Home » Democracy

Category Archives: Democracy

Gift of power or…

January 24, 2013 08:27 / Leave a comment

Power is an important gift to humanity, but it has to be handled with care. The core of power ought to express a purpose of establishing or enabling freedom. Understood in this way power has no immediate link to violence. The control aspect of power is of course present, but it is primarily about self-control on the side of the power holder. Also, power is not possessed; it can only be a gift to be shared and stewarded. Therefore the code of power ought to be inclusion and participation of those concerned. When top-down influence over behaviors, beliefs and emotions are called upon, processes must be guided by strive for establishing freedom (see Gospel of Luke 4:18-19).

Is the church civilized?

January 16, 2013 05:55 / Leave a comment

To be civilized or not is an important question for the church and its believers. In theory it might seem obvious that there is only one answer, but in reality there is both “yes“ and “no” to the question. The “yes” comes from the calling to the believers to live out the Kingdom of God. And the “no” comes from the other part of the calling; to be devoted to God in a spiritual realm. To be Christian and civilized has to do with being respectful in all relations and deeds. Above all it means to not be tempted by making use of short cuts, and start using power influence in helping others to reach and be included in a spiritual realm. Challenging people to follow Christ must pause at the border of individual decisions and ownership and never overstep that line.

The energy of a Christian life can be picked up in the inner life with Christ and never in the numbers of converts. So when it comes to sources of life, the fellowship with God; it is a matter of being sanctified rather than civilized. The fellowship of humans; it is always a matter of being civilized.

Democracy and ethnicity

January 15, 2013 06:37 / Leave a comment

Democracy is not to be blindly introduced and applied. The vessel must never be more important than its contents, and therefore democratic structure can never be the goal on the outcome or impact level. Development of democratic structure and procedures can only be at the output level, and be seen as arenas for people’s activities. On the outcome/impact level one will find aspects like behavior, relations, and actions of people – and these are the tings democracy is about.
People living together in a democratic framework pose a number of challenging questions: Is ethnicity subversive (breaking down) of democracy? If democracy is about majoritarian rule, how can (ethnic) minorities ever be considered equal to larger groups or have equitable access to power, resources and justice? How best can democracy address the problems of individual versus group representation and accountability in complex political societies? Because of unreflected and too quick responses to these questions, sometimes people make the assumption that democracy at its root is “Wrong!” and responsible for all internal uprising, fights, war etc. Even thought it sometimes happen that ethnicity in pluralistic societies leads to political instability and intra-state conflicts, blaming democracy is drawing too quick conclusions. Democracy cannot be held responsible for these tensions. The problem is most likely located elsewhere: how people view one another and cooperate.
Sometimes, in the Christian tradition, a polarization of democracy with theocracy can be noted. The assumption is that theocracy proposes:

On the other hand, the polarization proposes that democracy is just about people’s business:

For a Christian democracy ought to be both about people and about God. There need to be a balance between the two in a way that gives space for people to participate in the spiritual and the social processes (just like it is modeled in the Bible). In order for democracy to not be reduced to just a matter of structure it needs a value base, and theocracy/spirituality needs the involvement of humans that whole heartedly can live out the intentions with creativity and in cooperation.
The assumptions of democracy, in relation to ethnicity, is that the structure is capable of framing that all citizens are equal before the law and thereby have equal right to power. Everybody has the right to voice their perspectives, and to mobilize others to include new perspectives. On the “democracy and ethnicity agenda” there are issues of rights, cooperation, stability and development.
In the midst of challenging negotiations it is also important to remember that democracy is about freedom, otherwise, it will not be able to spur development. The links between the participants does not only aim at cooperation but also, on general level, to forward social capital and trust. Sometimes it is important to build trust before introducing a democratic structure (which might have failed in Iraq and Afghanistan). Wisely used, democracy can help in building a nation, and provide a framework for unity, which can eliminate destabilizing and divisive tendencies. Above all, it is procedures and channels for information flow that add to stability.
The forming of a nation in relation to democracy is very much about citizenship. There is a division between:

A liberal view of citizenship and the legal membership of a nation-state,

A pluralist view of citizenship;

