DEMOCRACY
FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY ARE INSEPARABLE
Restrictions on individual freedom
increase overall social freedom when they are self-imposed by
those over whom they are exercised and when they apply equally
to all members of society.
That is, restrictions increase freedom when they are democratically
established and administered.
This can only happen where there is relative
equality of
social power in horizontal social relationships and
responsibility
of social power in vertical relationships (i.e, between those exercising
any concentrated power and those over whom it is exercised).
Freedom and democracy are inseparable for three reasons:
- Both depend on equality of social power.
- Through using their democratic institutions people can protect
their freedom.
- Through exercising their freedom people can protect their democratic
institutions.
Consequently the two words are, in this social power analysis,
interchangeable.
You can tell both how free and
how democratic a society is by observing the extent to which its
people can satisfy their wants through their existing social organization
within the limitations of their environment.
WHAT IS DEMOCRACY?
Democracy is based on a faith in people - in the dignity and worth
of the individual and in our shared humanity. It assumes that the
basic objective of social action should be the welfare and happiness
of the greatest number of people.
Democracy assumes that average citizens - with adequate education,
information and institutions - will do a better job governing themselves
and their communities, in the long run, than dictators and oligarchs.
Democracy is best defined as a
society in which all social power is held by or is effectively
responsible to the people over whom it is exercised.
This implies an even briefer definition:
Democracy is a society characterized
by equality of social power.
Democracy is not merely a form of government, but
a kind of
society. Effective democracy requires democratic control of
all social power, not merely government power.
Because government has the power to determine
the rules governing
the distribution of social power, democratic government institutions
have historically - and rightly - been considered the keystone in
the structure of democratic society. But voting is only one form
of social power and representatives represent whatever power puts
them in office. If political campaign expenses are paid by the wealthy,
then that's who politicians listen to.
The vote alone is relatively ineffective unless there is also equality
of other forms of social power, such as knowledge. Voters must have
ways of learning about candidates and issues and when the media
are controlled, once again, by those with money, then the ballot
can't fulfill its democratic function.
These frustrations of the popular will - and the consequent popular
dissatisfaction with the workings of the system - are signs that
it is time to redistribute social power.
EQUALITY
What are we talking about when we say that equality is a basic
requirement for effective democracy? Do we mean equality of income?
No - most of us are willing to grant a higher income to those who
contribute more valuable services to society. Equality of wealth?
Perhaps, but how can we prevent inequality of income from leading
to inequality of wealth? Equality before the law? Yes, definitely;
but to be effective this depends on equality in other forms of social
power, such as money to hire a lawyer. Equality of opportunity?
Yes, certainly; but in practice does this mean opportunity for the
wolf or opportunity for the sheep?
The Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created
equal" - equal in the sight of God as members of the human
race -
as people. This is the essence of democratic society.
Obviously all people aren't created equal in musical ability. Or
mechanical ability. Or physical strength. Or even intellectual ability
(whatever that means). Nor is there any agreed-upon way to add up
the various inherited abilities of an individual to get their total
"ability."
The greatest inequalities between individuals are not in their
inherited characteristics, which are relatively unchangeable, but
in the characteristics they acquire from their social environment
as they grow up and take their place in society - personality, education,
experience, wealth, contacts, etc. These things give people most
of the social power they have.
The equality required by democracy is
equality of social power.
This doesn't mean there should - or could - be equality between
all individuals in income or social position or any other
particular
form of social power. It means merely that there must be equality
in the total complex of social power. Weakness in one form of power
must be counterbalanced by strength in other forms. Nature offers
us a model for such democratic balancing of power: Who can say which
is more powerful - the panther, the skunk or the turtle?
Only a few people want to control or exploit others. Most people
just want to live their lives in peace and security as respected
members of their community. Consequently, to keep power-hungry people
from unduly interfering in the lives of everyone else, defensive
forms of social power are especially important in achieving an equally
balanced distribution.
