What is Democracy?

Democracy. It’s a word often thrown about. An end that is used to justify, rationalise and ultimately convince people that an action is either right or wrong. But, what does democracy mean? How does democracy work? What is the mandate given to a democratically elected leader?

As it happens, there is no one answer to each of these questions. Democracy is an idea. How that idea is implemented has varied greatly over the course of history, and indeed how the democratic process has been empowered and enacted has varied greatly with it.

Last month, in the UK, a historic referendum took place. The people were told that they were being given the choice to make a decision whether the UK will remain in the EU, or leave. The voters turned out, 72% of them. The voting was in the favour of those who wished to leave, 52% to 48%. The Brexit (British Exit) campaigners stated that democracy has been enacted, and a democratic decision has been made. We are told that any sentiments that this voting should be ignored would contravene the very principles of the democracy we live in. A stunningly relevant example of the principles of democracy being employed, and the principles of democracy being applied as an authority on interpreting the event. However, the key phrase in that sentence was “...the democracy we live in”. Indeed, just what sort of democracy is the UK? What sort of democracies exist in the world today? To understand the answer to these questions we must go through the initial queries posted at the start of this article.

What does democracy mean? Democracy is a form of governance. The word comes from Greek, and as the inception of democracy is generally attributed to the Greeks, we use a derivation of their word for it. Though, strong evidence exists that it was enacted in other parts of the world earlier, but never mind that for now!

“Demo” means “the people”, and “kratia” means “power” or “rule”. As the name suggests, the word means any system of government whereby the people have the power to rule. While this may seem to cover all systems of government to some, you don’t have to look very far to observe the alternatives. Monarchy, fascism, despotism and military dictatorships all currently exist as alternative forms of government in today’s world. The word democracy itself is not specific on how this form of government works though. There are many forms of democracy in this world. Perhaps it’s best to reflect on this a little before we continue.

As mentioned earlier, the birthplace of democracy is generally held to be ancient Greece. One of the most powerful states of the ancient world, the Greek city states of the time led the world in science, philosophy and social engineering. We have abundant direct evidence of how the city states of ancient Greece were run. Speeches were transcribed, books written and laws passed and recorded to serve as detailed guides on the governance processes of the Greek city states. In actuality, ancient Greece saw many diverse forms of governance applied. It was in Athens particularly that the principles of democracy were chosen to rule. In Athens, and several other minor city states, the fundamental concepts of democracy were put in place. It is from here that all democratic forms of governance applied in the western world emanated by the gradual development of their basic concepts. The concepts of the Athenian democracy were that the people would be able vote on the passing of legislation and executive bills, and that the most popular decision would be enacted. This was in contrast to many other Greek states, whereby laws and would be passed by a ruler, sometimes with input from advisors and sometimes based on that person's will and whim alone.

However, there were conditions to Athenian democracy. Most importantly, only men could vote. Adult men, specifically, and they had to own land, and they could not be slaves. In some cases only men who had completed military training. In fact, universal suffrage would not be seen in Athens until 1952, and by then the mechanisms of Greek democracy would have changed significantly, as we will see. Indeed, democracy, as it is commonly held in the west, was first implemented under conditions that disenfranchised between 80 to 90% of its total population, with between 30,000 to 50,000 Athenians being eligible to vote out of a total population between 250,000 to 300,000. Men held power over women, as they would do until modern times by systematic means. Lack of effective birth control, physical strength, cultural dogma and all of the methods we are familiar with today were in effect in ancient Athens too. To empower slaves with the right to vote would of course undermine the very roots of the society. Naturally children were held to be too immature to cast a vote, and those without land could be said to have no stake in society (by those in power). Naturally, once an individual has something, that person then has something to lose. If that something is land, then so be it, it still forms an effective means of obtaining obedience. Voting was only for the obedient.

So, democracy in ancient Greece was not at all the rule, and when in it was the rule; it only loosely resembled democracy as we imagine it today. Nevertheless, casting a moral judgement is not appropriate when we have had over 2000 more years of history to arrive at our system of values (see footnote below). Let us not forget also that the Greek city states were under constant threat from outside aggressors. A system of government needed to operate in a different time, with different technologies, under different conditions and with far more limited populations that we can easily appreciate today. In addition to the first functional democracy to be tested under fire, ancient Greece gave the world the foundations of western philosophy and the scientific method. The contributions made by its society to human progress are infinite. But, democracy as was understood in ancient Athens, enacted today, would reserve voting rights only for wealthy men. This is not the democracy that people hail when they encourage us to mandate wars and rush to the polls to support them. So what happened next?

