Improving Democracy - A New Theory

Economics Political Theory
, , ,
1

The following is a Knol I wrote a couple days ago. It is a very condensed and simplified version of the Theory of Endemic Governance Problems and its underlying principles. I hope that this post will generate some discussion. If you would like to use this information for anything other than reading, please be kind enough to cite my research.

–

There is no such thing as a standard democratic form of government. Each “democracy” in the world has their own unique format and modus operandi. However, there are basic attributes to each democracy which is the distinguishing factor between that style of government and others claiming to be “democratic” (modern example being Zimbabwe). Such basic parameters are (1) Discerning Rulers (defaulted to voting over the centuries), (2) Communication, (3) Rule of Law, (4) Equality/Justice/Pluralism. Following these basic parameters are sub-parameters: (1) Taxation, (2) Trade, (3) Media, (4) Bureaucracy, (5) Military. These lists were compiled after an extensive and exhaustive analysis of every major described “style” of democracy which were then synthesized to produce the lists. Any given democracy may have some or all of the sub-parameters (all governments have the basic parameters), sub-parameters are often used to compliment the basic parameters (in other words, allowing them to work in the manner dictated by government). The key is for all of these areas to be sovereign to the will of the people.

The above was an extremely condensed appraisal of the shared democratic parameters between all democracies. There are still difficulties which exist in “democracies.” Many people would agree that it is an excellent form of government but something that is also direly in need of institutional improvement. Scholars have noted that there has been little institutional change in democratic functioning since the American and French constitutional ratifications (well over 200 years). People all over the world are becoming more disinterested in politics and society, feeling a sentiment of disattachment at times. In my personal opinion, I believe this is due to a combination of factors: globalization, supranational influences, materialistic lifestyle, and the inability to trust. The latter, again in my opinion, is a major player. How can we trust politicians or the media or any other body in society or government when there exists no sure way to really know the verifiable truth. I think people are tired of trying and are retracting and redirecting their goals in life towards more practical affairs. This (along with many other democratic improvements) is something that I am direly trying to improve with my international organization, MED-P (Mitigating Endemic Democratic Problems, www.med-p.org). It is my sense that democracy is about providing the ultimate sovereignty of a pluralist society in an equal, legal, and peaceful manner. It’s about allowing people to progress together and that is currently not happening that well in most countries of the world (I haven’t heard of any countries that don’t have democratic problems at this point).

Thus, the theory that I have developed is about improving democracy to the next step, to where it really can be. Not part of the theory, but rather as major themes in my thesis, are players such as: information technology, parliamentary reform, census reform, and media reform. The basis of the theory thus rests on improving the aforementioned basic parameters of democracy (which are present in every level of government in every country in the world) on the foundations of heightening the sovereignty of the people so that they may trust and inform their governments of their wills. I have read so far (in Mises) that a lot of people are concerned about the tyranny of the majority or tyranny of the minority and such concerns have been with us since the Athenians. It is difficult to produce legislation that is balanced and truly representative of people’s desires. This is something that I am currently working on and hopefully will be able to produce something pragmatic in the coming years to help resolve this issue.

There are seven endemic governance problems which permeate all of these parameters and processes. They are as follows:

  1. Accountability
  2. Representation
  3. Transparency
  4. Corruption
  5. Constitutionalism
  6. Campaigning Methods
  7. Long-Term Goals

Each of these problem areas have been a governance problem for over two thousand years. I began my historical survey with the Athenians, continued with the Romans, through to the ‘Dark Ages’ in Europe, into the Italian City-State Republics, the English, French, and American revolutions, onwards to modern thinkers, and ending in an empirical conceptual analysis of modern governments. This analysis was done by taking 14 different (and large) documents from major NGOs and international government organizations (such as the UN, NED, TI, ParlCent, International IDEA, etc.) and analyzing the frequency of each problem (before doing so the basic parameters and sub-parameters were analyzed to gauge their relevance). After a frequency analysis was conducted, a relational analysis was done to quantify the relationships between all terms. The findings were striking. Each endemic problem is still very much part of the discourse of international democratic reform meaning that they are still as present as ever. Save for long-term goals which seem to have no bearing in our political discourse (a problem in itself).

