Defining Democracy

Here's another important thing to think about -- how do you define democracy?

Webster's Dictionary says it's: "Government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained and directly exercised by the people."

Of course, in most cases, the actual application is more like their second definition: "Government by popular representation; a form of government in which the supreme power is retained by the people, but is indirectly exercised through a system of representation and delegated authority periodically renewed; a constitutional representative government; a republic."

Wikipedia says democracy is "a form of government under which the power to alter the basic laws and forms of government lies with the voting citizenry, referred to as 'the people', and all decisions are made by representatives who act by their consent, as enforced by elections and the rule of law. In some cases, democracy is associated with nominal monarchy where the monarch has sharply limited powers, but it is more commonly associated with a republic."

Okay, all that sounds pretty good, right? But here's the problem -- democracy is one of those words widely used by people all around the world, many with broadly divergent aims, interests, and values. Even in the US, or Canada, or Europe, democracy can mean very different things, depending on who is saying it and in what context.

And what does all this have to do with nanotechnology and CRN? Well, when the time comes to sit down at the table and discuss how we might effectively and responsibly manage exponential general-purpose molecular manufacturing, there are going to be plenty of people with deeply felt needs. They're all going to want to protect their interests, and nearly all will advocate democratic solutions -- because by their definition, democracy will help them get what they want.

But whose form of democracy will hold sway? Will it be the social democracy so prevalent in Europe and South America? Will it be the classical liberal democracy of the United States? Perhaps a type of "people's democracy", as espoused by the Chinese government? Or something else altogether?

Mike Treder

Comments

[Brett Bellmore]

I think you're conflating "democracy", and "government", or at least you seem to be doing so. But it's a common error.

Personally, I think the best definition of democracy was Benjamin Franklin's: "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

[Marc_Geddes]

In the most general sense of the term 'democracy' is a system of Accountability, Transparency and Due Process, designed to secure equal rights and to resolve disputes in a peaceful manner.

Any number of systems could be compatible with this general definition. You'll notice that 'majority rules' or even 'voting' is not included in my defintion.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, I did notice that. I take it you belong to the Humpty Dumpty school of linguistics. Personally, I find communication runs better if I use words to mean what everybody else understands by them.

[Chris Phoenix, CRN]

Brett, I don't understand your first post/objection about conflating democracy and government. Mike was not defining democracy--he was citing definitions. And those definitions, taken collectively, may have been overly broad--and that was, I think, Mike's point--but there are plenty of governments that do not fit any of them, so those definitions are certainly not equivalent to government.

Marc, what's the source for your definition?

I'll admit to not being sure why Mike mentioned the Chinese government. They don't seem to fit any of the cited definitions.

If we can get away from sniping about words, there's an important conversation to be had here. What is it about democracy that makes it so desirable? Is it the voting? The free press? (I think one of the Founding Fathers said he'd rather have free press than voting.) Is it the provision for frequent bloodless revolutions? How important is checks and balances--something that's not part of democracy per se, but part of several successful democratic governments? How important is a Bill of Rights, and reserving all but a few powers from the national government? Is voting always the best form of representation? How important is separation of religion from government? (In at least some countries with state-controlled religions, religious fervor seems to diminish, which may be preferable to fervent religion that may have no official effect but excessive indirect effect; of course we need to distinguish between state-controlled religions and religion-controlled states.)

The flip side of the question: What factors can damage or break a democracy? Poor education of its citizens appears to be a major weak spot; an uninformed and unthinking public can be manipulated to elect anyone; and just as (so I'm told) lawyers on both sides of a court case will cooperate in selecting a jury that's easily swayed emotionally, it may be in the interests of all parties/factions in government to make the electorate stupid, so that each faction can focus on fighting the others instead of worrying about the people.

A two-party system appears to have significant problems. Are these problems worse than the problems of a multi-party system?

The reason these questions are important is that we may have some new democratic governments coming online in the next few decades--including, possibly, an international structure that's democratic (would you rather have a new international structure that's not democratic?) and it's important to understand what makes a good democracy.

Chris

[Mike Treder, CRN]

I'll admit to not being sure why Mike mentioned the Chinese government. They don't seem to fit any of the cited definitions.

Yep, and that's the point. Democracy is one of those hot-button words that can easily be hijacked for the sake of expediency. Just because someone claims to be promoting "democracy", "freedom", or even "human rights" does not necessarily indicate that their interests will coincide with yours. It's imperative to look beyond slogans.

Moreover, even when cynical manipulation is not present or intended, honest disagreement about terminology can undermine effective communication and prevent productive negotiation.

[Brett Bellmore]

"What is it about democracy that makes it so desirable? Is it the voting? The free press?"

Well, that's kind of the point. Democracy IS the voting, and nothing else. The free press is something quite separate, which can be found in some non-democratic states, and is missing in some democratic states.

I realize there are people who use the term "democracy" in a much more sloppy manner, but they're either confused, or, (As is the case with the Chinese.) trying to confuse.

The real problem with all of this, is that most of what made this country work so well, wasn't the democracy, but the limits we placed on government. Without those limits, democracy is just a way of chosing your opressor.

[Marc_Geddes]

Hi Brett,

I should perhaps have distingushed between 'democracy' and 'democratic values'. I support 'democratic values', not neccesserily 'democracy' as such. If by democracy you just mean 'voting', then I don't support that definition.

In the most general sense of the term 'democratic values' are: equal rights, and methods of resolving disputes peacefully. The requirements for this basically: Accounability, Transparancy, Due Process (like David Brin). In *that* sense, I support 'democratic values'. I think there are many possible systems that could be comatible with *democratic values*, but which are not *democratic* in the narrow sense of using voting.

[Marc_Geddes]

Hi Chris,

As I said above, I don't see voting as being neccessery in order to achieve *democratic values*. I think the essential part of Democracy is *not* voting, but the three things I mentioned: Accountability, Transparency, Due Process.