Workshop 7

The definitive democratic principle, “government by the people,” has obvious implications. First, all normal adult people, men and women, rich and poor, are eligible for government. This was an earthshaking revolutionary idea in a world in which only chiefs, kings, aristocrats, and priests appointed by divine authority for the task could govern.

Second, a government by the majority of all people implies a minority. If the democratically elected majority decides to deny political freedom to the minority, democracy ends. This is what happened in Russia before the revolution.  “Bolshe" and "Menshe" means "more" and "less" in Russian. The "more-vics" excluded the "less-vics".  Later they made it an exclusively Bolshevik revolution that, as we know, instantly rid itself of the troubles of majority, minority, and democracy.

Third, a government by the people where all people are eligible to vote implies that all people have equal rights to participate in the process by which such government is elected; that is, each individual has that right, one vote, and no individual can have more than one. It also implies that the right to vote, often referred to as a “civil duty,” cannot be transferred from one citizen to another. For that reason, buying votes is illegal.  

Fourth, a government by the people implies not only that all are entitled to govern but also that the majority can make reasonable political decisions. A democracy with unreasonable people who make unreasonable political decisions could not work. This implication requires that people be informed and able to process Relevant Information to make sense of it. Relevant Information implies freedom of speech, which includes freedom of the press.

Reasonable decision-making implies interactions with others in the community. Social relationships are the social reality, and political knowledge comes from people who talk to us on TV, radio, newspapers, or live. Even the most reasonable individuals could not arrive at sensible decisions without having contact with social reality. Contact with others infers freedom of assembly. If a democratically elected government denies freedom of the press and freedom of assembly (Putin again . . .), there is no democracy by definition and by implication.

Fifth, for people to make sense of the information and for assembly to be a fertile ground for reasonable decisions rather than a forum for quarrels, demagogues, and entertainers, people must possess some proficiency in maintaining order, listening, understanding language, a degree of rationality, and other normal skills for adults. The definitive quality of democracy implies not only that all citizens are eligible to govern but also that the majority are fit to decide who will govern and how. If people were considered irrational, infantile, and ignorant, a government of the people could not be valued by Churchill as better than all others that were tried. Democracy is not mobocracy. It can work based on the premise that at least the majority of people have the skills to practice it. 

But do they? I can confidently claim that, in my country, the great majority of people do not understand what democracy means and do not have even the most rudimentary skills for democratic life. In other democracies, democratic life might not be as bad as here, but the precarious state of democracy where people do not have what it takes to make it work is universal.

One more implication of a government by the people concerns their elected representatives—leaders and officials who derive their authority from representing their electorate. Overwhelming evidence from general public knowledge, history, and political science confirms that yes, power corrupts. Thomas Jefferson, whom I quoted in Chapter 1 as having that “eternal hostility” to all forms of tyranny over the minds of men, was dead right again in writing, “Whenever a man has cast a longing eye on office, a rottenness begins in his conduct.” The implication is that people should be careful and take action to prevent power corruption among their elected champions. Democracy does this through “checks and balances.” It does not put all power in the hands of one dictator but divides it among different branches of government: the judicial, legislative, and executive. Democracy limits the power of all representatives and officials in all branches by law. Lawmakers are limited in their legislation by the constitution. Although the democratic political system cannot prevent corruption, it does much of what is reasonable to minimize it. When the executive branch, by force of its freely elected majority at the legislative branch, attempts to overpower the judicial branch, as in Israel now, democracy is in mortal danger. In the final analysis, the majority of people indeed have the decisive power in a democracy, including the power to dismantle it.

 

MAKING DEMOCRACY SUSTAINABLE

Democracy is not just a concept; it is also practice. To survive, it must be practiced in many more ways than simply casting a ballot. Once you choose a government of the people, you must do what is necessary for the people to govern democratically. Who is responsible for this? Education for democracy should not be delegated to elected representatives running government agencies. As far as they are concerned, people are democratic enough if they elect them as their leaders. The task of building a democratic human infrastructure must not be left solely to them; it must be our responsibility if we wish to make democracy sustainable. “We, the People” have to do it or else bear the consequence of living in constant danger of living under despotic rule.

