{"id":2003,"date":"2021-12-10T19:14:37","date_gmt":"2021-12-11T00:14:37","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lematin.ca\/?p=2003"},"modified":"2021-12-10T07:18:14","modified_gmt":"2021-12-10T12:18:14","slug":"reflections-upon-the-u-s-democracy-summit-by-rjp-mf","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"http:\/\/lematin.ca\/?p=2003","title":{"rendered":"Reflections upon the U.S. democracy summit\u00a0by RJP &MF"},"content":{"rendered":"

Reflections upon the U.S. democracy summit<\/strong>\u00a0by RJP &MF<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

On\u00a09 and 10\u00a0December, President Biden will host the first of two\u00a0Summits for Democracy, which will bring together leaders from government, civil society, and the private sector to set forth an affirmative agenda for democratic renewal and to tackle through collective action\u00a0what the United States considers\u00a0the greatest threats faced by democracies today through collective action.<\/span><\/p>\n

That some countries are will be excluded while others, with questionable \u2018democratic\u2019 credentials,\u00a0will be included has\u00a0some\u00a0observers\u00a0pointing out that\u00a0this\u00a0looks\u00a0very much\u00a0like\u00a0a\u00a0return to\u00a0an\u00a0obsolete\u00a0binary\u00a0cold war paradigm\u00a0and that it\u00a0represents\u00a0a\u00a0regression\u00a0relative to\u00a0current day\u00a0conceptions of multilateralism. Others,\u00a0nonetheless,\u00a0see\u00a0it as a challenge to reflect upon what democracy really means.<\/span><\/p>\n

So, let us first\u00a0go\u00a0back to the definition of the word\u00a0at the center of this affair.\u00a0Democracy<\/strong>\u00a0is\u00a0the Anglicization of the\u00a0Greek word\u00a0d\u0113mokrati\u0101<\/em>, from\u00a0d\u0113mos<\/em>\u00a0(people)\u00a0and\u00a0kratos\u00a0<\/em>(rule).\u00a0In the generally accepted use of the term today, it designates\u00a0a form of\u00a0government\u00a0in which \u2018the people\u2019\u00a0(ordinarily those having full citizenship)\u00a0have the\u00a0authority\u00a0to\u00a0deliberate\u00a0and decide\u00a0on\u00a0legislation\u00a0as well as \u2013 by extension \u2013 various aspects of the state structure through which governing is carried on. As this means direct citizen participation, it is to be found only in small communities of several thousand\u00a0citizens. On a national level, direct citizen participation is\u00a0limited to certain instances, most notably the election of officials who will govern, the launching\u00a0of\u00a0and voting on initiatives\u00a0emanating from the citizens,\u00a0and referenda to approve or disavow laws already passed. This\u00a0structure\u00a0is often referred to as\u00a0\u00ab\u00a0representative democracy\u00a0\u00bb,\u00a0but strictly speaking, a country so governed is a republic. From\u00a0this has come the hybrid \u201cdemocratic republic\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the United States, where the word \u2018democracy\u2019 is much more abused than used, the 1787 constitution under which the country is still governed does not use the word at all or even imply such a thing. Indeed, every child in school (and virtually all those being \u2018home schooled\u2019) is made to commit to memory the pledge of allegiance to the flag, which starts: \u2018I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands\u2026\u2019 While one may well dispute the reasonableness of pledging allegiance to a symbol, the point remains that the symbol thus invoked represents a republic, not a democracy.<\/span><\/p>\n

In Europe, the word \u2018democracy\u2019 is also much more abused than used, being applied to all sorts of republican governments and their aberrations. The country most implicating its citizens is Switzerland, whose people routinely refer to their system as \u2018participative democracy\u201d and \u2018indirect democracy\u2019, for they are asked to vote several times a year, mostly on people\u2019s initiatives and on referenda. But \u2018democracy\u2019 in the strict sense of the word, meaning full management of public affairs by all the citizens, it is not.<\/span><\/p>\n

Other European countries have other types of republican government, with elections held every so-many years. Typically, the political party with greatest number of members in parliament is asked by the head of state (king, queen, president) to form a government of ministers who propose programs\/policies, which, if endorsed by the parliament (where the government has a majority), the ministers then implement.<\/span><\/p>\n

