I wrote this sometime in 1992 as an abstract to work on, and included an edited version of what is reproduced below from the draft iterations, as sample of written work to The Society of Fellows, Harvard in November 1992. I wasn't accepted and the reasons have become obvious to me with an improved understanding of Civil Society's concerns and rationale as a participant in the Internet Governance process. I wouldn't approve parts of my own work to go to Press, but as a blog entry to prompt a debate, it does make sense to exactly reproduce what I wrote years ago, with all the prejudices.
(as written in 1992)
Towards a better defined frame work for making the national governments and the international system more functional:Introduction:This paper does not, in manner whatsoever, attempts to defend any of the political systems that Democracy has replaced. The paper most certainly acknowledges, at the very outset, the supremacy of Democracy over all other existing political systems. The paper raises questions on the imperfections of the existing order, which is well accepted and hard to change. Not at all worrying at this stage whether a better political system is in sight or not, this paper goes one step further than merely acknowledging the supremacy of democracy over all the existing systems and seeks to look beyond democracy in its present form.
Towards a more functional system of Democracy:Can we be complacent that the present form of democracy is the
summum bonum or highest good?
There may not be a
summum bonum, but nevertheless improvements are possible. Are there pitfalls and limitations in democracy in its present form that are conveniently or helplessly overlooked? Is it universally effective and is it effective at all times?
Our conviction in Democracy revolves around a weak logic: Socialism did not work. Communism did not work. So Democracy will work.
Democracy works. But does it work well enough? Can it work everywhere? Should we have universal standards or modified standards suited to meet the conditions of the region? Can it work all the time or is it anachronistic at times? Is there a scope for further improving on this ideology to make it more effective so as to further evolve and refine this as a political system capable of solving all the world's problems that defy a solution at the moment?
A system for the good President or Prime Minister
In a way, Democracy originated out of mistrust in the ruling class. The underlying premise is that those who govern (or rule) do not always know what is it that which makes their people secure, happy and prosperous, or if they know it they do not always want to do it.
To consider refinements, may be we could start by reversing the premise that the men ho rule can not be entirely trusted and that without an elaborate control mechanism and without checks and balances, the rulers abuse their powers. We could instead start by visualizing the ruler (the King, the President, the Prime Minister or Governor General) is
good, benevolent, capable, as Just as the celebrated
King Solomon, and the opposite of the mythical Big Brother of George Orwell or the [legendary]
Diego Garcia, Cesare Borgia, the Florentine who inspired Niccolo Machiavelli's
Prince. We could start with this assumption and strengthen the political system so as to enable this good ruler in his mission of making his people prosperous. After the ideas are generated, may be we could revert to the pessimistic fear of
Diego Garcia Cesare Borgia or Big Brother and introduce the system of expedient checks and balances in a measure that is not overbearing but balancing.
Democracy as a political system is too generalized and too simpliied:
If this political system is further examined (not worrying at this stage whether a better solution is in sight or not), several points emerge. Even in a democracy of well educated people, a citizen who has qualified to be a Doctor, in theory and to a certain extent in practice, makes decision by virtue of his voting power and by his right to opinion, on a decision concerning a townscape., which he can broadly understand, but not a specialist himself. A citizen who is trained to be an aeronautic engineer, as a voter, decides whether a new drug is harmful and be allowed to be promoted. A social scientist votes on a proposal to allocate $100 million to a program of genetic engineering research. In summary the opinion of those who learned medicine, architecture, physics, literature or manufacturing is weighed equally and on par with the opinions of those ho learn to govern in matters that are essentially government.
All this when all the people of a Democracy are well educated in one field or another. But the average democratic nation has as about half of its people those who have not graduated from high school. The proportion of under-graduates is less and the proportion of graduates is still lower. In an average democracy, the power to decide (in principle) is equally, not equitably, shared by a law school graduate, a science undergraduate, a high school drop out and an illiterate alike.
The Illusion of General WillCollective opinion or collective decision is never a collection of individual opinions, but a few sets of
opinions led and formed. Any opinion that is led can not be taken to uphold freedom of choice, which is what Democracy presupposes as existent and which what it requires as fundamental inputs.
