Elections Do Not Equal Democracy

It is a common perception that as long as a country has free elections to choose its leaders, then it is a free and democratic state, i.e., a liberal democracy. While this obviously depends in part on one's definition of "democracy", the truth is that a country can have superficially free elections and yet be not remotely democratic in the sense that most people understand it. In its most basic definition, democracy means rule by the people; in other words, the government acts in accordance with the will of the majority of the populace, with the will of the people expressed through elections, sometimes in the form of referendums but more often through the election of representatives. In modern times, we usually add a corollary to the definition of a liberal democracy that the rights of the minority should be respected, so the decisions of the majority cannot be grossly unjust to the minority. Unfortunately, this important component of democracy is not always respected, as can be seen in countries where there are sharp ethnic divisions and the larger ethnic group uses its electoral strength to oppress the minority. But even where this is not a major issue, simply holding elections, even ones that are free of blatant ballot-stuffing, vote buying, intimidation, or other problems, is not sufficient to make a country a truly free and democratic state in which the government acts for the benefit of all.

In the United States, for instance, the Supreme Court has recently opened the gates to unlimited political spending by the wealthy. The conservative majority asserted that restrictions on election spending were restrictions on free speech; in other words, they claim that in politics, money equals speech. This, however, is completely ludicrous. By allowing the wealthiest individuals – and when it comes to those who are able to take advantage of this ruling, we are talking about perhaps a few hundred people out of a population of several hundred million – to spend without restriction on elections (I am aware that for now limits on direct contributions to individual candidates remain in place, but with Citizens United and the recent ruling, there are no longer any limits on either indirect spending and overall contributions, which effectively allows these few people to spend as much as they want), it in effect ensures that while everyone has an equal right to free speech, a few people are, in the words of George Orwell, more equal than others. While the Koch brothers and I may all have opinions on an issue like health care reform or climate change, they can spend millions of dollars to broadcast their opinions, even adding misleading or outright false information to make them more credible, while I cannot. Restricting them from doing so does not infringe on their right to free speech, but allowing them to do so infringes on mine, and that of every other person who doesn't have their wealth. Imagine a modern equivalent to a small, ancient Greek polis with a public square in which any citizen can get up on a podium to express their opinion on a political issue. Then imagine that the wealthiest citizen is able to buy a loudspeaker, effectively drowning out anyone who cannot afford to do the same. If loudspeakers were banned, this would not prevent the wealth person from exercising right to their free speech, but it would allow everyone else an equal right to be heard.

So what does this ruling mean for elections and democracy? For one thing, it leads to situations like the recent flocking of potential Republican candidates for president to kowtow to right-wing billionaire Sheldon Adelson. While he may only have one vote in the election itself, he has millions of dollars that he can (and based on his past record will) spend to support the candidates of his choice. That being the case, are the candidates who have any hope of getting that money going to listen to the opinions of the average voter over Adelson's? Not likely. In theory, of course, the majority can still vote for candidates who favor the interests of the average person over those of the rich and powerful. But this is assumes, first of all, that there are any such candidates. Given the importance of money to today's election campaigns, this is hardly a given. But more importantly, it is a regrettable truth that people are easily swayed by misleading information. If billionaires like Adelson and the Kochs blanket the airwaves with ads attacking some candidates and supporting others, this can easily change the results of the election. When it comes down to it, elections in a country where there is no restriction on election spending may be free, but in a very real sense they can no longer be said to be truly fair. The wealthy ended up dominating the political system, effectively creating an oligarchy, leaving only a facade of democracy, despite the regular elections. While the US may not yet be at this point, if the power of money remains unchecked, the result will be a "democracy" much like the one ruled by lizards that Douglas Adams once described.

