This Week: Bridges

"Quote" of the Week

The Democracy Series, Part 5: How We Understand Democracy, and Why

The Democracy Series, Part 6: Policies that Support Radical Democracy

The Democracy Series, Part 7 (The Final): Resources for Learning More About Democracy

Greetings,

This issue marks the conclusion of the Democracy Series. I much appreciate all the feedback that I have received on this series from many of you! Now that this series is finished, the next issue of Nygaard Notes will contain... well, I don't know yet, but it probably won't be more on Democracy.

Welcome to all the new readers of Nygaard Notes! I really enjoy hearing your comments, questions, and criticisms, so please don't be shy about sending them along, in whatever form they occur to you. And feel free to forward the Notes to anyone you think might enjoy it. That's how the word gets around, after all.

Until next time,

Nygaard

"Quote" of the Week:

There was a front-page story in the New York Times this past Thursday, August 16, 2007 with the headline "U.S. Is Prodding Pakistan Leader to Share Power." It was all about how the "The Bush administration [is] struggling to find a way to keep Gen. Pervez Musharraf in power" in Pakistan. "American officials," reports the Times, "say that sharing power could bring a more democratic spirit to Pakistan, which has been a quasi-military dictatorship since 1999." A dictatorship with a "democratic spirit"!?! Well, that's the New York Times for you.

Anyhow, here is this week's "Quote" from that article:

"[Bush] administration officials have taken pains not to endorse a power-sharing agreement publicly, so as not to seem as if the United States is trying to influence Pakistani politics.

"But Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice did discuss the idea of a power-sharing arrangement when she called General Musharraf last week at 2 a.m. in Pakistan to warn him not to declare emergency powers, American and Pakistani officials said."

Notice how the Times reports that nameless "officials" have "taken pains... not to seem as if the United States is trying to influence Pakistani politics," and follows that immediately—in the very next paragraph!—with a report of a middle-of-the-night "warning" call from the U.S. Secretary of State to the Pakistani president. If that isn't "trying to influence Pakistani politics," I don't know what is.

The Democracy Series, Part 5: How We Understand Democracy, and Why

One of the readings I recommend elsewhere in this issue of the Notes is an essay called "Democracy and Struggles for Social Justice" by Cliff Durand at the Center for Global Justice. It was written, as far as I can tell, in December of 2006. I almost wrote an essay on this aspect of Democracy, but then I realized that I couldn't really say it much better, so here are a few excerpts from it, with emphasis added by me (please forgive the somewhat academic language):

"The fact of the matter is that democracy is an essentially contested concept. It is a term that contains differing and competing definitions suggesting different constructions of reality. Such a contested concept presupposes implicit assumptions and functions as an ideological concept that legitimates differing social practices and power relations. What I would like to do today is unpack some of the theoretical and political baggage contained in this contested concept.

"Specifically, I want to sort out two of the main, competing concepts of democracy now current. One is the concept of popular or participatory democracy; the other is elitist democracy. The first is the classical idea suggested in the original Greek word which referred to the rule or power, cratos, of the people, demos. In this sense, ‘democracy' means people's power.

"But in the contemporary world, ‘democracy' has come to mean rule by a political elite so long as it has been elected by popular vote. In presenting this competing definition this way I am not just loading the deck against it. In fact, I am simply reflecting the way advocates of this concept themselves understand it. An elitist theory of democracy has become the canonical idea among US political scientists, politicians, journalists and other opinion-makers. For them, ‘democracy' means the selection of political decision-makers from among competing elites by means of popular elections. Most accept Joseph Schumpeter's definition of ‘democracy' as ‘that institutional arrangement for arriving at political decisions in which individuals acquire the power to decide by means of a competitive struggle for the people's vote.' As he put it, the role of the people is simply to produce a government. The people are sovereign only on election day. Once they have done their job, they should go back to their private affairs and leave governing to the elite they have selected...

"There is much in Schumpeter's portrait that is descriptively accurate of the United States today. Citizens are absorbed in the concerns of private life, disengaged from politics, and easily manipulated when they do act politically. But what we have to ask is whether this is a natural fact of human nature or itself the product of the political order. One claim that runs through all of these elite theorists is that there is a natural law that necessitates elite rule. Whether it is presented as ‘human nature' or inherent in the amorphousness of a mass or as a sociological tendency of organization, there is a fatalistic sense of the inevitable that we are asked to accept. To do otherwise would be like trying to reject the law of gravity...

"This naturalizing of a social fact is an earmark of an ideology. That is, it is the use of a set of ideas to influence human behaviour, in this case to accept an existing power relation rather than struggle to change it. For example, if we take Schumpeter's denigrating portrait as accurate, and it often is, we then should ask how did this come about? While he presents it as ‘human nature', yet he also recognizes that the popular will is manufactured. But he doesn't ask who is doing the manipulating. Nor does he consider how the citizen might be better protected from such manipulation by elites. He does not consider what it would take to engage the attention of citizens in public affairs or how their capacities for rational discussion and judgment might be more fully developed. Instead he goes on to put the affairs of state in the hands of that very elite that made the citizens so incompetent in the first place, and who consequently have an interest in keeping them that way. In sum, Schumpeter presents as an objective, scientific theory what is actually an ideological justification of domination by elites."