What we the people can do to make our democracy sustainable is nothing extraordinary, dramatic, or revolutionary. It will not make headlines and not become readily popular. People must integrate democracy into their lives at home, family, school, community, values, and politics. People need to reform authoritarian public institutions to make them more democratic. Making democracy sustainable would not be outwardly difficult but could be internally so, even heroic. Changing habits of thinking and doing is not easy, like when a conventionally inert person becomes an activist. 

I believe that it would help us be more realistic and keep disillusionment away if we remember how remote democracy of equality and deliberation is from people’s personal and social experience and how natural it is to live in a world of domination by power and violence. We are born completely dependent on powers beyond our reach. Until modern times, the majority has regarded as totally fantastic the idea that you can raise children without beating them up for disobedience. Patriarchy has been the organizing principle of human society since prehistoric times; religion is its most obvious spiritual expression.

In modern times, hierarchy—the legal and customary division of power between commanders and rank and file, bosses and subordinates, chiefs and Indians—is everywhere and considered irreplaceable. No normal place of employment where everyone earns their living is administered democratically, not even a university. One-upmanship is a considerably common pastime of children and adults. Sports is the superstructure of competition, not of cooperation. Winning—“winning is everything,” “winning is the only thing”—means making somebody else the loser, not equal, and not a partner to cooperate or deliberate with. And I did not even mention the still far-from-universal equality of genders, the power relationships between the enormously rich and the poor, and the inner drive of people to submission, letting themselves be driven by leaders. 

 In addressing the collectively insane negligence by democratic spirits to defend their political system from power corruption and the antidemocratic mindset of fellow citizens, I am guided by the direct implications of government by (all) the people. This fundamental structure of government determines what it takes to make it work, including certain beliefs, insights, values, and skills that the majority of people must possess to make democracy sustainable.

But can they? Is democracy not in violation of the laws of human nature? Is not “fear of and a murderous hatred for other pseudo-species” our true nature that would make democracy unsustainable and in danger of reverting to the tribal huddling around “strong” leaders? To the best of my knowledge, it is not. I have not found any convincing argument in social science that could lead to the conclusion that rationality, love, and self-transcendence are not as part of human nature as aggression, dominance, and submission. Conscience in people who are not psychopaths is organic, like kidneys or the heart.  

In social science, not everyone agrees. The most popular of the opposition is social dominance theory developed by James Sidanius and colleagues, which found a central place in academic literature. Its essential explanation for the causes of humans’ victimization of other humans is as follows: 

 

 Martin Luther King’s dream that all men be judged by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin is . . . an unattainable fantasy. . . . The social dominance model would lead us to suspect that any consciously manufactured social policy efforts directed toward the eradication of inequality and discrimination between hegemonic and negative-reference groups . . . will fail not only to achieve their publicly stated goals, but the efforts themselves will be ultimately unsustainable . . . Social dominance theory [implies that] democracy itself would seem something of an unattainable goal . . . [It] views society as inherently oppressive and group oppression to be the “normal,” default condition of human relations. (Sidanius, 1993)

 

Having read this at the time, my view was that Sidanius and colleagues have an integrity problem. Nowhere did they clarify whether they regarded their own nature as incapable of judging people by the content of their character rather than by the color of their skin. Neither did they explain why, if they did exempt themselves from the social-dominance imperative while doing their research and reaching that conclusion, they did not allow others to be exempted as well. But theirs has been part of mainstream political psychology without even being a psychological theory. In social dominance theory, nothing was said about what is actually going on in prejudiced and dominance-motivated minds. It rests solely on statistical computations of social-dominance events, such as the harsher sentences meted out to “black” felons in the United States for the same offenses as opposed to “white” felons. This is how far the indirect causation approach can go in political thinking—to the point of excluding the person, personal responsibility, and self-orientation altogether. In the Ivory Towers of social science, I found, alas, a particular dialect of dehumanization, a problem that poses for a solution and is widely credited for it.