Well, first let’s take a moment to examine the principles of democracy now that we have an example to work with. How does democracy work? In Athens it was enough that people could have a say in state decision making and law. Just having a say was novel enough. However, over the course of time the definition has evolved to more firmly define what a democracy is. Currently it is held that a democracy provides for the following:

1. Elections to determine acts of law and governance
2. Participation of the citizens in these elections
3. Rule of law to protect the rights of these citizens to participate in these elections

Note that point 2 does not explicitly define how citizens may vote on acts of law or governance. At a basic level that is it. Within this framework there have been devised many democratic forms of governance.  A republic being the most noteworthy and the one most often set forward as a model of the democratic system. But then, how does a republic work?

A republic is a form of representative government. That means that representatives of the public enact laws and execute governance on behalf of the people. Provided that these representatives are elected by the citizenship, and that these elections are protected as free and fair by rule of law, then the government can rightly call itself democratic. That is not to say that it is a pure democracy. The voice of an individual voter may not be represented when the final decision is made in government. It means only that those elected by the people to represent them are given a fair chance to vote for legislation on their behalf. In principle this may appear to be a step away from the democratic principles ushered in by the ancient Greeks. After all, wasn’t democracy implemented to avoid a system whereby decisions are taken away from the public? The answer is yes, it is. This form of government has arisen as a pragmatic means to preserve the power of the people, or some may say the appearance of popular power, against the increasingly complex role of government. Both interpretations of republican principle can be observed by looking at recent history.

Firstly, let’s look at the United Kingdom, in the year 1860. Why not, it’s as good as year as any. In 1860 the UK controlled a vast empire across the world. 460 million people and 33 million km2. Thats one person in every five and about 1km2 in every 16 on Earth. The UK at the time was a constitutional monarchy, meaning that the country had a head of state, being a king or queen, and a Parliament which was responsible for national government. Parliament being split into two houses, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. Now, it is interesting to note that the system of government has not changed since 1860, though the world at large has.

Citizens of the UK can (and could) vote for a local representative in the general election. This representative would hold a seat in the House of Commons, and represent the best interests of their constituents. Leadership of political parties was decided by voting within the members of the political party. The choice of prime minister is influenced by the voter only inasmuch as that person can vote for a local representative. The political party in power in the House of Commons is whichever one has the majority of seats. The leader of that party is the one who has the most support from members of their political party. The House of Lords are not democratically elected. Membership to the House of Lords is by appointment only. Appointment given by the King or Queen and by the House of Commons Appointment Committee. There is also representation from the Church of England and certain Lords with hereditary privileges. The House of Lords has the power to amend bills passed by the House of Commons, and enter them into law. So the citizen voter of the UK can elect a local official, who can occupy a seat in parliament alongside 649 other seats. That representative can represent (or not) the interests of any individual voter in a vote amongst the House of Commons. The unelected House of Lords can than modify that bill before passing it. Subject of the empire that were not UK citizens had no vote at all. This system of government has been widely accepted as, and meets the definition of a democracy, yet under this governance an enduring class system was maintained that essentially allowed for the exploitation of the vast majority of it’s citizens and subjects. A system that was maintained by having the authority to pass a specific law being completely independent of the voting power held by the citizenship. A divide which exists to the present day.

On the other hand, under a republic the requirement for the public to be well informed on the case specifics of each and every act of law or governance is relieved. In the days of ancient Athens, this might not have seemed necessary. However, the passage of time, the development of science, technology, social and economic theory have lead to increasingly complex issues falling under the jurisdiction of government. For example, laws pertaining to funding of science and technology require an understanding of the long terms development plans of the nation. These in turn require an understanding of the state of technology and the general long term ambitions of the scientific community across the world. In a case specific example, should the UK have made an investment in fibre optic infrastructure in the year 1993? Few members of the public would have said yes at the time, but one would hope that a well informed civil servant should be in a position to make such forward looking judgements. The same principle of informed decision making applies in all aspects of governance. A representative form of government allows the voter to focus on their own goals in life while allowing dedicated civil servants to do the necessary research to make informed decisions on their behalf.

The trend towards greater “people” power can only serve the good of society as a whole so long as the voting public are well enough informed on the subject they will be voting on. It seems that we have long passed the threshold where that is possible. Sir Isaac Newton famously studied only 6 books on mathematics prior to developing differential calculus. The sum of just 6 books turned an intelligent man into the greatest mathematician the world has ever seen. Today, the sum total of Isaac Newton’s contributions are taught to children studying maths by the time they are 16. Today, to become the world’s greatest mathematician, would require at least an advanced degree and a doctorate in some field of mathematics, not to mention decades of intensive study. Even to become a subject matter expert would depend upon an investment of at least 10, years of someone’s life. At this point they would perhaps be fit to make decisions on the behalf of a society on that one subject, but what about everything else?