However, in the interest of continuity of government, the state structure through which the governing is carried on is endowed with permanent department heads (\u2018undersecretaries\u2019 in the British system) whose accumulated knowledge and experience gives them enormous power. In fact, the ministers routinely rely on these civil servants\u2019 information and guidance, for a minister can rarely match the experience and knowledge of those at the top of the civil service (commonly referred to as bureaucrats and technocrats). So, to what extent can one really say such a system is democratic?<\/span><\/p>\n

While all these different types of governing are based upon each country’s specific circumstances and traditions, they all have more and more one thing in common: the power exercised within them by transnational corporations, whose wealth generally exceeds that of a majority of the world\u2019s states. The major means that these enterprises use to exercise that power is what is now generally called \u201cnarrative management\u201d.<\/span><\/p>\n

This has always existed, as those with power have always tried to fashion the way the people think in order the legitimize those at the top and the system that keeps them at the top. With the dawn of advertising as we have known it (since the beginnings of the mass consumer market in the second half of the nineteenth century with industrial level production), it took on a whole new dimension, seeking to persuade people to buy certain products and, indirectly, seeking to persuade people that this buying, getting, having is central to their identity. It was only one step further to persuade people to attach their identity to specific products and services, giving rise to the term \u2018brand loyalty\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

This has resulted in an indisputable shift of attention for most people from the duties and activities of being a citizen to the desires (whims and fancies might better describe it) of consumers and the perception of those desires as urgent needs, all hugely cultivated by hundreds of billions of dollars in advertising every year.<\/span><\/p>\n

It is precisely this consumer society that newly independent countries emerging from colonial status were encouraged to see as the model to aspire to. In short, \u2018democracy\u2019 became synonymous with consumerism. In the process, traditional forms of social organization and seeing the world have been simply snuffed out to an amazing degree. Yet within these traditional forms, based on community, what the Greeks called democracy flourished in all sorts of variations, each adapted to its own circumstances.<\/span><\/p>\n

Centralized government is the opposite of democracy, for it can at best weakly and indirectly reflect the needs and interests of the communities it purports to serve. On the other hand, centralized government is ideal for huge corporations, allowing for standardization of all sorts that suits the bottom line of the corporate balance sheet. It is thus not surprising that one of the dominant characteristics of the capitalist consumer society is homogenization. And the arrival on the scene of social media has proven a colossal boon in the cultivation of uniformity of views and habits.<\/span><\/p>\n

Underpinning this corporate dominance (might one speak of corporatocracy?) is the role these gigantic enterprises play in financing elections campaigns (including in Switzerland, where campaign contributions are secret) and in lobbying for legislative outcomes favourable to them and directly contrary to the needs and interests of the people overall.<\/span><\/p>\n

In the United States, the 2010 Supreme Court ruling called\u00a0Citizens United<\/em>\u00a0determined that giving money in support of a person or a movement is a form of free speech, hence protected by the First Amendment. Since then, the amount of corporate money in campaign financing and the spending on lobbying have been increasing exponentially, entirely eclipsing most citizen movements.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Biden Summit\u2019s attempt to define which country is the best one in terms of democracy is thus curious, for one would be inclined to say that the United States should first reform its own governing system to bring it in line with democratic ideals before trying to evaluate others\u2019.<\/span><\/p>\n

Over and over again the United States has launched major military interventions and has overthrown elected governments in the name of spreading democracy. One need only look at Libya, Somalia, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan (to mention only those in the Muslim world) to see that the clarion call of \u2018winning hearts and minds\u2019 and \u2018democracy building\u2019 by means of the death and destruction of armed force is preposterous.<\/span><\/p>\n

Why not just\u00a0leave each country to develop\u00a0its\u00a0own form of\u00a0government\u00a0drawing on its own history and traditions? If any encouragement from the outside is appropriate, it is along the lines of helping others recognize what is good and enduring in their own traditions and \u2013 if invited to do so,\u00a0and only if! \u2013 suggesting ways to adapt these traditions to a globalizing world\u00a0so as to maintain and strengthen them. Such an approach requires humility on our part and a willingness to acknowledge that we do not have all the answers for everybody. Indeed, we could well do with a few lessons ourselves.<\/span><\/p>\n