Why have these problems been with us for thousands of years without anyone quantifying them? It is a question that I can only partly answer. During my in-depth literature review I came across hordes of excellent research and published documents spanning centuries (even going back to Aristotle and Plato). The trouble was that only one or a few of the endemic problems were discussed either separately or more often in relation to geo-politics or trans-historical analyzes or a critique of an area of society or government. There is absolutely no problem about that and these areas of work are sometimes masterpieces in themselves. Undoubtedly, they allowed me to compile the aforementioned basic list of endemic problems which have been plaguing us for over two millennia.

The key aspect of The Theory of Endemic Governance Problems is that it is a mixed methods approach and not solely dependent on theoretical research. The empirical and very near-present analysis of the working documents related to international democratic reform give it a practical and use-able edge. The theory is universal in that any government at any level can use it. Best of all, it’s simple.

The premise is that each endemic problem is self-reinforcing. In other words, by improving one area in government, it inadvertently improves some or all (depending on the problem being improved) creating a positive feedback cycle.

Using the theory strengthens democratic elements in both democratic states and non-democratic ones by opening up government to society by basing the improvements on the democratic parameters (basic ones) previously mentioned. This improvement will generate a government more “in-tune” with society leading to a higher quality of democracy and ultimately advancing the human condition.

I recommend that IT and Censuses should be worked into the using of the theory for practical reasons. IT can be used to facilitate communication, whilst frequent censuses can be used to quantify information concerning reform. This act of censusing people (must try to encompass ALL citizens, it is most likely a 1 or 2 year process after planning stages) in itself increases accountability, representation, and may help long-term goals. IT integration in government reform may also have positive implications.

It is difficult to present a defined structure of the theory as that would limit its universality clause as every democracy and society is unique, apart from the basic democratic parameters and endemic problems. Each government and society may be stronger or weaker in some areas, but the bottom line is that they all share the same areas.

I encourage all of you to forward this information to your government, civil society organizations, and whoever else you feel would benefit from this. After my thesis is formally finished I will be publishing a book which may be of interest to readers of this Knol.

Any comments, criticisms, etc. are very welcome. Thank you for considering my work.

Copyright, 2008, Jean-Paul Gagnon @ QUT, Brisbane, Australia.

2

Are you sure this hasn’t always been the case? Do you have any data like poll attendance across the decades to prove your case? Any intelligent person can see that his vote won’t matter squat as it is dilluted amongst the rest of the millions. And any principled person won’t want to impose a leader or a view in other people. If I’m scared for my friend’s health because he became an addictive smoker, I don’t ask for laws to make cigarettes more expensive, or make health checks compulsory or something, I deal with him in a respectful, friendly basis and actually move my ass a longer distance than what it takes to cross the street to vote, in order to actually help the guy.

Feeling alienated of society is a very different thing. I am not sure if anti-depressive sells would completely convince me here, because it could just be a result of drugs and therapy being more accessible, but I would be interested on suicide rates across decades. These are easy to find stuff and, even if other explanations exist, it makes your case seem much stronger.

I would also not try to throw some factors to explain it, which aren’t even related to democracy, without even trying to justify them. Globalization, seriously? Material lifestyles? Surely there are much less people going to church now, but I don’t think there are less religous people. You see, people used to go to church because of social pressure, it was a social event, they were just apathetic to the teaching as they are now. With regard to art and music, that’s on the rise, as is leisure in general. Just because you think they should visit boring museums, listen classic music, and go to crappy theatres doesn’t mean the alternatives are different in nature.

I don’t care much about democracy, but here’s some ideas of how it could be improved:

  1. make the tax revenue be a direct tax on income. This tax doesn’t hide the size of government, and is the most transparent and isn’t regressive like the alternatives. Also, make it a monthly bill. Add a graph of the planned yearly budget to it as well, completed with the unexpected expenditure and debt taken last year. The more detailed and periodic the better.

