Issue #2: Defining democracy
The "third level of democracy" is currently being written. You may share any suggestions or insights you have.
The first level of democracy, if unmoderated and left unchecked, can lead to mob rule and the tyranny of the masses. The second level provides balance to the first one.
The flaws of the third level of democracy are: incompetence, corruption, cronyism.
The virtues of the third level of democracy are: competence, professionalism, integrity, public service, self regulation.
It is well known that in Great Britain, people drive their cars on the left-hand side of the road,
while the whole of continental Europe drives on the right-hand side.
What is less known, is that the UK almost changed the side they drove.
Here is the story.
Back in 2012, a mere four years before the fateful 2016 European Union referendum in the United Kingdom that eventually led to Brexit, Britain's exit from the European Union, the British authorities were still considering changing the side motor vehicles drive so that driving in the UK conforms to the driving customs in mainland Europe.
Consider this newspaper article published that year:
Whiteball, London, Sunday March 32nd, 2012.
The Rt Hon. Justin Redding MP, Secretary of State for Transport, has announced that in view of conforming with driving practice all over continental Europe, Her Majesty's Government has decided to let the UK switch the side of the road Her Royal subjects drive on. After consultation with European partners, and following high level meetings with their French counterparts, Ministry officials confirmed that preparations are already underway so that by July 2016, all vehicles in Great Britain would be driving on the right-hand side of the road.The government is expected to draw from the experience of countries who have made the switch in the past, like Sweden in 1967 and more recently like Samoa, as well as the dozen other countries which made the switch to right-hand traffic in the 1970s, like Sudan in 1973 and East Timor in 1976.
The experience and feedback will be invaluable in ensuring that the switch in Britain happens smoothly, especially in a country prone to Elizabethan road rage and brimming with fish & chips.
Her Majesty's Government wants to reassure Her loyal subjects that in order to ensure their safety, the switch will proceed in a progressive and orderly fashion.
In order to prevent road accidents and complications due to a confused public or, worse, to elderly Sunday drivers, it was estimated that the safest way to go forward was to let professional drivers switch sides first. Indeed, people who make a living by driving vehicles can easily be contacted to receive a full briefing and appropriate training.
The proposed timetable for the progressive switch would be as follows:
- 1st January 2016: only lorries are to switch sides. From that day on, they shall start driving on the right-hand side of the road, while all other vehicles continue driving on the left.
- 2nd April 2016: all other professional vehicles (taxis, ambulances, police cars, etc.) will follow suit and switch sides. (note: the original study had proposed the date of April 1st, but the Government decided to postpone this stage to the next day, for fear that fools would mistakenly believe that it is only a joke!)
- 1st July 2016: if everything proceeds smoothly in the previous stages, all private vehicles will finally switch sides too, thereby completing an operation which everybody anticipates will be successful.
It is planned that on the 23rd June 2016, a final cabinet-level meeting would be held to make the final go/no-go decision on perfecting the UK's integration within the European Union, by finally allowing private vehicles to drive on the right side of the road, rather than on the wrong side.
This story is obviously completely fabricated! Well, not so completely... In fact, the UK did consider changing the driving side. It was back in the 1960s, but after seriously considering the matter, the government decided against it, mostly because of the cost already invested into the infrastructure. [1]
The fictitious story above illustrates an important point, however.
Although in a democratic society people have individual freedoms (see Primary features of democracy — We, the Individuals), we do live in society, together with millions of other people (see Second level of democracy — We, the Society), and some common rules for living and operating in this society are necessary. Not only that, regardless of our position in society, we each have a role to play in it, as participants and professionals.
The "third level of democracy" is currently being written. You may share any suggestions or insights you have.
Humanity being flawed as it is, a democracy needs some core institutions for the society to function properly.
It must be kept in mind that the more all individuals behave with the common good at heart, the less institutions would be needed. On the other hand, the more individuals behave like criminals, or with selfish motives, the stronger would democratic institutions needs to be in order to maintain peace and order within the society.
Each individual cannot live by their own rules. If only for common sense practical reasons, and ideally for the benefit of all, there must be some common rules. Just like we must all drive on the same side of the road, there are myriads of other things that should be done in certain ways. Certain activities (e.g. potentially dangerous, destructive or polluting ones) ought to be regulated. Laws must be written and agreed upon. This is the work of a legislature and its members: the lawmakers. A legislature or parliament must be duly established, according to democratic procedures to be discussed later, and be in charge of lawmaking.