Taiwan's recent situation illustrates another problem with treating elections as the be all and end all of democracy. When the ruling KMT was faced with protests against its attempt to push through the service trade agreement with China, some of its members asserted that since they had won the elections and controlled the government, they had the right to pass the agreement regardless of protests. But simply because a government has been elected by the people does not mean it can do as it pleases, nor is a citizen's only duty in a democracy to vote in elections. Between elections, citizens have not only the right but the duty to monitor their elected officials, and if the latter do something that is egregiously harmful to the peoples' interests, they should rise up in protest and do what they can to stop them. When President Ma Ying-jeou and the current batch of KMT legislators ran in the most recent election, they didn't state as part of their political platforms that they were going to negotiate and pass an agreement with China that would be disadvantageous to many Taiwanese and would even present a threat to Taiwan's continued independence. It follows that even Taiwanese who may have voted for them have every right to take strong measures to prevent the passage of such an agreement, since by the next election it may be too late.

To have a true liberal democracy, it is necessary to have voters who are well educated on political issues, severe restrictions on the power of money to influence elections, and a strong civil society to monitor the government and ensure that it acts in the interests of all. Simply having elections is not enough.

What I've Been Reading: October 2013 to December 2013

As is apparent from the dates in the title, I'm way behind in writing up my comments on the books I've read in the past few months. Most of these books deserve more space than I've given them here, but due to time constraints and the fact that my memories of their contents are not as sharp as they were when I'd just finished them, I kept most of my comments short. Obviously I've read some books in the early part of this year as well, but I haven't written anything about them yet, so I'll save them for a future post.

Freedom by Jonathan Franzen
This massive novel follows the fortunes of the various members of a middle class American family. It address not only the often illusionary pursuit of freedom from family and other responsibilities that the main characters engage in, but a number of other important issues, including conservation and war-profiteering. The characters, while not all that likeable, are for the most part well drawn. I could relate to Walter’s frustration about people’s obliviousness to the harm they inflict on the environment and I agree with his emphasis on population control (not that I get as worked up about it as he does). The other characters are interesting, though in one or two cases they seem a little unbelievable or at least exaggerated. Franzen’s prose is good, literary but readable, though not any better than that of, say, Iain Banks. Overall, this is a good novel that is worth reading, even if some of the praise it has received has been a bit excessive.

The Wal-Mart Effect by Charles Fishman
This is an interesting non-fiction book on the effects that Wal-Mart, by far the largest retailer and employer in the US, has had on workers, consumers, other business, the environment and more. Fishman is fairly even-handed, giving examples of positive effects Wal-Mart has had and including many favorable comments about the company from people who worked at or with Wal-Mart. But in the final analysis, Wal-Mart comes across as a negative force in many ways, even if it is not always intentionally so. The way its endless drive to cut prices to the bone has forced suppliers out of business, infringed on workers’ rights and damaged the environment in places as far away as Chile are an illustration of what can happen when unfettered capitalism allows a business to get so big that its weight can easily – whether by accident or on purpose – crush individuals and smaller businesses.

Little, Big by John Crowley
This is a massive, occasionally bizarre and usually engrossing fantasy novel that, perhaps due to the multidimensional timeline, occasionally fantastic events, and focus on one slightly otherworldly setting, reminded me in some ways of A Hundred Years of Solitude. It follows the fortunes of the Drinkwater family, who live in a bizarre, sprawling house in what is clearly upstate New York (though this is never specifically stated, just as the name of the City where a lot of the action takes places is never given). Many members of the family have contacts of some sort or another with fairies, though even those who have frequent dealings with them are somehow unable to clearly articulate the relationship. Crowley seems to have taken some inspiration from the story of the Cottingley Fairies, where two young English girls took photos of themselves with what appeared to be fairies. Though the photos were convincing enough to make even the author Sir Arthur Conan Doyle believe they were authentic, the girls admitted in their old age that they were faked (actually the younger one, who was only nine at the time that photos were taken, claimed that one photo was genuine, but her older sister said that was faked too). In the novel, one Drinkwater brother who was unable to see the fairies himself took photos of various members of his family in which fairies appeared or seemed to appear, though even he was never quite certain of their reality and would study them endless in a vain effort to come to a conclusion. In keeping with the half-seen nature of the fairies themselves, many things in the novel are never spelled out precisely. While this can occasionally be a bit frustrating, it helps create the unique atmosphere that permeates the novel, which all in all is a well-written and fascinating book.