Freedom of choice does not exist in its absolute form So, when freedom of choice is not possible, democracy is not possible in its absolute form. Democracy, in effect, is government, not by the people, but by the opinion leaders. Democracy in its present form is far from Government 'of the people, by the people, for the people'. At best, at present, democracy is (cynical it may seem, but merely a more correct description in undiplomatic words) Government, 'of elected representatives, political and administrative appointees, by the opinion leaders, for the people (at times, for the more vocal people whose interests are well advocated and represented by pressure groups)
The General Will can err:
Even if freedom of choice does not exist in its absolute form, the General Will can err, as
Jean Jacques Rousseau remarked
"...our will always seeks our own good, but we do not always perceive what it is. The people are never corrupted, but they are often deceived, and only then do they seem to will what is bad"
If on the other hand the emphasis has been on balancing the powers of those who govern, giving them more freedom to govern, with a system devised as as to make the various groups of people (groups of professions, not pressure or interest groups)
suggestively participate in decisions relevant to their fields of activity and only in those decisions, where they are more knowledgeable than the rest of the groups of people, we could have a more ideal ideology and a more effective political system.
Such a system could give the people, instead of the right to vote on every decision and on every field of activity (a genetic research decision, a space mission decision, a scholarship policy decision, a pollution control policy decision and so on), the right to protest- in a manner, that is constructive and does not obstruct development- against the decision of the government only in those decision that concerns them most and only in those decisions they are qualified to influence.
Towards a more balanced representation:
To go back to the system of selective franchise would be desirable, but not possible. But steps in that direction can be made by imaginative problem-solving. Today we have regional representatives and Members in a Government- Members of the House of Representatives and members of the senate House in the United States, House of Commons in Britain and so on). The political philosophers who have conceived Democracy had sought to achieve balanced representation by equally dividing regions and giving the people of every region equal rights to elect their representatives So, the House of Representatives and Senators come from all regions and not from all professions In this system it is theoretically possible for all the Representatives to be from the field of medicine and all the Senators from the field of Academics. To a lesser degree, this is somewhat true in reality as various geographical regions are well represented, but not various field of professions or various interests.
In the United States of America the problem is partially diminished with the Constitution creating a system of separation of the Executive from the Legislature and allowing the President the freedom to
appoint specialists as Aids and Advisors, so within the Executive, the ideal representation becomes possible. But within the Legislative bodies such a desirable distinction does not exist. To make an unequal contrast, if a non-governmental voluntary organization can be taken to explain the point, Rotary International has a system of 'classification'. Membership is reserved for various professions and the membership of a club covers various professions.
On balancing the Lobbies:
During the course of recent history, this limitation is what caused the emergence of pressure groups. The formal and informal recognition granted to the pressure groups overlooks
Rousseau's warning "
...when cabals and partial associations are formed at the expense of great associations...no longer there are as many voters as men, but only as many as there are associations... no partial society should be formed in the state and that every citizen should speak his opinion entirely from himself"
The ideal is not possible in its entirely and there has been a felt need by the people of various classifications (multifarious classifications, namely religious classes, professional classes, ethnic classes and so on) to form pressure groups. In the United States, the Constitutional Amendment I prohibits the congress to abridge the right of the people to peacefully assemble and petition the government for a redress of grievances
At present pressure groups are specialized and their interests are not broad. We may not have an American pressure group that calls itself "the American People's Lobby in Washington" or a pressure group in India that calls itself the "India Association (Lobby) at New Delhi". Such pressure groups, theoretically could consider several and broad issues without awarding undue importance to any cause, issue or class of people. But such broad, unbiased pressure groups do not exist. By and large these groups have special interests and they no not balance each other fairly. Making a possibly wrong statement, it can be said that the Telephone Lobby in the United States could become more influential than the cable industry lobby or that the railroad industry lobby could become more effectively vocal than the Truckers' Lobby. So it is possible that one pressure group is stronger, more influential, more vocal and hence gains an edge over other pressure groups.
It must be acknowledged that the Lobbying efforts to produce at least a marginal change in the views of the Government. If one lobby is more vocal the opponent lobby loses. For instance, in the Unites States, the Truckers' Lobby and the railroad Lobby are known to have conflicting interests and when one group wins the other loses. Even if the government reconciles their interests and evolves a compromise that could result in a win-win situation for both these lobbies, several other groups would get affected, for they have not made similar efforts to make their cases. If both the railroad and the Truckers' Lobby win, several other businesses lose, UPS, Airfreight, the Airline Cargo companies and so on.
