Should Democracy Evolve?

Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία, dēmokratiā, from dēmos 'people' and kratos 'rule')

The plain meaning of the word democracy is derived from the Greek - literally, “rule by the people”. In the West, the term has evolved over the centuries to define not just a system of government, but an array of systems and practices that promote equality. When used in its broad sense, as a tool for building a good society, democracy obfuscates. We so often hear the local elected representative saying they are ‘the people’s choice’ or that they are ‘mandated by the majority’, etc. This is often not the case and it is good to remember that historically many of the most destructive politicians, dictators and despots have achieved high office not by revolution, but by the ballot box. An alternative approach might be to ask what is undemocratic and then the concept might be more appreciated. Representative Democracy is not the only form of Democracy but it is the most common, and currently the most under threat from external populism and internal corruption, by both the political class and the apparatus of state. These support and often promote such corruption through well-oiled systems and practices ranging from judicial appointments to awarding post retirement directorships and other highly lucrative positions.

If our purpose is to build a good society or - for now at least - a better one, we must ask ourselves what responsibilities are we willing to accept and what responsibilities we give to a representative, an agent, an intermediary, and what shall we decide for ourselves for our community, and how we live and conduct ourselves within that community.

The first great experiment in modern democracy was probably the United States of America, but even the founding fathers in their wisdom struggled with the same questions and many of them were very aware that what they did, they did for their generation alone, hoping - as Jefferson put it – In a letter written to James Madison from Paris just after the French Revolution had broken out, Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) argues that …”it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation…” It is widely understood that Jefferson was concerned that future generations would have the insights and freedoms to answer the questions of their time, with answers of that time to come, and not attempt to enshrine the past as the source of the solutions for tomorrow.”

The idea of public participation in government has always been a source of fascination as well as struggles for power, and during the last 2500 years, the basic ideas about what constitutes ‘democracy’ have developed considerably.

In ancient times, ‘democracy’ simply meant an assembly where citizens could discuss and decide public issues. Today, the term democracy stands for a much more comprehensive set of principles and procedural rules, including those pertaining to human rights and the rule of law, as well as the right to vote for representatives in elections (indirect democracy) or to co-decide on issues (direct democracy).

Ancient Athens is frequently credited with being the birthplace of democracy (popular rule). It was there in the year 594 BC that the principles of equal rights and greater access to power for the ‘demos’ were introduced. For the first time, participation in public affairs and the right to hold office were extended to a much broader section of the populace.

Nonetheless, this first attempt at democracy still excluded the majority of people, such as women and slaves. In fact, at the time the whole governmental structure was based on a system of slavery which only allowed adult, male citizens to participate in assemblies.

A second attempt to introduce democracy was made in Ancient Rome in the 4th century BC, when a system containing a monarchical element (the two consuls) and an aristocratic body (the senate) were combined with popular assemblies. Later, however, these democratic features faded away, as autocratic leaders like Caesar and Augustus began to seize all the powers of state for themselves.

More than a thousand years later (between the 12th and 14th century) a crucial element in many of today’s democracies was introduced: the elected parliament. Initially, the power of these parliaments was very limited. Nonetheless, they provided inspiration for thinkers and philosophers, and new concepts like checks and balances between different state bodies were developed. Another innovation was the introduction of the Bill of Rights in England in 1689 which followed on the heels of the codification of the more ancient right not to be detained without due process of the law (habeas corpus).

The first truly modern democratic states did not come into being until after the American Revolution (1775-1783) and the French Revolution (1789). The French Constitution of 1793 introduced, for the first time, a political system combining elected government with direct democratic tools: the initiative and the referendum. The French revolution introduced the citizens’ initiative, also known as a popular initiative, and the mandatory constitutional referendum.

Nearly all modern Western-style democracies are types of representative democracies. For example: the United Kingdom is a constitutional monarchy; Ireland is a parliamentary republic, and the United States is a federal republic and so highly centralised that recent behaviour from the Palace White House might be described as a short term absolute monarchy.

There are, however, a number of examples of growing or improving democracies. Switzerland refers to itself as an evolving form of direct democracy. Germany is examining its institutions and citizen participation while continuing to legislate to protect against extremes, and France is doing the same to a lesser extent, while a number of Nordic countries are constantly experimenting and piloting community engagement to a greater or lesser degree, sometimes to appease the voices calling for reform and sometimes with genuine interest in building a better society. But it is the Swiss that have taken the greatest steps in putting the community at the heart of the democratic process.

Direct Democracy: A type of democracy in which the power to govern lies directly in the hands of the people rather than being exercised through their representatives.

Representative democracy (also indirect democracy, representative republic, or psephocracy): A type of democracy founded on the principle of government by ballot elected representatives.

As more and more we see Representative Democracy devolving into Psephocracy it is worth looking for alternatives while we still have the democratic levers to do so. Switzerland, as such an alternative, is a rare example of a country with instruments of direct democracy (at the levels of the municipalities, cantons, and the federal state). Citizens have more power than in Switzerland than citizens in any representative democracy.