  2. make voting as local as possible. The school director election at the school level, the street department at the city level, etc. For health, retirment and other individual plans, make them opt-out. Let people secede and compete against the state, with democratic organization if they so wish, as much as possible.

  3. avoid package deals. Political parties can be a good type of organization to promote candidates, but they should not get special treatment. People should vote on candidates, not on parties.

  4. change sequential voting to ranking voting. Single vote increases the chance of an unwanted candidate to win. Why? Because there will be more candidates catering for the most popular opinions, so these votes will split, “spoling” the election and helping the undesirable guy.

3

Hello BlackSheep,

Thanks very much for your thoughts on the scholarly judgement of a growing disinterest in politics. I can see by your writing tone that you are very passionate about politics and that is a good thing. If you could please refrain from using bad language in responses and lower the aggression in your writing to me I would greatly appreciate it.

In answer to your first question, yes, there does exist a large amount of poll data in various countries accross the world (it is the National Library’s trust to document these statistics and they should be available at any major public library). There has been a consistent downturn in the past 100 years as a long-term trend with spikes arising during periods of popular sentiments. Please note that when I have an opinion I state such on the page, and these opinions are founded in scholarship. Also, if I have stated something and not attributed my opinion to it in writing it is based on scholarly research and you are welcome to ask for the source if you are interested.

Your example shows that you have an admiral quality for your concern toward your friends. It seems that you are mistaken by what democracy is however. No country is truly a ‘democracy’. Many countries have stronger ‘democratic elements’ but also have aristocratic and meritocratic elements alongside those. It is these areas that generally confuse people and anger them about democratic processes. Also, many governments inadequately (in many people’s opinion) conduct democratic processes. Legislation is an extremely important aspect as these are the legal agreements that people (either through representatives or referendums) have agreed upon to order society. Again, there are problems with legislation due to pressure groups, shirking politicians, and lack of transparency or accessibility by ordinary citizens or specialist committees (like scientists on environment reports). Please understand that I am talking generally about democracies in the world. This (including my theory) is not solely directed at the United States.

When it comes to alienation, the term used in academia generally refers to people that can no longer relate or have difficulty relating to something due to some alienating factor. It does not mean that people need to go on prescription drugs. I don’t have any resources on suicides rates however this may be an interesting area to research for yourself (i.e. does political strife invariably affect the suicide rate?) Obviously you would have to find a way to quantify or measure political strife, maybe by picking an unpopular event and measuring time scale with suicide rates.

Globalization is related to democracy as it has an impact on the functionings of the nation state. Materialism and lifestyle has been a hot topic among many scholars about the disinterest of people wich then weakens democracy in some ways. I’m not sure what you mean by “visiting boring museums” etc. but you attempt some form of discreditation by writing as if I wrote such things. You should really work on being more respectful to others.

As per your suggestions for improving democracy they seem to be quite valid and I encourage you to pursue them. Try writing to your local representative, to the media, to the executive body of government, NGOs, or just keep thinking about these ideas and write a book! It’s a great way to get yourself heard.

Also, in many countries it is possible to simply vote for one candidate, or a list as “package deals” are more often called, or simply for the party at which your vote goes to the strongest candidate.

It is nice to see that you have thought about reasonable ideas to improve democratic practice. I am interested to know what you would think of an alternative to democracy may be? Many people argue that it may not be the best, and it may have problems, but its the best we can make with? What’s your opinion?

I feel that democracy (as defined in my theory) is something we still need to work to achieve. There are lots of areas for improvement, especially in making it more accessible to the people. Many governments that call themselves democratic (even with international backing) are technically not very good ones. I do not think (but it probable) that humans - at least in the coming two or three hundreds years - will achieve a well balanced and internationally agreed upon form of government. However, if such is the case it will most likely be democratic.