Compass Reach by Mark Tiedemann
This is a decent space opera with fairly interesting characters and an engaging plot about a man living on the fringes of interstellar society who gets caught up in a power struggle involving unscrupulous corporate powers, politicians, artificial intelligences and aliens. Tiedmann’s writing is pretty good, though not quite the equal of that of Iain Banks, Ursula LeGuin, or even David Zindell. One blurb compared Tiedemann to “early Samuel Delany”, but since it’s been a long time since I’ve read Babel 17, the only early Delany novel I’ve ever read (Dhalgren, the other, later Delany novel I’ve read, is not anything like this, or for that matter like anything else), I can’t say how accurate that is. The novelist I was most reminded of was C.J. Cherryh, though of the two, I’d have to give the edge to Cherryh.

Beyond Religion by the Dalai Lama
In this book, Tenzin Gyatso (born Lhamo Döndrub), better known as the 14th Dalai Lama, presents an argument for and an outline of a universal, secular system of ethics. He acknowledges that it may seem odd for a religious leader to argue for a secular ethical system, but as he points out, most religious believers are unlikely to be able to accept an ethical system based on another religion, so only a secular one has any hope of being accepted as universal. In the first part of the book, he explains the need for a universally acceptable ethical system and discusses the general principles it would have to contain. In the second half of the book he talks about ways that we as individuals can improve our own attitudes and behavior from an ethical standpoint.

In explaining the need for a universal code of ethics, in addition to talking about the benefits living by such a code provide on an individual level, the Dalai Lama touches on how it could help us deal with many important issues that the world faces, including poverty, war, and climate change. He notes the great disparities in wealth that exist in the world, stating boldly: “On the issue of economic inequality, I consider myself at least half Marxist”. He observes that while capitalism is effective at creating wealth and thereby improving material conditions for many people, it is motivated by profit rather than any ethical principles, so “unbridled capitalism can involve terrible exploitation of the weak”. This particular passage reminded me of some of what Pope Francis has said about economic inequality. Interestingly, in Pope Francis’s first apostolic exhortation, “The Joy of the Gospel”, he also calls for a non-ideological form of ethics that could help bring about a more equitable world : “Ethics - a non-ideological ethics - would make it possible to bring about balance and a more humane social order. With this in mind, I encourage financial experts and political leaders to ponder the words of one of the sages of antiquity: ‘Not to share one's wealth with the poor is to steal from them and to take away their livelihood. It is not our own goods which we hold, but theirs’. [Saint John Chrysostom, De Lazaro Concio, II, 6: PG 48, 992D.]” From what I’ve seen of their writings, I suspect the Dalai Lama and Pope Francis would get along very well together; they certainly have very similar thinking on a number of issues.

Of course, living by an ethical code such as the one the Dalai Lama lays out is not nearly as easy as talking about it. In the second half of the book he discusses ways to start changing yourself in order to be the kind of ethical person he is talking about. Again, most of what he says makes very good sense, but that doesn’t mean it is easy to do. Reading the part about being aware of destructive emotions certainly made me even more aware of my own than I already was, but the further step of cultivating more positive ones is much more difficult, and I can’t say I have done much in that area since reading the book. Nevertheless, I at least felt inspired to make some effort, and, jaded cynic that I am, few books of this sort have that effect on me. In any case, it is difficult to argue with his points about harmful emotions, such as his observation that getting filled by anger over an annoying person’s actions is not helpful and that a calm, rational examination will usually show that our anger is out of proportion to the provocation.

Over the past several years I’ve read many of the scriptures of the world’s major religions (most of the Bible, the Koran, the Bhagavad-Gita, selections from the Upanishads, a number of Buddhist scriptures, even a few books of the mind-numbingly dull Book of Mormon) and a number of major philosophical works (Plato’s Republic, the Analects of Kong Qiu aka Confucius, the Dao De Jing, the Communist Manifesto, and even Ayn Rand’s eight hundred page hysterical rant in the form of a bad novel titled Atlas Shrugged). Some of these books had quite a few things I could agree with, but there was always a lot I disagreed with as well, often very strongly (of course in cases like Atlas Shrugged I disagreed with almost everything). This, along with my little book of selected quotations from Bertrand Russell, was the only one where I could say I agreed with over ninety percent of it. One thing I appreciated was the Dalai Lama’s very rationalist approach. He makes his arguments clearly and concisely, and in a number of instances acknowledges that there are other valid points of view. For instance, while he states that he believes that people are ultimately good at heart, he acknowledges that others believe the contrary. He notes that a lot of people may consider some of his prescriptions overly idealistic – an opinion I share to some extent – but makes a fairly persuasive argument to the contrary. There are a few places where I don’t think he fully makes his case, or where a few examples of how to deal with specific dilemmas would have been useful (for example, where he is talking about avoiding violence without being a pushover). But for the most part I found it very well argued. In fact, I think if everyone were to read this book and make even a little effort to follow some of the principles set out here, the world would be a much better place.