The French leader Napoleon Bonaparte unified Switzerland into a centralised state – the Swiss Confederation – in 1803 as part of the process, a system of nationwide referendums in the member states, known as cantons, was formally adopted. Direct democracy was hardly new to the Swiss Confederation however. In the centuries prior to Napoleon’s invasion during France’s war with Austria, envoys walked from village to village with backpacks full of documents conveying negotiating positions on common issues. The envoys would return with agreements and present them to the citizens of their village for acceptance or refusal. This ‘bringing back’ of the documents is the origin of the term ‘referendum’ (Latin:’re = ‘back’, ‘ferre’= ‘bring’).

With the advent of the modern state, it was unclear how a national popular vote in a loose federation of independent cantons should be conducted. Eventually, it was decided that every canton had the right to conduct its vote in the way its citizens wanted. With a majority of the cantons and a majority of the Swiss citizens agreeing, the constitution was ratified for the entire country. With this constitution, the principle was established that the basic laws of the country and its parts (cantons and municipalities) can only be changed by an affirmative vote by its people - the Swiss citizens. The new Swiss system also enshrined federalism, with the national government being given only very specific powers. All other powers were reserved for the cantons.

The two key instruments of modern direct democracy in Switzerland are the citizens’ initiative and the popular (optional) referendum. Since their establishment in 1974 (referendum) and 1891 (initiative), these instruments have been used frequently to promote ideas and control the elected Parliament.

The citizens’ initiative is an important instrument of modern direct democracy. It enables citizens to make their voices heard by going through a process of dialogue with the political institutions. The instrument gives a minority the right to place an issue on the agenda for the whole electorate – and to get an answer.

Swiss people can change the Federal Constitution whenever they can agree on such a change. Few constitutional changes and popular votes are just about the procedures of modern direct democracy themselves. But this does not mean that they are accepted uncritically. Although many important extensions – such as giving voting rights to new groups – have been accepted, proposals for new forms of direct democracy are sometimes rejected.

However, the ways in which these classic representative principles need to be balanced by direct democratic instruments have been debated since the establishment of the modern Swiss state in 1884. Democracy in Switzerland is, should and will in no doubt remain an unfinished journey.

The use of instruments of modern direct democracy has grown worldwide. This happens most dynamically at the local level, where many city halls on all continents have become powerhouses for active citizenship and participatory democracy. In Switzerland and beyond, this development has contributed to the establishment of participatory infrastructures.

In Italy there was a referendum held on 20th and 21th September 2020 about the reduction of the size of the Italian Parliament. Voters were asked whether they approved a constitutional law that would amend the Italian Constitution in various aspects, most notably by reducing the number of MPs in the Parliament from 630 to 400 in the Chamber of Deputies and from 315 to 200 in the Senate. The proposed changes were approved, with near 70% voting in favour. The reduction of the number of MPs is expected to happen with the next Italian general election.

As the Italian people are addressing changes to their form of representation, is it now incumbent upon them now to address the access to decision making by the populace, and prevent a smaller representative legislator from becoming too dominant.

Thomas Jefferson in a letter to James Madison, 1789:

“Every constitution, then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of nineteen years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right. It may be said, that the succeeding generation exercising, in fact, the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law had been expressly limited to nineteen years only. In the first place, this objection admits the right, in proposing an equivalent. But the power of repeal is not an equivalent. It might be, indeed, if every form of government were so perfectly contrived, that the will of the majority could always be obtained, fairly and without impediment. But this is true of no form. The people cannot assemble themselves; their representation is unequal and vicious. Various checks are opposed to every legislative proposition. Factions get possession of the public councils, bribery corrupts them, personal interests leads them astray from the general interests of their constituents; and other impediments arise, so as to prove to every practical man, that a law of limited duration is much more manageable than one which needs repeal.”

In writing the first modern democratic constitution Jefferson realised that this was a constitution for their age and their age alone, that other generations should look to the laws and systems more appropriate to their time. 

If we don’t quickly take advantage of the current crises, brought on by the Covid-19 pandemic to build resilience into our democratic system, we may find the looming economic problems affect us to such an extent that we are unable to adapt to the political demands, and in the bending and buckling of the social order wake up in a much changed and ultimately undesirable environment. My concern is that the current actions emanating from the state are reflexive responses based upon the short-term interests of the political savvy, while the long-term interests of building a good society take a small seat to the rear of the political chamber. One issue alone to consider is that will be too late to have your say when the distribution of current state borrowing is distributed and there is only repayment to be considered.

More and more we look for a convenient solution, a one-stop-shop if you will, to address all of our perceived problems while reserving the right to hold someone or something else responsible for all the problems that befall us. We look to appoint them, we sometimes look to them for leadership, while we seek to blame them for their shortcomings and for every failing that occurs. But the error is ours; the “they” that we both glorify and then denigrate do not exist, "they" cannot solve our problems, “they” cannot lead us all as we may wish to be lead and “they” are only human as are ‘The We’.

