Democracy: an on-going project
In 1993 my mother embarked on an ‘irregular’ series in her local newspaper to commemorate the 2,500th anniversary of democracy. I share it here to commemorate her.
The year that could have justified a celebration of the 2,500th year anniversary of democracy is coming to an end. Official celebrations have not been held. The astute Greek politician Kleinstenes who invented the proto-concept of democracy for his own political agenda continues his eternal rest in oblivion. We, the citizens of the modern state continue to pursue the evasive ideal of democracy, social and civil equality in a society struggling to embody the once revolutionary principles of freedom, equality, and brotherhood. (It is interesting to note that this relatively recent notion of “brotherhood” is already outdated in our gender-equalized era we must call it siblinghood, I assume.)
Once more, what exactly is democracy?
“The basis of our political system,” “the majority rules,” “freedom” are the most frequent answers.
Everybody informally polled agreed that a democratic form of government is preferred. Nobody wanted to accept the possibility that an authoritarian state might provide our type of government accessibility, openness, consultation and participation of citizens...
Democracy and freedom is what we want in this day and age. Two warm and woolly notions, brand names for political correctness, subjects of endless happy-hour discussions.
If democracy is related to freedom, then what means freedom?
Going back in history, freedom originally meant freedom from arbitrary property regulations. Then, freedom became to indicate absence of involuntary and unpleasant conditions: freedom of slavery, of poverty, of want.
Next, freedom took a novel direction. It became the right to do or obtain something: freedom of speech, of religion, of gathering. Finally, during our lifetime freedom started to serve the me-generation. It became the right of the individual to break loose from societal traditions and ties: the right to get rid of your unwanted partner, to abort a fetus, to wear pants or a turban, to grow dandelions in your front yard...
We are encountering an interesting and understandable paradox. Our mass survival without governmental, technical and commercial intervention is doubtful. More than ever we depend on institutions beyond our control, yet we are busy expanding our personal freedom.
With all our hard won new individual rights, we might collectively be less free and more enslaved than our ancestors.
Like the concept of freedom, democracy has evolved over the centuries.
Part of this democratic evolution is unintentionally mirrored in a famous historical speech.
How modern, how justifiably proud sound the initial words of the great ancient Greek statesman Pericles. He delivered a funeral oration for soldiers slain in Athens' war against its neighbor, brutal Sparta:" ... for ours is a form of government which does not imitate other institutions and traditions, but sets an example. Its name is democracy because the affairs of the state are not a privilege of a few, but a right of many ... Ours is a free state in politics and in social life..."
Modern freedom-loving, almost anarchistic, minds start to wonder upon hearing subsequent sentences: "... We are tolerant in our private lives, but also fear and obey the laws and public authorities..."
Toward the end of the speech we are certain that famous 5th century BC Pericles lacked our contemporary political correctness: "... if I also must speak of feminine duty, I will all sum up briefly: great glory is yours if you do not betray the character that is naturally yours, and if you are undiscussed either for good or ill among men."
Changes have occurred in the concepts and manifestations of democracy—and do they signify progress? Are we closer to the realization of a "free state in politics and social life" than previous generations?
Of course, national and provincial polities are beyond independent and unbiased judgment of a single individual (an indication that the answer is no?). Rural micro-politics are not.
My smallest public body recently adopted a motion to eliminate its monthly meetings open to the public. In-camera privacy must protect my elected officials against sagas of silliness and frictions caused by some vocal residents. At first glance, a reactionary 'politically incorrect' move. After some thinking a certain political wisdom could be detected in this decision that might be ahead of its time.
The pendulum is swinging, my board might have caught the swing. When the trustees announced that their decision to open their meetings had been an error which had set in motion a divisive and alienating process, they had performed a profound and perfectly correct analysis.
They had discovered that alienation is a love child of freedom running wild. Bastards are not loved in a traditional society.
The vocal residents of my neighborhood attending these meetings had no clue as to the mysterious rules of a traditional democracy. In their modern enlightenment and infatuation they equated democracy with freedom (the right) to poke their noses into everything their local elected officials undertook.
In the world at large, administrative democracy and freedom are constantly challenged and redefined.
A traditional and small rural body cannot be expected to offer innovative solutions for novel problems of divisiveness and alienation. After all, it is hardly paid for its efforts ... For dogmatic and uncreative minds it is always safer to deal with confusing concepts in the protective privacy of closed room.
Democracy is the ongoing project of our time.