"Political democracy," "social democracy" and
"economic democracy" are only meaningful in emphasizing
single aspects of the total structure of social power. In reality
these aspects are interdependent. Democracy is indivisible; it is
a condition of the whole society. Power is fluid and transmutable.
If there is concentrated, irresponsible power in some aspect of
society, it will soon, like an insidious cancer, permeate the whole
society.
INSTITUTIONAL KEYS TO DEMOCRACY
The distribution of social power is determined by our social institutions
- laws, customs, forms of social organization.
Democracy is only possible where
social institutions are designed to achieve and maintain equality
of social power. There are three techniques to achieve this:
1) Diffusion of power (direct
equality)
2) Constitutional responsibility
of power (indirect equality: accountability)
3) Institutional checks and balances
of power.
While these principles are part of our
political tradition,
we have yet to institutionalize them for all forms of social power
in our society. And that is why we cannot even adequately maintain
them in our political institutions.
Let's look at each one in more detail.
DIFFUSION OF POWER
The ideal of Jeffersonian democracy
was to distribute power so widely and, through institutional safeguards,
to KEEP it so diffuse that no individual or small group could
exercise significant power over the rest of society.
Frontier American society - based upon individual land ownership
by economically independent and largely self-sufficient farmers
- approached this ideal very closely. Backing up his economic independence
with his long-barrelled rifle, the typical American of 1787 had
a great deal of social power. It was not power
over other
people, but
bargaining power, the power of
real alternatives,
and the power to
resist outside intervention. To put it crudely,
he could tell the whole outside world to "go to Hell"
without fear of serious reprisals.
Jefferson feared the development of industry and great cities because
he realized that they must inevitably lead to increasing concentration
of social power, both economic and governmental. Sure enough, the
Industrial Revolution brought with it previously undreamed-of possibilities
for concentration of social power. Mass production required concentrated
economic power, and Big Business brought with it Big Labor and Big
Government.
Today we live in a crowded, highly interdependent society in which
few of us have much social power of our own. Our basic economic
independence and security are gone. Most of us work for someone
else and power-diffusing economic competition is kept within "comfortable"
bounds by the few companies that dominate each industry.
If direct dispersion of power were the only way democracy could
be realized, there would be little hope for it in modern industrial
society. Luckily there are other principles upon which we can rely
to achieve social power equity, principles we can find in the U.
S. Constitution.
CONSTITUTIONAL RESPONSIBILITY OF POWER
Wherever social power becomes highly
concentrated, the democratic principle of equality can only be
maintained by making this concentrated power CONSTITUTIONALLY
RESPONSIBLE to those over whom it is exercised. ("Responsible"
here means "answerable" or "accountable.")
In 1787 the framers of the Constitution - familiar with both the
irresponsible power of the King and the failure of the weak Articles
of Confederation - set up a system of government power concentrated
enough to provide for the economic development and security of the
nation yet constitutionally responsible to the people of the country.
When citizens delegate their sovereign power to their representatives
by means of their vote, they don't lose that power. At each new
election they take it back and re-delegate it. They can even exercise
their power between elections, using recall and impeachment provisions.
The test of constitutional responsibility of power is
whether
it is really controlled by those over whom it is exercised and whether
they can take it back through normal, legal, institutionalized procedures.
If this is not the case, then the concentrated power is
constitutionally
irresponsible.
This has nothing to do whether the power is
religiously or morally
responsible. There have been benevolent dictators, kings and
popes who were accountable to their consciences and not to the people.
Although under some of the best of them people may have been happier
than under the flounderings of a popular democracy, such idyllic
conditions seldom outlasted their reigns, if even that long.
While
moral responsibility is a wonderful thing, it is no
substitute for
constitutional responsibility. From a social
power perspective, any power that is not
constitutionally
responsible is considered
irresponsible. And all irresponsible
power is dangerous, although it may be tolerable if it is not concentrated.