In suggesting the practices of democratic living, Applied Behavioral Science will be my main source and guide. That field is (in the words of Kenneth Benne, one of its founding fathers) a common ground for common sense and social science. 

 

IN DEFENSE OF EQUAL VOTING RIGHTS

How can the fundamental feature of democracy, a government by the people, work in real life? It proclaims that all people have the right to take an equal part in the process by which the government is formed. As discussed earlier, the definitive quality of democracy implies not only that all citizens are eligible to vote but also that the majority is competent enough to decide who will govern and how. It further means that all people who vote are free to choose their representatives without being pressured to one side or another and without fearing the consequences. It means that all voting individuals express in their ballot their positions on political issues, know how candidates relate to these issues, and can choose freely whom to vote for. The great achievement of suffrage for all goes with the duty of all to learn the issues that will be affected by their vote and decide themselves for whom to vote.

This has been the conceptual framework for what individual electors must know and do in a democracy. In reality, many people do not have ideas on political issues or the inner ability to freely choose between alternatives. 

That is given. What could be done about it? Individual freedom of choice in voting is ensured by the fact that people vote in privacy; their choice is not monitored by anyone else. However, creating the conditions for people to vote in privacy cannot guarantee freedom of choice for those with no opinions on political issues or the inner ability to choose between alternatives. They vote as they are told to by others. To defend the rationale for a government by the people, we must design a voting system with an optimal balance between equal rights and freedom to vote, and the inner freedom of choice between relevant political alternatives. Without it, a government by the people could become a government of those who succeed in bribing, coercing, frightening, or brainwashing people to vote for them or avoid polling stations. Without an effort to make the free choice of all people real and reasonable, democracy could become an empty shell of formal procedures in the hands of officials who care only about the quantity of the ballots, not their quality as expressions of free people’s political will. Democracy loses its resilience and dignity without some human quality control.

Any control, including quality control, sounds contrary to individual freedom. It is the price freedom must pay to prevail over chaos and violence. Living under laws that regulate social behavior is not considered hostile to personal freedom if administered equally and justly. In a democracy, control over people must be minimal so that the fundamental value of political freedom is upheld.

A democratic quality control of voters should not be different from the quality control of drivers. Normal people do not feel their freedom to drive cars is taken from them just because they must pass a test to receive a driver’s license, which is understood as a defense against car accidents. A license to possess firearms is understood as a defense of innocent people’s lives against being killed by those who might be prone to commit such crimes.

Granting voting certificates to people may be necessary for the actualization of the fundamental democratic value of equal rights and political freedom against voting by people who were paid to vote for a candidate, threatened under oath, ignorant of the meaning of casting their ballot, or psychologically incompetent to decide whom to vote for. It would not infringe on personal freedom more than checking personal driving skills for a driver’s license or checking with the police and mental health authorities in licensing the possession of firearms. Our entire public life is subject to regular licensing; people are not free to do business or professional work without being licensed and their qualifications checked by authorities. Limiting individuals’ freedom to do what they please as they please outside the limits of their private domain is natural in democracy as in any society.

An example of what sits strongly in my mind when I stand for the licensing of voting involves a representative being asked by a journalist what would be his vote on an issue debated at the Israeli parliament, the Knesset. I do not recall what the issue was, but I remember distinctly his answer: “I do not know yet. We are waiting for the Rabbinical Commission to decide for us.” The idea of the freedom to vote had been publicly denied by a person who votes although he lives in a democracy, not a theocracy. Nothing has been done about it.

