchy is present in Linear B). For the record, I didn’t think Athens invented democracy either, but by saying that I am not trying to put myself on the same playing field as Keane, he’s just such a cool academic, haha. After reading his book you will come to see that representation, accountability, transparency, long-term goals (or lack thereof), corruption, campaigning methods, and constitutional issues; as well as equality, the rule of law, communication, and the selection of rulers were issues, even for people living in absolutist polities.

Thanks for your patience on this longer yarn,

Jean-Paul