A country's constitution represents the fundamental framework that rules the nation. We shall investigate what makes for a good or a bad constitution. It shall be amendable so that it can reflects changes in the society and in order to incorporate new insights, but not too easily so, in order to prevent it from being corrupted by a ruler with autocratic leanings.
As we have seen in the second level of democracy, some individual rights are so sacred that they are unalienable under any circumstances. Such rights are enshrined into the constitution to ensure their long term safeguard.
Obviously, if everybody behaved according to the law and always with the benefit of the society in mind, there would not be any need for a police.
Unfortunately, such is not the case. Thus, a certain amount of police authority is required, with the police authorized to compel people to follow the rules, and arrest them if necessary.
Within this policing framework, extreme positions are best avoided, with excessive police brutality on one side, and various calls to defund the police on the other side. In a healthy democracy, what types of policing practices work best?
In any less-than-perfect society, there will be criminals and people who contravene the law. Therefore, there is a need for justice and for a judicial system.
At the same time, there is a dual and sometimes contradictory imperative to secure the independence of the judicial system, and the integrity of the judges.
Separation of powers is critical for healthy democratic institutions. In practical terms, how is this separation institutionalized?
In modern times, with the advent of the internet, power and knowledge are more and more decentralized. Ordinary citizens increasingly reclaim what was once the sole domain of certain elites. There are a lot of positive aspects to it.
At the same time, taking these tendencies to the extreme can have distinct adverse effects. Should one need to have open heart surgery, one ought to consult a qualified professional surgeon. One wouldn't trust one's life to a "doctor" who watched a youtube video on how to conduct open heart surgery!!
Ideally, each individual should find their life's purpose, and their role in society. Everybody should feel valued and have their own constructive place.
Even in the healthiest of economies, not all trades are created equal. Some provide a net positive value to society, others on the contrary have a downright negative effect.
For example, what positive value can the tobacco industry have in society? Their only aim is to make money by feeding their clients' addiction to their product? (There is an interesting tax angle to such trades to be explored!)
Meanwhile, other trades aim to make money by empowering people, helping them to develop their abilities.
Obviously, there is a large part of personal value judgement on whether a trade is useful or constructive to a society or not. Assuming a trade is legal and not so harmful that it would be banned altogether, there is a debate to be had on how to regulate and maybe tax different trades according to their potential harmful impact, as is already currently done in various countries.
Every day, we rely on professionals to do their job with all the skill and ethics that their duties require.
Unfortunately, while some are more competent than others at their job, many are downright incompetent, and sometimes criminally so, or even wilfully criminal.
In the 1960's, doctors used to recommend smoking for good health! We expect architects to guarantee the soundness of their architecture, so as to avoid tragedies like that witnessed in the Turkey earthquake... Examples abound. Thus we need a certain amount of regulation and professional oversight.
The third level of democracy deals with two main topics: the public institutions on one side, and the private economy on the other side, with professional individuals working on either side.
One important aspect that links the two are taxes. This is another critical topic that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It requires to make a very clear and properly understood distinction between what is private and what is public.
You are doing many things here in this struggle. You are demanding that this city will respect the dignity of labor. So often we overlook the work and the significance of those who are not in professional jobs, of those who are not in the so-called big jobs. But let me say to you tonight, that whenever you are engaged in work that serves humanity and is for the building of humanity, it has dignity, and it has worth. One day our society must come to see this. One day our society will come to respect the sanitation worker if it is to survive, for the person who picks up our garbage, in the final analysis, is as significant as the physician, for if he doesn't do his job, diseases are rampant. All labor has dignity.
-- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., March 18, 1968, Memphis, TN.
A country is not run only by doctor, university professors, lawyers, and other such highly regarded professionals. A country is also run by garbage collectors, street cleaners, factory workers, etc. To properly function in this society, we need to recognize the equal worth and worthiness of all professionals, at every levels of the social ladder.
When discussing the third level of democracy, we strayed away from the concept of the power to the people. In this step, we make sure to give the power back to the People, so that we can come full circle back to the first level of democracy.