I’d like to thank you for the time you put into writing your response and I’m also sorry to have had to ask you to be more mindful of your writing language and tone, please do not take offense to this but understand that it pays to be nice to people and try to keep emotions checked in conversations. Thanks again Blacksheep!

4

Would you say that you support your conception of democracy on a utilitarian basis, an ethical basis, or a mix of both? If ethics pertains to your arguments, how do you resolve the problem of moral double standards between individuals, and the government?

5

I want liberty, not democracy. I do not believe that losing a vote should mean I have to compromise my core values or actions.

Democracy is a tyranny. It’s collective rule. I want no part of that on a provinicial (state) level, let alone an international one.

6

Then why do you vote?

7

Who said I do?

8

Again, I hate pointing this out repeatedly. but utilitarianism is an ethical system, and a deontic one at that.

-Jon

9

It’s one that (imo) lacks any morality, I guess I should be more precise next time.

10

You don’t improve democracy cancer. You erradicate it.

11

If there is to be an improved democracy, it will be one wherer any minority objection is respected and obeyed.

12

Hi Jean-Paul,

Sorry for the language, and thanks for the reply. Your post is so different than the “political mood” of this forum, I thought it was just an announcement. Didn’t actually expect a reply.

I didn’t mean to suggest a correlation between political frustration and social uneasiness. I just dispute that both exist, correlated or not, (edit: I mean this generalized and increased as was suggested) so I suggest it would help to throw some statistic in there to make a stronger case for that. Depending on how people associate themselves, they will have completely different views of the general sentiment of the population. I personally think there may be some political frustration, but most importantly, people are satisfied with their lives and society, so they don’t bother to organize themselves into parties or such groups. I know from going a few months to the meetings of a party here where 10 people at most were what you could expect to show up every month. If you go to older democracies like the USA and that have been prosperous for the last half century, it is my impression that people enlisted for voting and active voters rate should be similarly as shy as of now.

Wherever possible free enterprise and choice should trump democracy. If a family is constrained by time and budget and so can only let the kids select one place for vacations, majority rule and compromise between the “factions” makes sense. However, if the parents can afford and are willing to go through the several destinies, more power to them.

By the way, to see how an unlimted, more direct democracy would be like, you can just look at how people vote with their money now. The only difference is that only the majority would be served and that society would end up in abject poverty when they run off of public credit.

13

I’ve been researching the ability to actually buy votes from people, since democracy has been ingrained with free enterprise, up until very recently.

Just for example, say we have a world government. I have a lot of wealth and support a candidate for world president. Other impoverished countries (regions) peoples want to vote for another president because of his agenda. Suppose I dislike this persons policies, I will attempt to buy the right to vote from the regions individual inhabitants in exchange for money or resources. They agree, and do not vote in a universal election, but have their agenda already accomplished by selling their votes for more money, which is what they wanted in the first place. I am still looking into this and developing a theory for it, but I’m trying to turn democracy over to the system that has massive evidence of advancement: the marketplace.

Isn’t the market system based on the democratic principal, the majority rules?

I have one serious question about a global democracy? What if one declines to vote? Are the accountability standards going to be precise, that that person would not pay taxes to go to that project he declined to vote for?, would a system of “political credits” accumulate based on lack of votes, give an individual, by turning in accumulated votes so as to give him more power on a certain issue? Saving several chances of losing against the majority in the past, to have a greater impact in the future. That would truly be political capital.

14

The way to improve democracy is to make it truly participatory: to remove the state from the picture and have people manage their own affairs.

15

No, not really. If in a market 99% of people desire one thing and 1% desire something else, the market simply allocates 99% and 1% of its resources, respectively, toward fulfilling both disparate needs. In democracy, the 1% is just SOL.

16

So most of the resources go to the majority, the 99%.

But I get what your saying, there is still an effort to give 1%

17

Not only that, but the 1% of the market constitutes a niche which provides its own, particular opportunities. I don’t think that democracy is analogous to the market for that reason. In the market, entrepreneurs see every differing opinion as a chance to expand their business. A democratic system ignores or even persecutes everyone who isn’t a part of the 50% + 1.