The Good Man Jesus and the Scoundrel Christ by Philip Pullman
Another good book with a religious theme, this is a retelling of the story of Jesus based on – and in the style of – the early Christian gospels, but the message it conveys is radically different. In this version, Mary gives birth to twins, one named Jesus and the other called Christ (because of the wise men’s prophecies). Jesus grows up to be a charismatic teacher, but he resolutely rejects any role as a leader or any idea of a formal church. His brother, on the other hand, is persuaded by a mysterious stranger to work toward the establishment of a formal religion by writing down what Jesus says, in some cases altering it to help lay the groundwork for the Church. I will not spell out the ending here, but the roles that the two brothers end up playing fit in with their characters as Pullman has developed them.

The bulk of the tale comes directly from the canonical gospels, but with subtle alterations or changes in roles. Other episodes, particularly those early in the book, will be completely unfamiliar to even the vast majority of Christians. However, Pullman did not invent them. Rather, they come from some of the other gospels that were circulating in the early days of Christianity, such as the Protoevangelium (or Protogospel) of James and the Infancy Gospel of Thomas (incidentally, the young Jesus in the latter at times is downright scary, almost like a kid out of a horror movie, though Pullman didn’t use any of the more creepy episodes). Likewise, the idea that Jesus had a twin is not original with Pullman. In several early Christian works, the apostle Thomas is referred to as Didymus Judas Thomas, with the first and last names meaning “twin” in Greek and Aramaic respectively. In the Acts of Thomas, which tell of Thomas’ supposed journey to India, it is implied that he is the identical twin of Jesus himself. On the other hand, the book’s negative view of established religion clearly reflects that of Pullman, as should be obvious to anyone who has read his fantasy trilogy His Dark Materials. Likewise, the monologue aimed at God by a doubting Jesus in the garden of Gethsemane sounds very much like Pullman himself speaking.

Even before I had heard of this book, it had occurred to me that it would be possible to craft radically different narratives about Jesus based almost purely on the gospels themselves, given their loose narrative structure and mutual inconsistencies, and while Pullman’s novel varies considerably from the original texts, he has done something along those lines here. It seems highly improbable that any fundamentalist Christians, with their odd insistence on Biblical literalism, would get any pleasure out of this book, in the unlikely event that they read it at all. More open-minded Christians may be able to appreciate it while disagreeing with its conclusions; indeed, the Reverend Robert Reiss in a sermon given at Westminster Abbey, has many positive things to say about the book and about Pullman himself (“He is an atheist…but he is a thoughtful and respectful one”), despite criticizing some aspects of the novel, and even more critical theologians have some good things to say about it. I personally enjoyed it and found the Gethsemane section in particular to be well written. The part derived from the infancy gospels didn’t seem to fit so well with the rest, particularly as it was told as if the miracles were real (though it is hinted toward the end that this part may have been inserted retroactively). The naturalistic explanations for many of the later miracles, on the other hand, are well done, though Pullman was not necessarily the first to think of them (fundamentalists would no doubt be furious at Pullman’s implied explanation of how Mary conceived the children, but his version is actually fairly close to the canonical version – it just changes the emphasis on certain points). The characters of Jesus and Christ are both well drawn, and while Pullman’s version of the story is highly unlikely to be close to the actual truth, as he would no doubt admit himself, it is, as Reverend Reiss concluded in his sermon, “a very interesting book, well worth reading”.