Defining Democracy

WHAT'S DEMOCRACY FOR?

Simple question, isn't it? We are constantly being reminded how fortunate we are to live in a democratic society and that the alternatives are far worse. It's easy enough to find a definition of democracy that most people are able to agree upon :

"a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives"

Less easy to find is the actual purpose of having a democracy which means something to the real lives of most people. Political philosophy has its value in telling us how systems can and should function, ideologies seek to codify the aims of the politicians, journalism reports on successes and failures and holds up a mirror to the institutions of the state. Yet it is rare to hear anyone trying to explain what the actual point of democracy is.

Of course that simple question I began with turns hugely complex as soon as any thought is given to providing an answer. I will not pretend I have one here, although later on I will take a stab at a simplistic interpretation which anyone reading can feel free to comment on or disagree with. Before I can do that I need to provide some context.

Anyone holding strong opinions, be they political, social, religious or other, will inevitably encounter people who hold views which seem diametrically opposed to their own beliefs. Politics is the most obvious manifestation of this, even if mainstream political parties tend to represent only a very narrow spectrum of the views held throughout society. In the real world compromises have to be made on strongly held viewpoints, often to the satisfaction of very few. It is always difficult to comprehend how your opponent can sincerely hold views that are so far removed from your own and still recognise that they their motive to 'do good' is just as strong as yours. It is in that 'doing good' that the conflict lies, the lack of a common definition of the goal both purport to be striving for.

I endured the, to my view, disastrous decade of the Thatcher governments, the fag end of that philosophy of greed under Major, and saw hope in the return of Labour in '97. Blair brought improvements, but nothing like as radical as many hoped for and the New Labour turned increasingly sour over issues like the Iraq war and civil liberties. Only to be replaced by something far, far worse. At least several ministers in the eighties had the merit of being competent, a label which could be applied to few now. Their policies inflict so much damage on so many people it is difficult to believe that they genuinely believe they are 'doing good'.

Consider this article in The Guardian :

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/04/labour-spent-too-much-banks

Here is a journalist, strongly opposed to what is being done to the institutions and people of the UK, trying to recognise that underlying the destructive actions of those exercising power over us is an artless judgement persuading themselves of their own rightness. Which is actually more frightening to try and comprehend than the cynical view that these people are simply self serving and driven by greed. If they are really driven by an ideology of conviction then there can surely be no reasoning with them?

Recent events in the United States have allowed us, from afar, to observe what happens when views become so polarised that divisions seem irreparable and tear at the fabric of social structures. In the UK Obama would be considered a centre-right politician and yet there is a large section of US thought which views him as some kind of extreme left winger. He is frequently described as 'Socialist' or 'Marxist' (do these people have access to dictionaries?) in a manner which indicates they think these terms are derogatory. The Tea Party movement can sometimes make our Tories sound like the voice of reason, so removed are they from mainstream views across the Atlantic.

After the recent gun murder of 26 people in Connecticut that polarisation I mentioned went into overdrive. On one side those who look to their President to start the long process towards effective control over firearms, a journey which might eventually lead towards the more civilised norms of Western Europe. Against them the gun lobby led by the National Rifle Association. Their principle spokesperson, Wayne LaPierre, led the charge to 'explain' that the best answer to fighting gun crime was ..... more guns. More and more guns, in schools, in hospitals, on the street. This apparently insane 'logic' is so alien to (almost) anyone in the UK as to be incomprehensible.

In an effort to try and gain some understanding of this thinking I did engage with a few US conservatives on Twitter. An intriguing exercise, but leading to despair if carried too far. One, who expressed a fear that the US might become more like Europe, ended up telling me that

"the US is unique in all the World & in the History of Mankind. That in no way means it's perfect,Utopia on Earth is unattainable."

I did not get back to him, for I found that answer too chilling in it's suggestion that America is somehow separate from the rest of humanity (although it does go some way to explaining some US foreign policy actions). Perhaps he'd say I had misinterpreted his meaning, but I feared that I'd understood all too well.

This would seem to have taken me far from my original starting point, but my aim has been to demonstrate how very, very different the understanding of 'democracy' can be across countries with some kind of free electoral system. There are antidotes to the philosophy of despair evinced above, and certainly plenty of these can be found within the US itself. That great writer and film maker Michael Moore offers a very different and positive view of life showing that life still bubbles within the American left wing. And for a demonstration of the genuine hope and progress that democracy can offer I point you towards the President of Uruguay :

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-20243493

As my US correspondent suggested, there is no Utopia, but Senor Mujica could teach most British politicians a thing or two about the meaning of "all in in together". And I take him as the inspiration for my own poor endeavour to formulate a response to my opening question :

"Democracy should provide the legal, administrative and social framework for a society in which the VAST majority of citizens are provided with the means to lead a CONTENTED life, whilst not imposing on the rights of citizens of other states."

I have capitalised what I regard as the key words in this statement. Like all such efforts I recognise it is going to come across as trite and grossly over-simplified. That's fine with me. This is one possible starting point for a conversation that needs to be had. One day.

I will keep hoping.