|
'Democracy' - the Wrong Word |
|
|
|
Written by John Jopling
|
|
Wednesday, 01 December 2004 |
When UK Prime Minister Tony Blair insisted that the invasion of Iraq was right
because it freed the Iraqi people from a wicked dictator and gave them democracy
instead. What did he mean by 'democracy'? I am sure he used it in the sense generally
understood, the kind of democracy that operates in the UK, in Ireland, in the
USA and many other countries.
It means having elections every few years so that
the people who are elected to govern can be got rid of if the electorate do not
approve of the way they have governed. It means that government decisions are
taken by the people who have been elected, in other words, representative democracy.
I have come to the conclusion that that kind of 'democracy' no longer deserves
to be called democracy at all, and is a disastrous system. Let me list a few reasons
for those assertions:
• The system does not prevent elected leaders cementing their own position
and destroying opposition: examples will spring to mind.
• Corporate power has become far more influential in the corridors of government
than the voice of the people; and corporations are simply structures for enabling
shareholders to make money out of money.
• The relationship with the people is mainly concerned with getting their
votes and the use of public relations for what Walter Lippman called 'manufacturing
the consent' of 'the bewildered herd' to the policies of government . "Propaganda"
to quote Noam Chomsky "is to democracy what the bludgeon is to a totalitarian
state" .
The kind of 'democracy' operating in the invading countries meant that the invasion
of Iraq was for corporate benefit, not for the benefit of the people of Iraq or
even of the invading countries.
In the Schumacher Briefing Gaian Democracies which I co-authored with Roy Madron,
we coined the phrase 'the Global Monetocracy' to refer to the single system which
has been formed by the merger of politics and economics throughout the world.
The systemic purpose of the Global Monetocracy system is economic growth. Governments
operating within the system cannot avoid having this as their first duty. It overrides
every other consideration. Blair and even Bush and the Neo-Cons are driven to
behave in the way they do by the nature of the larger political/economic system
they are operating within. If they refused, they would soon be replaced by more
compliant leaders.
If the essence of democracy is rule by the people, however indirectly, it has
ceased to exist. It is not surprising that more and more people consider voting
to be a waste of time and that the membership of political parties is so low.
Of even greater concern than its denial of democracy is the impact of the Global
Monetocracy on human well being and sustainability. So what kind of democracy
do we need to restore our relationships with each other and the Earth? Let me
suggest some key components:
• There must be ways for people to debate and agree on the purposes of their society
and the principles that will govern their relations.
• People must be allowed maximum autonomy consistent with those purposes and principles.
• The functions of government must be spread throughout society, applying the
principles of 'network government' with all decisions being taken at the smallest
level – the principle of subsidiarity.
• The economy must be designed to serve the people, not the reverse.
If this sounds impractical, not so. Lets take one of the largest and most successful
financial institutions, the Visa Corporation, as an example: Dee Hock who designed
its structure insists on the importance of shared purposes and principles.; and
Visa is itself an example of network government. The Mondragon Cooperative is
another . The importance of maximum autonomy for all 'doers', ie the working parts
of the system, was fundamental in the thinking of Stafford Beer, who transformed
many organisations and worked with President Allende to transform the whole Chilean
economy.
And popular participation in the difficult decisions of government is possible,
as has been proved by the Participation Budget in Porto Alegre and other cities
in S. America.
Moreover these principles are largely copied from natural systems which all work
in a very democratic way, but without elections! Evolution proves that extremely
complex feed-back arrangements between the various parts of a network system are
what is needed to achieve long-term balance.
But these principles certainly are inconsistent with the Global Monetocracy. That's
why we'll have to build new systems of democracy is we are to restore our relationships
with each other and the Earth. We have got to replace the Global Monetocracy with
some completely different systems. Or it's curtains for humanity.
We are making a start with the way we are organising ourselves in 'The Village'
– see www.thevillage.ie,
and see my article about it in the October 2004 edition of All Change the on-line
magazine of the Worldwide Democracy Network – www.wwdemocracy.org
|
