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
Post a Comment