Likewise all concentrated power is dangerous - although it is often
useful and, if constitutionally responsible, is compatible with
democracy.
Social power becomes really destructive
of democracy only when it is both concentrated and irresponsible.
When concentrated power is made constitutionally responsible, the
lines of responsibility must flow, directly or indirectly,
to
those over whom the power is exercised.
Power which is national in effect must be responsible to all citizens;
power which affects only a limited area or interest group should
be answerable only to that particular area or interest group. This
is the basic principle of FEDERALISM - the constitutional decentralization
of power. While this is often difficult to apply in practice, it
is vital to democracy and must be kept clearly in mind.
INSTITUTIONAL CHECKS AND BALANCES
Constitutional responsibility, while vital, is insufficient to
restrain abuse by concentrated power in real life.
There must be explicit constitutional
limits, or checks, on concentrated power, such as the Bill
of Rights. And those checks will only remain effective where there
is some countervailing power to enforce them. Thus every
concentrated power should be balanced by some other concentrated
power.
In order to prevent any particular part of the government system
from grasping excessive power and nullifying the constitutional
checks, the framers of the constitution divided power between the
legislative, executive and judicial
branches, and between
the federal, state and local
levels of government. Each power
center in the system was thus balanced by others with a different
focus of power and interests.
These constitutional checks and balances, however, were all directed
at the control of
government power. This was appropriate
for the era in which the Constitution was written. However, by the
end of the Civil War,
economic power became concentrated
into great corporate trusts under the leadership of the "robber
barons" of American industry and finance, and government power
ceased to be the main problem of American democracy.
In the last century the regulation and active redistribution of
social power has become a major government activity and has greatly
increased the size and power of government. When economic powerholders
complain about "big government," this is the aspect of
government that bothers them.
In modern societies many institutions can and do check and counter-balance
concentrated governmental and economic power.
- Free public education means that knowledge-power is widely diffused
among the people.
- Laws like the Freedom of Information Act offer vital knowledge-power
to citizens.
- The system of civil law allows citizen groups to check both
government and corporate power abuses.
As we become less economically independent and less individually
powerful compared with centralized governmental and economic powerholders,
we increasing turn to organizations as a means of combining our
little power with the little power of other individuals in joint
action. The organizational form of power becomes of the utmost importance.
We see this in:
- Labor unions, farm organizations, consumer cooperative societies,
professional organizations, and interest groups.
While such groups are the chief organizational balances in democratic
society, they have several weaknesses. First, they are frequently
quite undemocratic internally. Second, their membership is far too
limited, causing power inequities between members and non-members.
And thirdly, they often act as pressure groups, creating impacts
on areas of society to which they are not constitutionally responsible.
Interest groups, corporations, etc., should not be able to exercise
predominant influence in the making of decisions which are of greater
interest to other groups or to the society as a whole.
We could summarize the major task
in democratizing our society as one of increasing internal and
external constitutional responsibility of both governments and
corporations - and the many groups that constitute the
countervailing powers to them - with particular attention to the
media, which connects them all and impacts everyone.
Our goal would be to balance the power of all groups so that there
is general
equality of social power between individuals regardless
of the groups to which they belong. Then we will have a real democracy.
THE FUTURE BELONGS TO DEMOCRACY
Industrialism, which gave birth to unprecedented concentrations
of economic power, has generated, as well, a dynamic towards democracy.
Industrial civilization has required a high degree of popular education.
Education, in turn, has brought widespread recognition of the
possibility
of democracy, thus creating a
desire for it which, by its
nature, tends to remain insatiable until it is achieved.
Furthermore, industrialism has been based on the scientific method,
not only in its pursuit of physical technology but in the social
organization of production. Science has a habit of prefering workability
to ideology and is thus a close cousin of democracy. Democracy is
fundamentally utilitarian in its pursuit of the welfare of its citizens
and science requires freedom in order to do its work. It is significant
that many leaders of recent democratic movements have been scientists.