A formal council of Interest Groups:
It may be necessary to balance the Special Interest groups, for instance, by creating a "Council of Interest Groups". The council could have a balanced representation from the professional, ethnic, cultural, regional, religious and secular groups and so on. [ constituted in such a way that the constitution of the council does not become a lobbyist's focus : 2009 ] To draw the support of
Rousseau again, "
...no partial society should be formed in the State.... such was the unique and sublime system of the great Lycurgus...When there are partial societies, it politic to multiply their number, that they may all be kept in equality..."
The Council could be a legal entity, that could be governed by its own non-governmental members, and freely allow each of its member groups to discuss their special interests and also allow the opponent groups to counter. A Special interest plea that passes through the Council becomes a valid and legal plea to be forwarded to the Legislature and the Administration, which may or may not act upon the plea of the Council.
Once this Council is established as a mechanism for the various interest groups to represent their interests, Special Interest groups outside the Council of Interest groups to be discouraged from lobbying.
[ A friend said in 2020:
“Council of Interest Groups”, we have a version of that in Switzerland. Laws are usually proposed by the government, but before being formally presented to the parliament for approval, they go through a formal consultation process, which involves the various groups that are affected by the law. That consultation often results in significant changes to the government’s initial proposal. The interest groups get two more bites at the apple: most are represented in the parliament (even though the parliament is composed of representatives of political parties), and any interest group can trigger a referendum on any law, 50’000 signatures suffice. ]
Balancing the powers of the Media
There must be a free press, but the press should be of responsible and understanding men, that looks beyond interesting and commercial stories, a press that is not biased and a press that does not grow up as a Frankenstein let loose. How is the press to be balanced? How does the press ensure that it does not abuse it freedom? More often than not the impression created by the media is what stays with the people and the impression is more unreal than real. As President
Calvin Coolidge observed in 1926, "
readers of our newspapers might have imagined that volcanic disturbances and revolutions are the chief product of Latin America" President
Jefferson is said to have complained towards the end of his term as President, "
the man who reads no newspapers is better informed than the one who reads them"
In Japan, journalists belong to Kisha (Reporter) Clubs that decide what their members may report and in what manner. Elsewhere there are one two establishments that even in the absence of such institutions are voluntarily ethical. Time magazine editorial committee, for instance, decided not to print the ugly photographs of Rajiv Gandhi (who unfortunately faced death in the hands of dastardly assassins), for which it had already bought publishing rights, because the photographs created an undignified image.
Balancing the powers of the Trade Unions:
Governments, in their anxiety to establish slavery, oppression and exploitation have framed labor laws so liberally and generously that trade unionism contributes to economic stagnation. The John Major's Government was on the brink of being voted out when it endeavored to close down the coal mines that the country no longer wanted. Its failure to offer acceptable solutions (to the coal workers to be laid off) apart, the proposal merely sought to make sound business and economic sense. But the government is over-powered by trade unionism. How is trade unionism to be balanced?
In Germany, in April 1992 transport services came to a standstill- a case of workers exploiting the helplessness of their managers (the government) and their employers (tax-paying people). In India school teachers close down schools and colleges as and when they want a raise, employees of a telephone company, the Department of Telephones, shut down telephone services for over a month and progressed to sabotage the telephone lines and equipment to make it harder for the people to communicate. Airline staff, pilots, bus drivers, postal unions- all have their say because they have become powerful., and their power derives from their ability to make people helpless.
Declaration of Human Obligations"
In a democracy the powers of the governments to respond quickly to changes is restricted. Besides, in the course of history, governments have weakened themselves in every possible way.
The United States and the United Nations are noble in their "Declaration of Human Rights" Most certainly noble, but [unbalanced]. They have not framed a 'Declaration of Good, Responsible Citizenship' or what in effect could be a '
Declaration of Human Obligations' - obligations towards one another, towards their governments, a declaration that spells out the concept of being a good human being and the concept of good citizenship.
To quote Henry
David Thoreau out of context, "
...if you are men of the State, and gladly enjoy the advantage of Caesar's Government, then pay him back some of his own when he demands it; Render therefore to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God those thing that are God's" In modern context what is rightfully Caesar's is not just the tax money due, because not everyone pays it and in fact some receive it, but what is needed is certain degree of civil obedience, or in more acceptable language, conformity to the [basic] norms of civil order.
