Another thought about Democracy

I am very interested in Democracy and how it works. So I was quite interested in reading what two well known academics, Cornel West and Natan Sharansky, had to say about it.

Cornel West, a Princeton professor, is the author of "Democracy Matters" and Sharansky, an Israeli politician and former Soviet dissident, is the author of "The Case For Democracy". Sharansky's book has been adopted by the Bush White House as a template for establishing Democracy in places where it doesn't exist, like in Iraq and other Middle East countries . As a reviewer put it, West "touts dialogue as route to democracy". Sharanshy's theme is " 'the town square test': if a person cannot walk into the middle of the town square and express his or her views without fear of imprisonment or physical harm, then that person is living in a fear society, not a free society." There is something simplistic and naive about what both authors think. However, that's how Democracy is generally portrayed, in wistful, jingoistic terms. I exaggerate. Yet that's how Democracy is seen, as one or two dimensional when really its multi-multidimensional.

Both men seem to be preaching to the choir. Their audiences pretty much understand what they are talking about. And that's the thing about Democracy, only those that have done it really understand and appreciate it. It's an esoteric enterprise, very convoluted and complex. It require a lot of things happening at once - some undesirable. It is something that is in our blood. For those of us who live it, it's natural, like breathing. Catch phrases and platitudes like those the two author used are very heart warming for those who have experienced Democracy. But in practice they wont help start Democracy where it hasn't existed, or keep it. Dialogue alone will not ignite democracy, nor will free speech in the town square.

To be fair, though, West was talking more about how to maintain and preserve democracy in a Democracy. Dialogue is certainly one way of doing it, freely debating issues and openly questioning motives of those in power, without being harassed. He was driven to say what he said by something he deeply feels, and rightly so, that there are people in power who are trying to stifle and cut off debate. Though dialogue is an extremely important cornerstone of Democracy, I am sure West understands that dialogue itself is not enough. It also requires strong arm tactics to achieve it as he can attest to. For instance, as an African-American West knows tactics like affirmative action have been necessary to gain democracy. On paper Democracy looks pretty neat but in reality it's quite gut wrenching and contradictory.

The contradictory, gut wrenching part is perhaps why many don't want anything to do with Democracy. It requires a lot of work and social upheaval. It requires a foundation. Sharansky's town square, free speech template is essentially based on a foundation he hasn't acknowledged. He has had the luxury of living this foundation in Israel, whereas other haven't. For his town square test to happen successfully there have to be in place a number of back-up systems. Not only does there have to be a constitution that flatly states and supports ones right to free speech but a legal system to back it up if, as inevitably will happen, someone denies that right. Also, the recognition of individual liberty and freedom usually precede and accompany that right. These things take time to cultivate. My point is this, that it is over simplistic to say that dialogue and passing the town square test is Democracy. Voting itself is no guaranty of Democracy. Nor are those other two axioms on their own.

If the president of the United States relies on a simplistic axiom like Sharansky's to advance Democracy, I don't think the cause is being served well. It requires stronger factors, factors which have taken western Democracies generations to cultivate, things like universal suffrage, polyphony and just the simple tacit understanding of what it is to be democratic. Ironically, Democracy has advanced most through the pursuit of self-interest and property rights. If such avenues had been encouraged from the start in Haiti and other places where the world has tried for decades to establish Democracy, it would now be on a roll. If West's dialogue and Sharansky's free speech were dovetailed with those other things I mentioned, then their axioms would really be something to crow about.

I had this crazy notion that someday there might be a S.W.A.T teem to establish Democracy.