Finally, more and more industrial psychologists and organizational
development experts have, since the early 1930s, been finding that
democratic participation by workers in enterprises where they work
results in increased efficiency, lower costs, and the generation
of profitable initiatives. In our increasingly competitive global
market, businesses will be forced to move in this direction. The
impact of democratization of the workplace is incalculable.
These factors alone may make democracy inevitable.
The democratization of societies, combined with modern technologies
that make earth a "global village," makes it possible
to envision a single democratic society encompassing the whole world.
A democratic federal world government could be developed out of
our present international organizations. The urgency and transnational
nature of today's economic and ecological crises, combined with
the potential totality of modern warfare, could certainly provide
the necessary impetus. And the possibility of millions of people,
for the first time in history, having adequate leisure to become
politically informed and active provides the opportunity for change
- an opportunity that must be taken, of course, if this dream is
to be realized.
The centuries-long cycle of concentration, corruption, redistribution
and renewed concentration of social power can be broken. Democracy
won't end humanity's history of conflict, but it can provide the
institutional framework in which conflicts are settled nonviolently
and in which concentrations of irresponsible power are consciously
prevented before they can become dangerous.
Governments must either move ahead and continually reconstruct
their societies along democratic lines, and thus receive the active
support of the majority, or they must conciliate groups who hold
concentrated irresponsible power and thus lose the active support
of the majority, creating popular opposition which will inevitably
overthrow them.
Only a society based on a democratic structure of power can endure
in the long run. If our world is to survive, it will survive as
a democracy.
-From an unpublished 1952 manuscript by economist and activist
John Atlee that was the beginning of a more ambitious work. It
has been revised, condensed and edited by Tom Atlee for Thinkpeace
Issue 37/38 July 24, 1992. The theoretical framework and the major
ideas presented here are John Atlee's. His economics website is
http://www.iea-macro-economics.org/index.html
.
SOME FORMS OF SOCIAL POWER
- Economic power
- Industrial or productive power to control production, resources
and labor
- Financial power to buy or control things with money or credit
- Market power to influence consumption, production, prices,
wages or other market conditions.
- Governmental power
- Legislative power to make the rules governing the acquisition,
distribution and use of social power
- Police power to enforce laws or the interests of powerholders
- Judicial power to make judgments about the use and balance
of social power
- Regulatory power to supervise economic and political activities
- Bureaucratic power to enable or resist the implementation
of policies
- Physical power
- Physical force, violence and the threat of violence to coerce
the behavior of others
- Political power
- Organizational power to coordinate the actions of many people
- Propaganda power to influence public opinion, motivation
and experience of reality
- Media power
- Media power to influence or control information and communication
and people's ability to give and receive them
- Knowledge power
- Knowledge to comprehend circumstances, to predict and plan,
and to create effects - particularly by knowing how to use
other forms of power
- Personal power
- Leadership to motivate and coordinate other people
- Persuasion to mobilize people's awareness and opinions
- Energy and initiative to begin and carry out activities
- Intelligence to comprehend meaning and solve problems
- Technical skill to manipulate physical resources and barriers
- Love to encourage people to drop their defenses, to respond
and grow
- Integrity to inspire reciprocal honesty, loyalty and support
- Ambition to motivate the accumulation and use of social
power
- Strategic and tactical skill to create and utilize situations
to best advantage
- Inspirational ability to motivate people and bring out their
best
- Situational power
- Security to give bargaining power & freedom to maneuver
- Advantageous position from which to use other forms of power
- Invisibility and secrecy to limit others' ability to interfere
- Cultural and institutional power (can be used but not
possessed)
- Social institutions and traditions define the context in
which power is exercised
- Laws and constitutions define the limits and channels of
power
- Ideas provide a focus around which to mobilize people, and
a direction to go
- Public opinion constitutes the extent of popular support
or opposition
283 Comments