18

Hi BlackSheep, thanks for your reply. I understand how easy it is to get swept up and passionate in online forums and really only ask people to be mindful of their language as a personal preference. I truly enjoy practicing a show of respect to others and their ideas, taking the time to understand other people’s perspectives, and really trying to learn from them. It was Aristotle who was accredited with saying (and not verbatim haha) that great ideas can be found in the minds of the masses. Obiously I do not favor his condescending tone, but really it speaks of simply acknowledging that anyone, no matter who they are or what their education/experience is, may actually have an idea far superior to any specialist’s. Furthermore, I’m hoping that my due diligence in this respect pays off, even if it is a simple drop of water in a desert full of rudeness and inconsideration as online forums sometimes are. It is also often difficult to discern a writer’s tone online as it takes a certain degree of aptitude in writing to convey emotions properly (I sometimes notice my writing can be read in a different tone if I am not paying attention). I’d like to thank you for taking the time to write in an a cool manner, I appreciate it.

Your personal experience with politics is intriguing. I think it would be a very interesting sociological study to see if people in the USA are truly “happy.” I think it was the constitutional monarchy of Bhutan or possibly the country of Nepal that has (or had) a happiness index in their national census. I really do wonder if it is due to a claimed rise in affluence that people are becoming less inclined to participate in politics. If so, it seems that perhaps Alexis De Tocqueville and Hannah Arendt (among many other notables) were correct in their assumptions that “materialism” or a rise in quality of life would reduce the political fervor of their respective countries.

It’s interesting to see that many people here on Mises write about “free enterprise” and the “market economy” as the only non-biased mechanisms available to us which are superior to “democracy.” Say for example we take a tabla rasa situation: there exists nothing but people and business. Say for example that everyone is altruistic. Even in the nearly impossible climate of complete trust, businesses need to have agreements for trade as is seen by the favor shown by multi-national corporations to seat themselves in stable economies. Basically, I argue that even without government, businesses would proliferate their own form of governance. If altruism is the rule of the day, people would have a say in these affairs and thus would recall the basic parameters of democracy. Discerning rulers (even if a system is conveyed where everyone rules together in a percentage based compromise of wills), communication, the rule of law, and equality/justice/pluralism.

I think your example of the “family” is quite valid. If a state has constrained resources, a logical compromise should be struck and if resources are abundant, the greatest amount of options should be taken. However, where are the limits? How can you strike a compromise between two seemingly incompatible requests (like the political situation in Belgium)? It is probably impossible to make everyone happy and it is probably possible to create very practical and logical legislation based on the mixed wills of the people. Obviously there are many difficulties therein, especially in conflicted societies where cultures clash (current problems in France, Britain, Iraq, etc.). Further questions include: How do you decide if a culture is valid, or that certain aspects of a culture should be left out (like Sharia law)? Is it a matter of law? Constitution? Precedent?

Could you please elaborate on the “voting by money” analogy? I’m interested to know more about your viewpoint there.

Sorry if I made any spelling errors…I’m just very tired at the moment, haha.

Looking forward to your thoughts Blacksheep

– Jean-Paul

19

Dear Fred Furash,

Thank you for your questions. My theorem is not based in morality (ethics) nor does it technically pertain to the utilitarian school. It is based on realism defined by Nietszche’s works on truth. Nietszche argued (this is supported by Adams & Dyson: 50 Famous Political Thinkers and I think if you google scholar Nietsche + Truth you will find similar arguments) that truth should really be only something that is useful. If something is not useful, then it shouldn’t be true. That is a very condensed line and there is much more to it but I will leave that up to you or any Nietszche minded specialists here at Mises to invistage or elaborate on.