‘The We’ need to rebalance our democracy and create a positive environment for individuals to engage, to rebuild and enshrine confidence in participation as opposed to the alternatives.

Modern representative democracy is due an overhaul, change or at the very least a moment for growth, but in what direction? The challenges come from all sides: on the one hand from the globalised economy, which transcends in many ways the reach of national democracies, and on the other hand from autocratic and populist movements trying to undermine the rule of law and the separation of powers within what are often very defined and unyielding structures of state. In order to strengthen representative democracy, more and more countries have introduced elements of participative and direct democracy into their national, regional and local government systems. Over the past number of years a rise in popular votes in countries all over the world has been observed. The development towards a more participative democracy has perhaps been most comprehensive in Switzerland. Thanks to its use of the initiative and referendum process, Switzerland has become a progressive and forward thinking point of reference for discussions about modern democracy.

Active citizenship through participation in referendums has an impact on the country of Switzerland itself and it also shapes the image of Switzerland in the minds of its inhabitants of the various cantons and those observing from outside. It offers an interactive opportunity to learn and discuss the key elements of a direct democratic process within a representative democracy.

Consider. while walking down the street one day a successful politician was tragically hit by a car and died. His soul arrives in heaven and is met by St. Peter at the entrance. "Welcome to heaven," says St. Peter. "Before you settle in, it seems there is a problem. We seldom see a high official around these parts, you see, so we're not sure what to do with you."

"No problem, just let me in," says the politician. "Well, I'd like to, but I have orders from the higher ups. What we'll do is have you spend one day in hell and one in heaven. Then you can choose where to spend eternity."

"Really? I've made up my mind. I want to be in heaven," says the politician.

"I'm sorry, but we have our rules."

And with that, St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell. The doors open and he finds himself in the middle of a green golf course. In the distance is a clubhouse and standing in front of it are all his friends and other politicians who had worked with him. Everyone is very happy and in evening dress. They run to greet him, shake his hand, and reminisce about the good times they had while getting rich at the expense of the people. They played a friendly game of golf and then dine on lobster, caviar and the finest champagne. Also present is the devil, who really is a very friendly guy who is having a good time dancing and telling jokes. They are all having such a good time that, before the politician realizes it, it is time to go. Everyone gives him a hearty farewell and waves while the elevator rises. The elevator goes up, up, up and the door reopens in heaven where St. Peter is waiting for him, "Now it's time to visit heaven...”

So, 24 hours passed with the politician joining a group of contented souls moving from cloud to cloud, playing the harp and singing. They have a good time  and before he realizes it, the 24 hours have gone by and St. Peter returns. "Well, then, you've spent a day in hell and another in heaven. Now choose your eternity."

The politician reflects for a minute, then he answers: "Well, I would never have said it before, I mean heaven has been delightful, but I think I would be better off in hell." So St. Peter escorts him to the elevator and he goes down, down, down to hell...

Now the doors of the elevator open and he's in the middle of a barren land covered with waste and garbage. He sees all his friends, dressed in rags, picking up the trash and putting it in black bags as more trash falls to the ground. The devil comes over to him and puts his arm around his shoulders. "I don't understand," stammers the politician. "Yesterday I was here and there was a golf course and clubhouse, and we ate lobster and caviar, drank champagne, and danced and had a great time. Now there's just a wasteland full of garbage and my friends look miserable. What happened?"

The devil smiles at him and says, "Yesterday we were campaigning, today, you voted..."

Is it now time we voted on the issues we feel are important to us, and not blindly support the day dreams of those silver tongued politicians and very clever individuals who have aligned themselves to parties and political machines to continue to promote outdated representative system, who wish to represent you and me but without ever knowing who you, I, we are, or how we feel on any subject or policy other than today’s big news story or the latest trend in society?

It’s time, surely, to stop and get thinking about how we might improve the systems involved in building a good society. Seek alternative perspectives on how to best improve and enhance our democratic process and maybe we can agree that the system itself is one which we must choose for ourselves?

By embracing our heritage and recognising the challenges of those whose best efforts have allowed the opportunities afforded us today, it is beholden upon us to at least embrace the challenges of today and enhance the inheritance of the next generation with the fervent hope that they, too, will have the insights and courage to adapt, support and build a good or at least better society than the one they inherit from us.

100 years after the creation of the Irish state, should we not honour those who put their “skin in the game” and at least put on our thinking caps to improve upon or enhance our political and social heritage with a view to building a good, sustainable caring society?

What if Ireland had 26 Cantons in the south, and each Canton addressed the needs and conditions within that Canton while national matters were dealt with at a federal level with a small number of representatives from each canton representing their electorate at the federal level? How much more efficient would government be, how much less corrupt and how much smaller would the offices serving our democratic needs be? Just a thought!

How democratic is our state and how much can you as a citizen impact upon how your community regulates itself? Would you rather the continuous erosion of democracy, or is it time to advance the cause of democracy and bring about the circumstances that more and more we are - as a community - building and designing the systems and structures we choose to live within?