A suggested strategy for rolling back the power of the oligarchy.

::::::::

Reclaiming Democracy 

We have descended a long way from stated ideals of the original proponents of democracy. The great march of democracy and freedom has been replaced by a national and international political discourse that is consumed with fundamentalism and extremism of the Christian, Muslim, Jewish and even Hindu types. Lofty ideals about the nature of humanity, progress, and a bright tomorrow when racism, fascism, apartheid and sexism would be discarded to the dustbin of history to be replaced by a loving, green and peaceful world have been all but forgotten. The age of the Internet and the information highway, the collapse of totalitarianism, and intensified globalisation have rather surprisingly resulted in a greater and more severe pursuit of national interests and wars rather than the pursuit of happiness and international solidarity. 

An exponential rise in the availability information has exposed extreme levels of ignorance, particularly among politicians. Civil society appears less civil than was expected. Significant improvements in standards of living across the globe have not brought humanity closer together on the level of ideas. At least this does not appear to be the case in a war-obsessed world. The media have regressed in information quality while they have improved on information quantity and presentation quality.

The situation has led to a sense of disempowerment or lethargy among the greater populations at large. The opportunities presented by technological progress have been seized on by states across the globe. The state is ever more powerful to monitor, control and direct people and their minds. Social engineering has been on the rise in recent decades. Instruments for the protection of civil liberties have become blunted, blurred and unresponsive. Politicians act like agents of the ‘market’ – whoever or whatever that elusive policy determiner may be. Wars are launched and maintained for indefinite periods in the face of public opposition. The elected representatives of the public treat public opinion as largely irrelevant. At best, public opinion is seen as something that must be managed rather than followed. 

Vested interests are king today. Public officials and elected representatives are bought and sold like commodities. They do not possess a sense of responsibility toward the public, but arrange their time and efforts to manage their electorate instead. Put simply, representative democracy seems to have reached the end of its usefulness for the public. This may have been the case from its inception (we leave that argument to the academics), but the shortcomings of representative democracy are patently clear today. Elected representatives do not represent the opinions or interests of those who elect them, nor do they intend to so it would appear. 

So it is time to go back to the drawing board and ask the question: what is democracy? What was the essence of all the fuss made in the first place? We will deliberately exclude an analysis of the modes of production here since it would add way too much volume to this short paper, and because it is essentially not necessary when we are discussing the basic principles and goals of democracy as an age-old concept in itself. Suffice to say, we will confine our discussion to the exigencies of today. 

Democracy has in essence three separate aspects:

1. The free and equal right of every person to participate in a system of government

2. A system of government based on the principle of majority decision-making

3. The control of an organization by its members, who have a free and equal right to participate in decision-making processes. 

The core problem with the situation is that while the first two aspects are to varying degrees practiced in various countries, the third aspect is hardly ever practiced anywhere. This raises a fundamental question on the practicality of the ideal itself: how is it possible for individuals to participate in government-level decision-making if there is a dearth of democratic organisation in social institutions or organisations such as the family, the corner shop, the office, the shop floor, the hospital, schools and so on. There is always a representative or leader in place wherever you go and whatever you do. Inevitably we are being a little reductionist here, but the subject matter requires it, and there is undeniable truth in our basic statement: as a rule, democracy is absent from the family and the work place. The question is: Why? And,what is the impact of this situation on a quest for greater freedom and self-determination? 

A simple answer to the question of ‘why’ is found in the capitalism/democracy dichotomy. But this is not a satisfactory answer to those who believe in freedom in a personal, human way rather than the intangible ‘market’ way. In fact, the mysterious ‘market’ appears to successfully negate democracy and our efforts to achieve it. In ‘Bush speak’ freedom is effectively reduced to the freedom (of Americans) to exploit others and to own vast amounts of private property at the direct expense of others and the environment, and virtually nothing else.  

How is it that we are here claiming that the ‘free market democracy’ and ‘democracy’ are diametrically opposed to each other? The key would appear to be in the system of representative democracy itself: giving up individual freedoms in a social contract that essentially disempowers the ‘masses’ in favour of the chosen few – an idea that gained ascendance with the rise of the feudal aristocracy and later strongly reinforced by the rise of the bourgeoisie. Representative democracy would have looked highly attractive back then, but today, it effectively impedes democracy itself. 