The theory is not a salve-all (I don’t really think that such a thing exists as communication between interested parties (be they individuals, groups, cultures, government v. society, government v. government (intra-state and inter-state)) is a fundamental aspect of democracy) but really a historically and empirical founded method to allow the four basic democratic elements to come through stronger by being aware of and mitigating the seven endemic governance problems mentioned above. It’s about strengthening democracy in “democratically styled” governments and non-democratic governments. By the by, all governments that claim to be “democracies” practice their own unique forms. There are many different variations which I encourage all to read about with exciting implications deriving from each one. Many people in Mises speak about the problems of democracy but neglect to depict which form they are speaking of. Many who think that they are speaking of democracy in general may have the wrong impression of it due to the fact that their country refers to their style of government merely as a “democracy” without comment that no definition for “democracy” (other than the common agreed Greek form) exists and that said democracy is a style practiced with elements of aristocracy (generally embodied by the executive) and meritocracy (hiring policies for bureacracies, committees, commissions, etc.). Direct democracy is also a style that is often considered utopian and useless. But as an example of an “exciting implication” (and as some have mentioned on Mises) direct democracy is reinvigorated by the possibilities of IT and e-government which are picking up quite a large scholarly retinue.

The problem with double moral standards is very difficult. In my discussion with BlackSheep I raise this point a couple of times. I’ve been playing with an idea of percentage based compromise (say 71% of population desires Westminster legal system whilst 29% desires Sharia), but obviously there are limitations to this. It’s hard to see where moral or practical conflicts will lead to in the politics of many nations. Will the cultures of first and second generation immigrants merge with others or dissipate in England and France causing great “harmony” (to borrow the Chinese term)? Will practical arrangements between Sharias and Sharias, Sunnis and Sharias, Sharia Kurds and Sunnis, etc. lead to a consolidated Iraq? Or will cultural pressures foment and break tradition in Europe? Or will Iraq devide into autonomous zones or states even as is a popular case for the Kurds? I don’t have answers for these questions, but I will keep thinking about them. Do you have thoughts about double morals and their implications? Any prescriptive measures?

Fred Furash, thank you for your time.

– Jean-Paul

20

Dear Liberty Student,

Thanks for taking the time to present your will. I’m interested to know more about your personal “liberal” philosophy? Is it founded on a synthesis of different thinkers or just one or none? Is it your own personal view?

To me, liberalism in its classic sense (Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Burke, etc.) was about the separation of power from the central figure to individuals in order to increase “freedom.” Locke had a somewhat “wealthy man’s view” at times in his arguments advocating private property, etc. Rousseau was quite mysoginistic in my opinion (but then again, that was sort of standard in those times) although his (and Hobbes’) ideas of the social contract do not include the argument of how people would ever agree to form such a contract (an interesting an relevant read is Jarred Diamond’s: Guns, Germs, and Steel; and Collapse). And well, Burke was all for change but in a paced and precedence based manner. Liberalism in that scenario emerged as a statement of rights (the Rights of Man, etc.) that really took hold in the Enlightenment and was greatly metastyzed during the American and French revolutions (although technically the process started in England arguably with the Magna Carta). These rights were about individuals living lives by the choices they made with a reduction in government, religion, and other public intrusions. However, is there a limit to this? Can “liberalism” go too far? Do you think it’s right for someone to walk around wherever they please completely nude? Or defecate in a grocery store? Or cause violence? These are extreme examples, but they go to show that there is probably a great need for legislation to be in place for the proper functioning of society. What are your thoughts on liberalism? I’d like to know your perspective better.

Interestingly, neoliberalism is an often touted form of ‘being’ for lack of better words, especially in the USA and UK. However, it is often under a considerable amount of fire from all corners (business, scholars, civil society, and government). Why is this do you think?

I think we all agree that countries need to strengthen the basic democratic parameters and an easy way of doing that is mitigating the seven endemic problems in whichever way suits the government/society best. How would you propose then to reduce the “tyranny” of democracy? It sounds like you wish to cecede from the state, is this the case? To reiterate a question as I feel it is fitting here: what limits does liberty have? Where (if it should) does it end? Why shouldn’t it end?

Brainpolice, thanks for your post.

– Jean-Paul