Moving in the opposite direction for a moment, we can consider the alternative. That is a society where the public are completely deprived of their voting rights. That is to say, an un-democratic society. Putting aside motivations towards petty minded gain (something that no society has yet managed to do), we can hypothesise that this society would somehow maintain a clear direction towards raising the standard of living and level of knowledge possessed by all its citizens across the board. Such a society could draw upon an educated mass of people. The very best of which would be trusted to make decisions on behalf of the others within their particular field of expertise. How would that actually work though? Is it possible that a single choice can be evaluated to be the “best” of all available? Basic practical reality informs us that most decision making is about compromise. Situations that offer a clear cut solution are rare. We would arrive at a situation where decisions are made “for the greater good”, but whereby some aspects of society (be they groups of people, avenues of development or whatever else) are left to suffer as a result. Is that any better than a democracy? Perhaps if such a society had a particular objective in mind, such as rapid adoption of a new technology (such as industrialisation, or space travel), then a set of single minded decision makers could go about reaching that end with the minimal deviation from course. In fact, history has presented us with examples of such societies, and the price to pay in terms of humanity has been been both unacceptable and unreconcilable with the ends. Interesting to note that the empires of the past often occupied territories in ways that essentially put in place such forms of governance. The ends favouring the empire with the price being paid by those occupied.

What about something between the two. A society where democratic privilege is restricted to those that possess the informed decision making ability to exercise it for the greater good. This too, is not a new idea. This form of elitism was a popular thinking in the first part of the 20th century. However, the shortcomings of such a system become clear very quickly. Whom should decide who is worthy to make decisions, and how would that person use this power? Even if we could somehow produce people free from the petty weaknesses that afflict us all, how can the ability to make good decisions even be measured? Many judged Galileo and Tesla to be mad, but time has proven them to have been years ahead of their critics. Henry Ford famously captured the flaw in this system perfectly when he said “if I had given people what they wanted, I would have made a faster horse”.

The lack of clear right and wrong goes against the basic human compulsion to force decision making into a (false) dichotomy. It seems evident that only by a measured examination of current conditions can a decision be made on an informed basis. This decision may well be reflected upon poorly in the future, and may not align well with a moral compass inherited from the past. But only by freeing ourselves from dogma are we able to effect meaningful change. Forms of governance that rigidly confine the framework of what is acceptable and what is not seem to fare poorly over time. Alternatively forms of governance that offer the broadest possible terms of citizenship and allow socioeconomic U-turns tend to last, albeit bearing little resemblance to their earlier states. From this it would be fair to say that progress is a trial and error process. By freeing ourselves to make mistakes, we are able to better inform ourselves. Change comes gradually, and without an end in site. Progress is often brought about with slow gradual meandering steps towards a broadly accepted solution. Greece, having finally granted universal suffrage in 1952, being a handy example.

If we are to accept these facts as true, and history certainly seems to support that notion, then the mandate of a democratically elected leader must be to accept the responsibility to make decisions on behalf of the people, and accept responsibility when those decisions are wrong. A democracy must allow it’s citizens the right to criticise their leadership, and the right for the leader and the people to make mistakes must be protected. The people must be well informed enough to make informed decisions about who shall represent them, and the government must have access to people well informed in every possible field. Most importantly, the citizenship should be defined as broadly as possible, or else it shall sow the seeds of tomorrow's revolution by those it chooses not to recognise. Can any one country claim to have such a system in place? What would a world like this look like?

FOOTNOTES:

1. While the above statements regarding the application of democratic principles in ancient Athens are factually correct within the context of how suffrage evolved over time, it should not be taken to mean that Athens in its classical period was not a democratic state. Many books can (and have) be written on the subject of Athenian democracy, but here it will suffice to say the following. At the start of its classical period Athens was seen as radical extremist state because of its democratic principles. Democracy was seen as danger to the established order of things, not only by other Hellenic states and their neighbours, but by some of Athens' own, and most esteemed, citizens. The Athenian state empowered the many when the whole world said it was wrong to do so, and protected and cultivated the fledgling democratic idea when it was most vulnerable. What followed from that point is the subject of all western philosophical thought. Over two millennia later the idea of democracy has become an accepted, and even desirable as a form of governance, and yet the average citizen living in a democratic country today yields less influence over, and access to, the management of their state affairs than an Athenian would enjoy in 480BC.

Can a Paleo Diet Really be a Good Thing?

Recent times have seen a surge in popularity of the so called “Paleo Diets”. These dietary guidelines are based on the premise that the human race has not yet developed the necessary adaptations to refined grains, or indeed any form of agriculturally reared crops for them to be efficiently consumed as a food source. Advocates of these dietary regimes claim that consumption of such food items is linked to obesity and other diseases, and that only by reverting to pre-agricultural dietary regimes can we hope to avoid the diseases of the modern world. 