Nowadays citizenship is a contested issue. The once taken for granted correspondence between citizenship, nation, territory, and state has been called into question as new forms of supra-national and sub-national membership and belonging have taken on an increasingly trans-territorial character. The increasingly transnational character of global migration flows, cultural networks, and grassroots political engagement; all have dramatically changed the discourses and practices of citizenship in the past two decades. A national setting for democracy requires that social rights and national membership are linked, but this is not always the case. For a nation to harbor different and diverse ethnicity there needs to be a broad understanding of the particular ethnicity and its situational roots. Not just the authorities need this understanding, the people at large, also needs this understanding. What needs to be grasped is that ethnicity is dynamic in its perceived ethnic, cultural, religious, linguistic similarities – not all members of a group think and act the same. People also need to see that ethnicity as political behavior depends on power relations (distribution of power and access to resources in plural societies).
In many countries all over the world the tendencies are that ethnicity is part of the democratic project. It is fashionable to be democratic. The use of democracy by “out of power politicians”, democratization is less a commitment than a strategy for power – power elite’s quest for power. It is also seen among ethnic, national and communal groups who are obliged to wage struggles for democratic incorporation, because a manipulative leadership has seized state power in the name of an ethnic or national group” – people’s demand for a “second independence” (can be seen among Indian tribes in Latin America, and elsewhere).
Considering the group representation issues, it is important to remember that groups are not just made up of ethnic belongings. It is therefore a fluid foundation for the democracy agenda – internal variations and contradictions (for or against specific aspects…). Not all groups are ethnic; there are also groups that are defined due to occupation, faith, profession, community associations, gender, and age… Every group is made up of individuals with a shared sense of space, rights, entitlements and destiny, and all this individuals must be given the chance to voice their perspectives as individuals and as members of a group.

Women’s participation in politics

January 15, 2013 06:33 / Leave a comment

The argument for women’s participation in politics can emphasize a number of approaches: justice, women’s perspectives and issues, and identity and presence. The justice argument (normative) is sometimes motivated by the fact that women make up 50% of the population and therefore should be represented in a similar fashion. But the percentage is not the only aspect of justice; one also has to consider how many women that will be sufficient for justice to established (is 30, 40, 50% enough or does it have to be 60% in order for justice to be established). The second argument for women’s participation deals with the necessity of promoting women’s issue and perspective (substantive). The promotion of gender equality and empowerment is an important strategy to reduce poverty. Women’s involvement makes sure that other Millennium Development Goals are achieved. If women are not in legislatures, women’s issues will be neglected or marginalized. The third argument is about identity and presence. A woman’s perspective on an issue cannot be fully applied without the identity and experience as a woman. Even though men might be very supportive and perhaps even feminism oriented, it is not enough; the everyday experience is missing. But it is not just about being a woman it is also about identity. For example, Margret Thatcher is referred to as having said; the best place for a woman is in the home her family – herself being an exception.
Critics of the formulation of women’s specific issues, often say that women are not a homogeneous group. There are a lot of conflicting views, displacement, diversified levels of wages, health, education etc. Also, women are themselves drivers of domestic service, forced or bonded labor. Even women are responsible for abuse and oppression and thereby not acting in solidarity. Still, there are specific perspectives of women, in the same way as this can be said about any other group; men, old, young, rich, poor etc.
In particular, there are four “C:s” that become obstacles to women’s participation in politics: It is the “Cash” set back. People living in poverty face difficulties in finding time for political activities (and perhaps it goes without saying that women are more impoverished than men). Women also have less opportunity to get into education, and therefore rate of illiteracy is higher. The second set back is “Child care”. Women have a larger responsibility for caring for children (and old/sick members of family). This reduces both their time and their mobility. And usually women politicians have to rely on having understanding and supportive husbands – which is perhaps not often the case. “Culture”, the third “C”, is perhaps more difficult to tackle. Men have dominated politics. Men define the rules of the game and therefore most of political procedures are suited to men’s lifestyle. Men define even the way politics is handled, and therefore being carried out in a confrontational and of the combative style; which women usually find off-putting. A cultural aspect is also present in the way media portrays women. Women are often trivialized, as they are attributed traditional roles, and commented on their physical appearance, age, and marital status; while their work is scarcely reported. The number four “C”, is about “Confidence”. Because of perceived expectations they may lack confidence to go into politics, and therefore given less access to public spaces. Women, themselves, may be more sensitive for the risk of being accused of bringing shame upon their families.
Empowering women
The simplest way to deal with the four “C: s” is to introduce quotas; like 50% women. However, this does only deal with numbers. Every “C” has to be analyzed in its context. Such analysis may lead up to the conclusion that there is a need of capacity building, a support base, rising media awareness, and/or forming enabling environment. The capacity building is about many issues. It involves developing women’s skills, experiences and confidence. The training of ought to take place in a public setting and involve policy formulation, art of negotiation, public speaking, tools to influence policy decisions, how to deal with media. It would also be important to include mentoring by experienced MPs, and of course education and training in parliamentary rules (and how to change rules and procedures to better suit women).
In order to strengthen the support base for women in politics, it is strategically wise to lobby the civil society in general and CSOs in particular on gender issues. The support base for women needs to include networking both within and across parties, and the forming of “women’s caucuses”, where shared concern can be aired and debated. Networking within the general civil society can include working with groups like: women’s organizations, trade unions, professional associations, male colleagues, etc. These networks need to be mobilized to support women MPs, make the groups work with the women, lobbying form them, and holding them accountable.
Watching over fair coverage by media (in building awareness) is the beginning of rising media awareness. This attention has to proceed into working directly with media; carrying out civic education projects in order to change stereotypes about women in politics and in the public sphere. In addition to awareness rising of media, male MPs awareness also needs to be improved, and make them realize that gender issues effect everyone in health, social welfare, education, childcare, budget etc.
As for the enabling environment for women’s participation in politics, the establishment of a parliamentary committee on gender equality is an important function. This committee should scrutinize all legislation for its impact on gender. Forming of monitoring structures outside the parliament like, Ministry of Women, Equal Opportunities Commission etc. would also strengthen an enabling environment.
Above all, there needs to be a pool of trained, confident and networking women; on the “supply side”. And on the demand side, voters, media, CSOs and governments that are keen to see women representatives and women’s issues on parliamentary agendas.