There is a structural contradiction between stated ideals and realities on the ground. Perhaps this is the case today largely due to the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of a few. Perhaps it is time to roll back the power of the oligarchy. We are certainly heading in the wrong direction in terms of peace, the environment and citizens participation in the decision-making processes. Profits and short-term gains have drawn a large curtain over international solidarity. Hit-and-run economics have led to the present “credit crunch”. Who knows where this new financial crisis will lead. For sure, there are some positive signs among the wreckage. The Bali conference, November 2007, and other bits and pieces can be pointed out. However, decorations alone do not make a cake. 

How then would one approach the question of achieving greater democracy today? Despite the foregoing arguments, we are not here looking at the idea of revolutionising the work place. That is at once too obvious and too impractical short of a global revolution. What may be more practical is to start at the top, and to aim specifically at reducing the decision-making influence of the new aristocracy: the super rich, the multinational corporations, banking warlords and the military-industrial complex. And the key to this shift in power may in fact rest in the Internet. 

In the context of such a large and constantly increasing number of delicate and confidential transactions being conducted over the World Wide Web today, one has to wonder why it is that so many decisions are still being made by elected representatives rather than directly by the people themselves. If we can conduct banking transactions and most of our confidential correspondence over the net, why not establish voting systems too? Why is it that a single person – a president - has the right to declare war on another nation without consulting the people first; and an illegal war at that too? Why is it that when the elected Congress or Senate or any other parliament fails to defend the Constitution and to resist war crimes, no one has the power to do anything? 

For sure, there are many practical questions to consider, but there is no justification today for continuing with the status quo if we truly see ourselves as upholders of democratic values. One can anticipate several of the inevitable objections:  

1. Fraud  

Election fraud is nothing new in any country, and whatever preventive measures exist today can be replicated for a web-based voting system too. It is a matter of the political will and transparency. A web-based system indeed would be easier to monitor independently. 

2. Competence

A constant and old anti-democratic argument has been the competence of voters on technical or sensitive issues. We know full well that most legislators do not bother to read what they are voting on – not even on matters such as the Patriot Act. On the contrary, elected representatives are highly susceptible to party political, financial and lobbyist pressures, and as such are largely incompetent for the legislative jobs they hold. 

3. Time constraints or lack of interest 

It can be argued that the average citizen may not be interested in or have the time to deal with a broad range of issues that politicians typically deal with. This is an important barrier that would need careful consideration of how a direct voting system would be organised. However, just as in the above point, politicians have shown a distinct lack of interest in dealing with their responsibilities with the required professionalism and dedication. This is partly related to an absence of personal implications for the politicians in the decisions they make. Their number one priority is to hold on to power. They base all their decisions with this single issue on their mind in addition to other considerations that come and go, but holding on to power stays as a main objective all the way through. However, the average citizen has a personal stake in many if not most of the political decisions made. They may well make the time and develop the interest in their own affairs in a surprising manner. Furthermore, and as with other tasks, the legislative workload can be shared or distributed according to the level of interest. Local level decisions would attract a great deal of interest as they affect one’s own neighbourhood. State-level issues need only state-level interest. National issues of a sensitive nature would attract a great deal of voter interest, while others can be delegated to elected representatives and/or technical groups. The options and opportunities with direct democracy and citizens’ participation are limitless, and there is no excuse for reneging on the task of bringing real democracy about. 

In the absence of any known parallels, a web-based system of direct democracy would need to be set up gradually. Perhaps one would have to aim at the two extremes of decision-making to start with: matters of high national interest and those at the local level. Most likely, a mixed system of delegated and direct democracy would work best, at least to start with.  

Interestingly, a web-based voting system would also put an end to two or three-party monopolies at the reign of power. What better way to end the rule of ineffective and self-serving political parties than to hold elections for representative houses on the Internet? The process can start from the local level with each successful candidate moving up the administrative ladder to the county, province, state and then national level for the head of state. Manifestos can be more easily scrutinised; question and answer sessions held; and the policies of candidates can be truly scrutinised instead of the current razzmatazz of balloons, excruciating music and nauseating celebrities. 

It really is time to take control of our lives, and to address the key question of ‘what is to be done?’ with a feasible solution, to draw on our basic and fundamental approach to democracy, and thus take ownership of it. It is only then we can truly be the responsible and engaged global citizens that most of us aspire to be. Even the many who have fallen victim to apathy will recognize that some of us have decided to reclaim a basic right that is ours as citizens and re-establish the system’s creditability. Given the performance of the powers that be, our survival may depend on it.

Authors Website: http://niloufarparsi.wordpress.com

Authors Bio:
An average Iranian with a keen interest in international affairs. Niloufar is a graduate in Development Studies in the UK, and works as an international consultant in the field of international development (non-profit).