The Declaration of Human Obligations could be along the lines of a law in effect in many countries that a witness to a crime is deemed a party to a crime unless he reports the crime in a court of law. (In Britain during a recent year [circa 1992] surveyed it was found that 5 million crimes are reported while an estimated 15 million other crimes were unreported). The declaration could be along the lines of thinking [
Chase, Stuart, Roads to Agreement, "
Your liberty to swing your arms ends where my nose begins" The Declaration of Rights grants freedom of speech, but does not specify [obligations and exceptions].
Jean Jacques Roussea's Social Contract says the same "
...The act of association contains a reciprocal engagement between the public and individuals... Each individual, as a man, has a private will... he may wish to enjoy the rights of a citizen without being disposed to fulfill the duties of a subject. Such an injustice would in progress cause the ruin of the body politic. ... Man loses by the social contract his natural ability and an unlimited right to all which tempts him, and which he can obtain; in return he acquires civil liberty, and proprietorship of all he possesses"
The Declaration could state in unambiguous terms the obligations of workers employed in the essential services sector such as Transportation, Communication, Power, Water Supply.. the disruption of which could cripple [life].
Mistaken Liberty:
John Locke's 'Original Extent and End to Civil Government' says, "
a man has to part ... with as much of his natural liberty, in providing for himself, as the good, prosperity and safety of the society shall require; which is not only necessary but just., since other members of the society do the like"
The concept of liberty is misinterpreted to allow the liberty to burn the Stars and Stripes, concept of freedom misinterpreted to allow citizens such extreme freedom as the freedom to advertise perverted forms of sexual services. In a larger sense, it has become difficult for the federal or union governments to overcome resistance from State [regional or local] Governments or their agencies for strengthening the control of the Federal or Central of Federal Governments or difficult for the [federal] governments to create a climate which allows the Interstate federal government bodies the required level of hierarchical supremacy, in the United States, for instance, the Federal Bureau of Investigations over State Police. Other instances are the secessionist demands and ethnocentric subversion in several countries.
Against such excessive, misinterpreted liberty and freedom, governments are not functional enough. Pressure groups exercise more than due pressure on governments and governments are not empowered enough to overcome the unduly excessive pressures exerted by pressure groups and lobbies, unable to contain underworld and terrorism or to allocate the right resources to the right project, to raise or lower taxes or to fight bureaucratic delays on projects initiated by the President or his Aids- in a parliamentary system, by the Prime Minister and the Ministers.
Moving from a generalized system of Justice to a more just system of Justice:
Labour laws tilt in favor of the workers, criminal law in favor of the criminals (the point made here is that there are excesses, not that these liberties granted are undesirable in their entirety)- no one is guilty until otherwise proved guilty in a court of law (even in countries where it takes ages to prove a known criminal guilty). With the exception of Switzerland, where a suspect is guilty until proved innocent, the Judiciary of all governments in their anxiety to protect the innocent civilians from authoritarian harassment- a noble motive, no doubt, placed a little more rights in the hands o the offenders than what is fair. In a Dominique lapierre novel "Fifth Horseman", the FBI officers arrest a terrorist who has placed a nuclear bomb in New York City. The bomb could explode any time and the FBI officer starts the interrogation by waring the 'suspect' of his right to remain silent and right to request a lawyer. This is an exaggerated scenario but this is what the Judiciary wants the law and order agencies to do. No exceptions are prescribed to this rule. This circumstance warrant violation of the concept of human rights. Under such circumstances ... violation of all Declarations would have been honorable.
Law is universal. Law does not recognize exceptions. Law does not provide to deal with extremes. Law is inflexible. Law compels the government and bureaucracy to be unfair [at times]. It allows and encourages the bureaucracy to be unfair when the case in point can not be justified on paper, when paperwork can not be done in the prescribed format.
....
When a rule is made, it is necessary to define circumstances that warrant the violation of the rule
On making Governments more able:
"The main foundation of every State, new states as well as composite ones, are good laws and good arms ... you can not have good laws without good arms, and where there are good arms, good laws will inevitably follow" If this thought of
Niccolo Machiavelli is adopted to the present,, "good arms" could be taken to mean "power" in the hands of the State, the statement could be taken to mean "If the State is powerful enough, good laws will follow"
The media, Civic action groups, Special Interest groups, protest marchers and demonstrators sometimes exceed the ability of the governments to control them. These groups apart, governments can not guard their nations from stock market maneuvers, down town crimes, underworld crimes, terrorism or ill informed opposition to medical research trials..
reproduced as written in 1992, with all the prejudices.,,
.jpg)