It is an interesting thought. Advocates argue that the human race has developed a digestive system over the course of 6 million years or so, from the last common ancestor we share with the great apes, and that the advent of agriculture is essentially a disruptive force. Agriculture, they hypothesise, has resulted in us depending upon a food source that we are not equipped to consume. 

These arguments have two main criticisms that can be leveled against them. First, is that evolution is actually driven by disruptive events. The introduction of a new food source would provide evolutionary pressure towards a digestive system that would manage agriculturally sourced foods, if not already present. By avoiding such foods in the diet, the dieters would essentially be isolating themselves from this evolutionary pressure. 

The second major criticism is that the Paleo Diet hypothesis ignores the fact that the human civilisation only really came into being as a direct result of the development of agriculture. For the first two million years that homo sapiens were around we existed as hunter gatherers, spending each moment of our lives either sleeping, eating, hunting, gathering or procreating. Agriculture was the breakthrough that first allowed homo sapiens the luxury of plentiful food. This in turn allowed the highly developed human mind to be set free for the first time. For the first time we were able to apply our imagination, intellect, creativity and powers of reason to things other than the pursuit of food. Granted, agriculture must have been the first of these great breakthroughs, and so must have occurred through a food surplus arising through other means. Arriving combined with a moment of inspiration and good fortune perhaps. However, once this milestone was met, great advances came quickly. Astronomy, writing, mathematics, pottery and a series of other seminal leaps forward came in an avalanche beginning around 10,000 years ago, at the start of the agricultural era. 

Placed into context, the human species survived without many significant advances being made for a period of about 2,000,000 years ago  until around 8,000 BCE. While we have no evidence of written language from before 4000 BCE, written language being that key advance that divides what we call history from prehistory, we do know from dating of remains that early humans learnt to use stone tools and fire between 3 million and 1.5 million years ago. We also find evidence of cave paintings and burial rituals as the first humans enter the fossil record, within the last 100,000 years. All of these things point towards the development of cultures. Learning was achieved by one generation and passed down to the next, perhaps by some form of oral tradition, perhaps by example. 

Then comes the Neolithic revolution, the “new stone age”. Here we have the development of agriculture. All of a sudden food supplies become a matter of planning rather than a dependance upon chance and skill. Central food reserves become possible, and as a result, human beings begin to live in larger communities. There is a greater sharing of knowledge and information. Skills are borne and refined out of this increased interaction. We learn to communicate more effectively, and develop written languages. We learn to navigate from place to place using the stars. An understanding of astronomy demands with it a basic understanding of mathematics. Number systems are developed, allowing the first clear examples of an abstract philosophy. The journey of our species begins to pick up speed at this point. The human population, which has remained at a steady 3-5 million individuals for over 50,000 years suddenly jumps to over 100 million in just 8,000 years. Clear evidence of the benefits of an agricultural food source. 

Looking back, it’s not hard to argue that the move away from a “Paleo Diet” was what took the human race off its knees and put us firmly in charge of our environment. Every great advance since has been based upon the social and scientific developments that arose directly as a result of agriculture. To this day it provides the central occupation for the majority of the world's human population. 

While there is truth to the idea that only with plentiful resources are problems such as obesity and type 2 diabetes possible, it also because these diseases become apparent only at the expense of famine, hunger and malnutrition. All who live are destined to die. A statistical analysis will, of course, show a 1:1 ratio between births and deaths. By observing 20th century trends in causes of death, it does not seem reasonable to equate them in terms of direct causality to an event that occurred 10,000 years (or 400 generations) ago. While it is also true that 400 generations may not be enough to witness significant genetic change (through the domestication of animals shows clear evidence to the contrary) it seems unreasonable to assume that any disruptive effects occurred as a result of the development of agriculture, save for those that were overwhelmingly beneficial to the human species.

Put in other words, humankind struggled for well over a million years (by any estimate) to break free of the shackles of hunting and gathering. When those chains were finally broken, we rose up and separated ourselves from all that had ever lived on Earth before, by becoming a highly technological civilization. We rose quickly, and we continue to rise quickly. What has become evident in recent times is that the speed at which we are able to assimilate cultural and social change is not as swift as the rate at which we are able to effect it with our technology. Perhaps this is the mirror with which we should reflect upon ideas such as the Paleo Diet. The instinct to resist change. To disagree with new thinking and claim old ideas as an authority in a world that is moving too quickly for us to feel any sense of control in. The desire to find solutions in ideas simple enough for us to understand easily. The basic need to feel relevant. Is this not the driving force behind so much of what gains popular appeal in today’s world? Such is my own dietary recommendation for thought.