Historical aspects of democracy

January 15, 2013 06:31 / Leave a comment

There are many roots of modern democracy. We usually trace it back to the Greek city of Athens (500BC), and the way the citizens (male and wealthy town people) of those days were making common decisions. The form it took in those days was direct democracy. Plato reflected on this procedure and differentiated between: 1) Democracy – rule by the governed, 2) Monarchy – rule by one individual, 3) Oligarchy – rule by a small élite class. The boundaries of democracy in Athens were made in such a way that women were excluded together with slaves, foreigners and males under 20.
In the Middle Ages of Europe a small élite (feudal) were given the opportunity to influence politics. In effect, this system became very oppressive to the rest of the population. During the 18th and 19th centuries, Declaration of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 (omission of women and slaves), formed an important step in the process of expanding the creative and developmental participation of wider groups of people. The French Revolution of 1848 established the power of the people, and the Women’s rights of 1791 (“Woman is born free and remains equal to man in rights. Social distinctions may only be based on common utility”) made it clear that segregation practice was on its way to be ended.
There might be some problems with this narrow scope of history of democracy. It is usually very western oriented. One seldom reads about history of decision making in terms of African, Latin American, Asian etc. perspectives. Every group of people has its own history of how decisions have been made. This material is therefore careful about stimulating probing into ones own “democratic heritage”, and finding out to what degree it has been inclusive, segregating, dominated, formal and informal etc.

