Democracy: Some Acute Questions

We hear a lot about "democratic accountability" and "democratic representatives" and voting nowadays, especially in an election year. The main idea is that you can vote, and that can change things. But that is, I think, a very simplistic idea of a democratic state, especially one which uses representative democracy.

In "Democracy: Some Acute Questions" (the Fourth Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences 22-25 April 1998) there are some interesting comments and papers from a global perspective which look at this in more detail. Sometimes it is useful to step beyond the narrow confines of our own society, and get a bigger picture, especially before the rain of election pamphlets begins.

Professor Wilfredo Villacota from the Philippines notes that:

For too long in the Philippines we have regarded democracy as a method for elections and policy making. We sometimes forget that democracy has the ultimate objective of choosing the right kind of leader - the right kind of leader defined in terms of competence, morality, commitment to human rights, the human person, as well as social justice. It is more complex than just the choice between authoritarianism and democracy, and more complex than the democratic choices that people in a highly developed country such as the United States face. For example, in a developing country where the media determine to a great extent the popularity of candidates, you find the preponderance of show-business people, actors, sports heroes, as aspirants for public office. There, you find a situation where electoral mechanisms are controlled by the government, where money, political machinery, political influence and rampant cheating determine who the winners are.

This certainly raises some issues locally, for instance:

a) How fairly are the candidates reported, is there bias in the local media? How can we ensure that there is not?
b) Are there limits to electoral spending, and how are these enforced?

I do not think there is "rampant cheating", or at any rate I have seen no evidence of it in Jersey politics.

Another important paper by Professor Taketoshi Nojiri (Department of Economics, Kobe, Japan) looks at "values as a precondition of democracy". I've glossed the paragraphs regarding the local situation.

Granted that the democratic system contains a sort of self-control mechanism of social powers which dictatorship does not, this mechanism, however, does not always function justly and effectively. One should not forget that the Athenian democracy killed Socrates. Citing a more familiar instance, democratic society even in our own days often in reality becomes a monopolistic system dominated by a majority power, or a claim-society (Anspruchsgesellschaft) which eventually leads to fiscal bankruptcy.

One has only to look at the way in which Stuart Syvret was suspended back in the 1980s by the States over the Limited Liability Partnerships Law, had his mail checked, and latterly, silenced over his Christmas message to see this kind of failure. These are supposedly our representatives silencing a vocal critic. Whatever one thinks of Syvret, whether one agrees or not with what he says, it should be said that the States clearly did not function justly, despite being a representative democracy.

Apart from the exceptional case of a small group, democratic decision-making in a group is normally carried out by voting. And, at that time, it is usual for the procedure of one vote per person and of decision by the majority to be adopted. This is, however, merely an ideal, because in reality men are never homogeneous, i.e. because each individual has his individual qualities: a person's ability, culture, personal circumstances, etc., are all different from those of other people. This diversity places certain demands on a democracy.

The first and most important point is respect for the opinion of the minority. The reason lies for this lies in the fact that a decision agreed upon by the majority is only an expedient which has been devised in order to decide the will of a whole group. Since no one knows the absolute truth, it is thus entirely possible that the truth can in fact have been grasped by the minority.

A decision-making process by a majority that disregards this point could result in dominance by a powerful majority and thus in a kind of autocracy.

The second point, connected with this, is to care particularly for social strata that cannot effectively organize or assert themselves. Without such a concern, such strata will be thrown into underprivileged situations. Thus, even in present-day democracy, the so-called "new poverty" (neue Armut) has emerged and constitutes one of the most serious social problems which now exists. Therefore, special consideration for these strata is indispensable in the achievement of a just functioning of democracy.

Respect for the minority is always a case in point. In a society where there are people on the poverty line, or carers with handicapped children, I am not convinced Jersey has a good record. The condition of properties in bed-sit land, the inability of the States to do anything about it - as highlighted by Nicholas France, the Catholic Dean - shows that we face precisely that kind of problem over here. Terry Le Main of Housing says they can't do anything about it!

A further requirement for the just functioning of democracy lies in the participation of almost all the qualified members in the process of voting. Apart from very rare cases, however, it would be unrealistic to expect everyone to participate. The degree of awareness of participation varies among members. A by no means small number of people are indifferent to social or political matters (apathy), or pursue exclusively their own interests, and are not willing to participate in the voting process. The low polling rate that is often deplored at general elections in democratic nations demonstrates this fact. For this reason, it is always necessary in a democracy to stimulate and strengthen people's interest in public matters and thus in the common good of the whole of society. Furthermore, for the same reason, democracy requires a competent leader who guides people on a sensible course. There has never been a democracy which has operated effectively which has not had good leaders.

In larger social groups, direct democracy becomes not only technically difficult but also inappropriate. In present-day politics, democracy is almost always indirect in character and adopts the representative system with a division of decision-making and its implementation. It is natural here that a representative stands for the interests of his party or of his supporters. But, in this instance, there is always a danger that the particular interests of his party or supporters will be generalized by him as constituting the common interest of the whole of society.

This danger can be seen most clearly in the operations of the Council of Ministers, who I do not think seem to show sufficient self-criticism. To take a trivial case (except for those involved), it has aligned itself with one group against another with regard to the importation of bull semen, and is determined to pursue what it thinks is "the right agenda". The same can be seen with school milk, the lack of exemptions for GST, the Waterfront development plans - always there is the lack of connection with the rest of society. A good leader is not someone who loses the trust of the people, and acts as if his course is the "sensible course" without engaging with the common interest of the whole of society.

For the just functioning of democracy, a deliberation on the common good is required of the representative, and likewise of all the members of the society concerned. At the same time, the representatives and the leaders must be trusted by their supporters and followers. In the democracy itself, the most decisive point in the end is trust: in an indirect democracy, after discussing at various levels and exercising their voting power, people can do nothing more than trust their representatives or leaders. Whether a society is democratic or not ultimately depends on the presence of trustworthy relations. The Confucian statement "a state cannot continue to exist without trust" must apply to democracy as well.

How much trust is there left in Jersey politics? Voting is not enough, there must be that trust, or else the only people who will vote are those who have not sunk into apathy because voting, as I've been told by many of them, "will change nothing". I think the contrary, but I think getting people on the register is not enough. There is a serious need to rebuild trust.

In addition to the above, two matters should be mentioned. Firstly, certain elements such as concern for the common good, powerful leadership, and trust in political representatives are vital in a democracy. In this respect, there is not really so great a difference between democracy and autocracy. Indeed, these elements become rather more important in the former than in the latter, precisely because in essential terms democracy is a system which presupposes the autonomy of its members.

Powerful leadership means the ability to respect the minority, to listen, and to get the trust of the people, and to be able to carry the people forward on any measures for the common good, not ignore them and press on regardless. The Poll Tax in England was an example of this kind of willful blindness. Will GST be similar in Jersey?

Secondly, and for the same reason, whether a democracy operates successfully or not depends largely on the educational and cultural level of the people concerned. If it is not above a certain level, neither positive participation nor meaningful discussion will be attainable, and such processes as one vote per person will become a myth.

And that means considering the Portuguese and Polish minorities, where even a small thing like a referendum, is presented only in English. Was this by the same Jim Perchard who provided election materials in Portuguese? Doesn't he now care now he is elected? If we don't show people we care, how can we expect them to get involved and vote? Would you? Simon Crowcroft is one of the few who is actively looking into the matter of language. Aren't there any others who care?