Freedom and Democracy

Freedom and democracy are sensitive subjects and ones which the western world prize and defend. It is almost a religion. We all believe in freedom and democracy but as with religion, what lies behind the belief is rarely questioned. To do so generally implies a negative label such as communist or anarchist. But without questioning these very principles, right or wrong, how can we subscribe to such concepts. Is belief in democracy and freedom so base that nothing could dethrone this way of life? We constantly question ‘is there a god?’ and ‘if so what form does he/she/it take?’ We question many things. When was the last time you heard the concepts of freedom and democracy questioned? If we do not question these things, analyse the alternatives and try to come to some understanding of reality, or at least common perception, then are we any better than the fanatics whose beliefs we regularly condemn.

With so much going wrong in the western world, climate change, poverty, human trafficking, drugs, alcohol, crime, lack of trust in government and politicians, corruption, war and economic problems (in good times and bad), perhaps now is the time to ask ourselves have we got this right, what are the alternatives?

That is not to say that ‘freedom’ as we perceive it and democracy (or democracy as we see it today) are not the way, just that we should progress with a knowledge that it is the best way all things considered. We are far from that position today and it makes me uncomfortable for two reasons.

The first reason is that democracy is old and we have not considered alternatives in recent history. Freedom is just a word. We all consider ourselves to be free but this is not a black and white issue and a concept certainly not tied solely to a democratic process. Democracy and freedom is have an arguably symbiotic relationship. But is this the only way.

The second reason is that globalisation and the western world are spreading our way of life to other countries and at the same time doing a lot of damage. It can be rightly claimed that the removal of tyrants is a good thing but that is not what I am saying. It is not the removal of what is perceived to be the bad, but the default imposition of what is good for us. Or at least what we perceive to be good for us.

Let’s turn our sights on freedom first. What does freedom mean? At one end of the spectrum we would need to look at absolute freedom which results in zero control and zero responsibility or accountability for any action. At this extreme end it’s every person for themselves. It is essentially anarchy. This must be what freedom actually means in its purest sense. No constraints on thought or action. Even the animal instincts in us know that freedom defined in this way is actually undesirable. It becomes survival of the fittest and is unsustainable for a growing population. It would be a breakdown in the concept of society. If you accept this as the definition of ultimate freedom then you accept that we are not free in the truest sense and so the best we can expect is just a level of freedom. The key here is of course who has control in defining the level of freedom you have and that leads us into democracy. The optimum model for human survival has been our moving into one of a cooperative society. But to make society work we require a set of constraints. Our freedoms are constrained to ensure that the good of all is considered, often over the good of the individual.

We are not ‘free’ to do as we please. We accept certain limitations and ‘laws’ which help preserve and model society into as fair and safe a position as possible. There have been many different models from left wing to right wing philosophies which have provided models for society and therefore consequential levels of freedom.

But the idea that west is best is worrying. We look at certain freedoms we have, compare them to the freedoms of other countries, religions and races and make a judgement as to their right or wrong. The arrogance of course is staggering. Most of these western decisions are far from judged rationally on what are perhaps the pros and cons of other models but mostly around the need for commercial gain, self interest or political manoeuvring to gain popularity. We look at Saudi Arabia for example and condemn their lack of democracy, their oppression of women and of course the brutal way in which capital punishment and justice is administered. The forms of government around the world, aristocracy, democracy, oligarchy, tyranny, benign dictator, religious politics and no doubt others all have pros and cons, including democracy. There are examples of some of these models which have proven to work and some which have not. That includes democracy under which many of the world’s worst events have been carried out. In seeing poor implementations of each model we move to condemn the model and not the implementers; except for democracy of course, which we see as the default good in and for the world.

If we accept that we will neither be, nor want to be truly free then how can we best organise ourselves? One of the key benefits of democracy is seen as the ability to rid ourselves of poor government. But is this really true? In the UK we have a system of government which is based upon first pass the post. Most political parties have vowed to remove this process which ultimately means that a party with a minority vote in totality can govern. Is that democratic? A position whereby there can be a higher number of people voting in the country for one party and the lesser party gets into power. When in power, no party has attempted to undo this wrong. This in itself leads to a lack of trust for politicians.

The second issue is of course lack of choice. Over the years political parties have merged from the left and right to meet in the middle. The difference between the parties’ policies is minor and their ever changing manifestos in this space which tend to react to what is popular blurs the issue further. Add to this the whip. Each constituency votes in an MP. We have 3 main parties in the country (you know who they are) and largely regardless of the constituents’ position on any topic the MP will be forced, in the majority of cases, to vote as per the PM’s views. Where is democracy working here?

Finally, the popular statement that if you do not like it then you should stand yourself is fundamentally flawed. For a start, a single independent will not sway parliament. Parties govern, not individuals. To be effective then you need to start a party and more importantly fund it. The level of difficulty to achieve this is incredible, but not impossible. It has been tried and tested and ultimately fails. Not because of policies but because of the apathy of the voter after years of political mistrust.

The final nail in the coffin is of course the civil service. Government only really sets policy and even that is constrained by what is achievable and what is achievable is defined by the civil service. That is not democratic. But it is the reality.

Under this light, democracy appears to be a concept we all subscribe to but is little more than a vision we strive for. An absolute which is never attainable. If we accept that the perfect democracy is not attainable then we accept that forms of government with flaws are acceptable compromises. And this is why we should take care when we look to push democracy as the only acceptable form of government worldwide. The pros and cons in all models of government if perfectly implemented are pretty well understood and in perfect implementation we may be able to rank them. But as no perfect implementation is possible we should take care not to impose our views without careful consideration. Poorly implemented and corrupt democracy may leave the freedoms of the citizens and the state of society in a worse position than other forms better implemented. How do we measure its success? Are the very low crime rates in Dubai a benefit over the loss of certain freedoms. How do we balance women’s rights with the lack of crime? The freedom for women to live without the fear of crime, which many western women who have equal rights can only dream about. The plight of the poor in western countries can be as terrible as those of other models of government. Poor is poor. Democracy takes time. If there is an imbalance between the already powerful and the weak and poor in a country then democracy may fare far worse for the population than a simple benign dictator who brings about manageable change. A poor democratic government where wealth and power are suddenly available for the few are hard to relinquish and the decisions made more in the interest of continuance of power than what is best for the country. Sound familiar to the UK? In the UK the gap between the best off and worst off (in all respects) and the position of the general population is relatively good. We can tolerate the ins and outs of political self interest as the consequences are few to us. For many 3rd world countries these self interested governments and politicians can result in death. None of this is helped by the globalisation of consumerism. We only need look at the old empire and many of the countries of Africa to see the damage democracy can do if implemented too early. Iraq speaks for itself.

Next time we shout invasion and head off to do good and convert the tyrants and free the enslaved why not ask yourself why are we doing this, what are the alternatives and who will benefit? We don’t give knives to babies to play with. Why do we force countries to play at democracy?