Democratic culture

January 15, 2013 06:29 / Leave a comment

A democratic culture is not an easy thing to build and sustain. It requires time and patience, and nobody must fool him-/herself that it can be achieved through elections only. In fact, in relation to experiences from attempts to introduce modern election systems in countries like Iraq and Afghanistan, elections is not the best way to introduce democracy (a system for fair and equal participation in decision making). E.g. in Afghanistan the western inspired electoral system is so expensive that the country can never afford to run such democracy on its own, and similar conditions are present in many more nations attempting to build modern democracies.
The democratic practices and procedures can be compared but never prescribed; not even by nations having a long tradition of democracy. All peoples have to be given the chance of forming their own way of organizing participation in decision-making – of forming their own flavor of democracy. Democracy is, and has to be, built from within societies, and can never be imported or exported. Swedish, American, German, Japanese etc. countries have developed their own democratic forms. To place a democratic pattern that has been generated in a specific context on another context is in fact contrary to the essence of democracy. Every nation and its people are sovereign and should therefore have the right to decide on even the beginning of their search for procedures that can express fair and equal participation in decision-making. It is not enough to learn democracy; one has to live it too.
A democratic culture can certainly serve as the foundation, but the democratic culture also has to be expressed on many levels. Therefore it is perhaps meaningful to talk about formal and informal democracy. The informal democracy, emphasize the open dialogue, and providing space for many voices and perspectives. The home of informal democracy is the civil society dimension, and thereby closely related to culture. In fact this informal democracy has to be built into the smallest unit of the society; the family. Already at childhood children have to be trained to become responsible participants in building the common good. The informal democracy links to taking on the voice of the voiceless (to be expressed in lobbying, advocacy etc.). The shapes of formal democracy are related to structures in the state dimension. And it can be expressed by giving possibilities for casting a vote via direct citizen participation in decision-making of certain issues. Or by a semi-direct democracy, which is about giving recommendations to MPs. Such recommendations can be binding or just recommendations. The structure for indirect democracy hands over responsibility to representatives that will govern for the people.

Democracy: for good or bad?

January 15, 2013 06:27 / Leave a comment

Societies are primarily about people, not agendas and power, therefore cooperation and interaction is at the core of societies. The big question is how people, with different perspectives, can find common ground and develop consensus about what should be the direction for change and development. In this process of deciding on direction, everybody is equally important, both the innovator and the end user, and therefore everybody should have a say in the process.
Decision-making can take place in a number of ways, on a number of levels., and in a number of “rooms”. Generally speaking; the more exclusive pattern the poorer quality of the decisions. Single-handed decisions, like the ones autocrats and dictators make, are almost never good ones. Especially when it comes to execution of the decisions, it is hard to generate whole heartedness from the implementers and the users. Besides the corrupted value, the feedback is not transmitted and no context-based improvement is possible.

Quality development always requires participation of diverse and multiple perspectives. This is so; whether the context is national, local, organizational or the small unit of a family. There is a massive amount of stories, from practitioners all over the world in all sectors, supporting the view that diversity in decision-making is essential.

This diverse participation could be given a number of names, but all over the world the term “democracy” is used for this participation in making decisions and sharing responsibility. In fact the term is used in so many situations that it almost lost its ability to communicate an essence. Looking at the list of uses in the reference section, one understands that the use is very vast. In the debate about the word, the opinions stretch from meaning; “divine principle” unto “democracy is the root of evil like war and fire” and even labeling it “demon-cracy”.

The view of democracy as a divine entity is expressed by commentators like J Grant Swank Jr: “When God set forth His rescue mission called Redemption, it was meant to be available for “whosoever will.” Therefore, the Calvary cross is the most democratic spot on the planet. It is where “whosoever” may come to receive the blood spilt. The Grace Gift Himself is stapled to that wood. ‘Whosoever’ may then bow beneath that Gift to receive Him personally.” At the other end, democracy as a disastrous entity, dates back to the thinking of one of the founding fathers of the republic of the USA; Fisher Ames. He stated that; “A democracy is a volcano which conceals the fiery materials of its own destruction. These will produce an eruption and carry desolation in their way. The known propensity of a democracy is to licentiousness which the ambitious call, and ignorant believe to be liberty.” Further, he stated that, “Liberty has never lasted long in a democracy, nor has it ever ended in anything better than despotism.” In fact he believed that it was “democracy that pollutes the morals of the people before it swallows up their freedoms.” For a pure democracy, he argued, would lend itself to the new nation’s coming under the influence of the basest of human motivations: greed and a lack of public virtue. Ames believed that “the United States must lash itself to a constitution of laws, not the whim of democratic preference.” What people seems to forget (conservative republicans in preparation for the upcoming election in the USA), though, is that Fisher Ames put very large emphasis on rule by the law and just lashing out on “democracy”. Along the same line is the view that it was democracy that killed Jesus; if Pilate had not be so sensitive to public opinions and the democratically express will of the people, he may have been able to follow his own conviction and release Jesus