The Democracy Series, Part 6: Policies that Support Radical Democracy

The first four parts of this Democracy Series have focused on getting better at doing Democracy. First I talked about why we might want to, and then I talked about how we might go about doing so—communication skills, meeting skills, and so forth. Part 4 began to touch on how to address some of the barriers to participation in the democratic process, such as unlearning some of the oppressive practices and habits that perpetuate the exclusion of the already-excluded members of our communities from decision-making. Now, in conclusion, I'd like to look at some of the larger systems and policies that affect participation in the practice of Democracy.

The excerpt from Cliff Durand's essay that appears elsewhere in this issue makes clear that there are different ideas about Democracy, and I think he explains quite well one of them, the concept of "elitist" Democracy. He spells out an alternative, which he calls "popular or participatory democracy," and there is a related idea, developed by scholars Joshua Cohen and Archon Fung and others, known as "Radical Democracy." An understanding of this idea can help us to decide which larger systems and policies we might want to support.

At the heart of Radical Democracy, according to Cohen and Fung, is the need for "a more deliberative democracy in which citizens address public problems by reasoning together about how best to solve them—in which no force is at work... ‘except that of the better argument.'"

The second thing that Radical Democracy requires is a "broader participation in
public decision-making... because shifting the basis of political contestation from organized money to organized people is the most promising antidote to the influence conferred by wealth."

And there we have the two main ideas that are at the core of the concept of "Radical Democracy": Deliberation and Participation.

Where Do We Do Democracy?

Cohen and Fung's vision of Radical Democracy imagines many "structures of numerous, open secondary associations and social movements." By "secondary" they simply mean that they are not "official" organizations with power to make laws, like government can. "[T]he essential ingredients" for such associations "are basic liberties, a diverse and independent media, vibrant, independent civil associations, and political parties that help to focus public debate."

I think that's a pretty good list to use in determining some policies and practices to support—or oppose—in the struggle to build a more Democratic society: 1. Basic liberties; 2. A diverse and independent media; 3. Vibrant, independent civil associations, and 4) Political parties that help to focus public debate.

So, using this list, what might you want to do?

Maybe you want to join a group that opposes the expansion of executive powers and thus curtails "basic liberties." Maybe you want to join with others to oppose media consolidation, or use your resources to help build and support truly "independent media." (Short break for shameless promotion: Consider making a pledge of support to Nygaard Notes!) Maybe you want to join a union or work to pass the Employee Free Choice Act so that others may more easily participate in a union. Maybe you can think of other types of "civil associations" that you might join or support—youth groups, or anti-racism groups, or participatory budgeting groups such as exist in Brazil and elsewhere. Are there some "political parties" that effectively "focus public debate"? If you look hard enough, you might find a party to join or support that most effectively practices Democracy and promotes policies that you support.

The work of lovers of Democracy in this society should focus simultaneously on two levels, the personal and the social. The personal level is where we attempt to improve how we, ourselves, practice Democracy, and our attempts to unlearn the anti-Democratic habits of thought and emotion that are such huge obstacles to Radical Democracy. The social level is the level where we attempt to open up Democratic spaces such as those listed above, with the goal of making our society more friendly to those of us who want to build a true, radical Democracy.

The Democracy Series, Part 7 (The Final): Resources for Learning More About Democracy

Whenever I produce a series like this one I run across all sorts of interesting resources and facts and stuff. Here, at the end of this series on Democracy, I want to pass on some of the interesting things I found. (Some others I have already listed, in the first four parts of the series.) The list you are about to read is completely arbitrary and not even close to being exhaustive or even representative of anything. It's only a short list of Democracy-related stuff that I found useful, interesting, and/or easy-to understand. Here it is:

This week I quote from an essay in the Swiss Journal of Political Science (Winter 2004) called "Radical Democracy," by Joshua Cohen and Archon Fung. It's 12 pages long, and can be found online.

Elsewhere in this issue I quote extensively from an essay called "Democracy and Struggles for Social Justice" by Cliff Durand. (Particularly note the concept of "polyarchy," which is used to describe the political system we have in the United States.)

I also mention in this issue something called "participatory budgeting groups" that exist in Brazil and elsewhere. What was I talking about? Read about it here.

Michael Albert and Robin Hahnel have done a lot of work developing the idea of Participatory Economics. ParEcon, as it is known, is all about Democracy in the workplace and far beyond the workplace. I particularly like their idea of "balanced job complexes." The online headquarters for learning about this visionary work is the ParEcon site at ZNet.

A recent interview with Noam Chomsky on the subject of "Radical Democracy" includes some great thoughts on the history of Democracy in the United States and how it works—and doesn't work.

The theory and practice of Popular Education is one of the most fascinating and important branches of building Democracy that I know of. It's so different from what most of us are used to calling "education" that I sometimes hesitate to use the term with people who aren't familiar with it. Let's just say that popular education has to do with "the collective production of knowledge and insight." Sound mysterious? You can get a brief introduction to this fundamentally Democratic practice by going here. Another great, easy-to-read intro can be found here.

When thinking about Democracy, I suggest learning a little about Anarchism (one of the most-widely misunderstood ideas in all of politics) and also anarcho-syndicalism. I recommend a somewhat dense, but fascinating, introduction by Rudolph Rocker. Check it out here.

I quoted Political scientist Robert Dahl a few weeks back. I've read parts of his book "On Democracy" and got a lot out of them. A long excerpt can be found at the tremendously-useful website called "Third World Traveler."

Finally—and this is hardly related to Democracy, per se—What are "The 16 Habits of Mind"? Find out here. (Click on "What are Habits of Mind?")