The reality of large communities of people who are eligible to vote in democratic countries but who had been conditioned from birth to live in a close community that is completely authoritarian and openly denies the values of equality and individual freedom of thought performs a mockery of the one-person, one-vote imperative of the law. The few people who command their disciples’ votes cast thousands of valid ballots by obedient proxies, and thousands of eligible voters cast none, having resigned their freedom of choice to their leaders. 

People’s decision to let someone else decide for them is their decision too and cannot be changed by anyone except themselves. However, democracy defending itself can make all voters aware of their duty to think and decide freely for themselves. It may be arranged that, before election day, the voter registration process includes a meeting with an electoral commission that will qualify or disqualify the person from voting.

The committee could ask a few standardized questions to ensure all prospective electors understand the meaning of casting their ballot, their duty to decide freely themselves how to vote, and their legal duty to resist all who attempt to rob them of their right to choose their ballot freely at the poll station. I envisage that if a person who is asked the question “Do you accept that you yourself must decide how to vote and not let anyone else decide for you?” responds with “No, I vote as my husband tells me,” they would not be given their electoral registration document. The electoral commission, with a duty to act impartially at all times, could also disqualify people who demonstrate a complete lack of understanding of what the coming elections are about and what choosing one side or another means.

Such or similar certification procedures for voters will not stop attempts to undermine the integrity of democratic elections, but some dignity of the election process will be preserved. At the very least, more people will become aware of their duties and moral obligations in executing their civil right to elect the government. Their actions in the election booth is for them to decide whether we and they like it or not.

 

HOW IS YOUR LOVE OF DEMOCRATIC LIFE?

The deliberative wisdom of community should govern. That slogan is the proper translation of the “government of the people” dictum. Shakespeare’s “If Music Be the Food of Love—Play On” comes to mind. Deliberation is the food of democracy. In a “government by the people,” those who govern the community must deliberate with others about their common issues because that is what “people” means: individuals in relations with their human environment. 

 

"The fundamental fact of human existence is neither the individual as such nor the aggregate as such. Each considered by itself is a mighty abstraction", taught Martin Buber, known as the philosopher of dialogue. He argued that "The individual is a fact of existence insofar as he steps into living relation with other individuals. The aggregate is a fact of existence insofar as it is built up of living units of relation. The fundamental fact of human existence is man with man".

 

Deliberation is not only a condition for a government of the people to be real; it is also a need for healthy mature persons, an integral part of what makes life more meaningful and rewarding than what it is for each one. When we deny ourselves human contact about subjects we feel are crucial political problems casting their shadows on us, we not only let politicians—who do not deliberate but only fight for their interests—decide for us; we also lose much of what could elevate our personal “standard of being.”

Deliberation is the “food” not only of democracy but also of solidarity, equality, constructive problem-solving, and peace. It is a remedy for alienation and feelings of emptiness or ennui. The general level of people’s ability to deal with their problems with others through deliberation rather than power and force is by far the most relevant dimension for evaluating the level of culture. If we want to leave Collective Insanity behind where we individuals can, deliberation is the area that most of us can.

 Deliberation—the simple act of discussing with another person what is important to us in the community or national political area while striving to reach understanding and agreement—is also critical for defending ourselves from bad government. Dictatorial leaders invariably isolate people from one another, spreading mutual distrust and fear. Against an encroachment of power, individuals have no better means to defend themselves than to reach out to others and build trust to not be alone. In a democracy, as long as personal political freedom exists, no courage is needed to reach out to people beyond the courage to break the social code that politics spoils any party. To work your way toward deliberation in your own time and place, you would only have to turn in that direction and initiate contacts, open yourself to listen, make a stand, and, at times, overcome interpersonal disappointments and setbacks.

The theory of deliberation overwhelmingly, even enthusiastically, supports what it does to people and how much it empowers them and democracy. Informative sources abound on the Internet.

According to Wikipedia,

 

"Deliberative democracy holds that, for a democratic decision to be legitimate, it must be preceded by authentic deliberation, not merely the aggregation of preferences that occurs in voting. Authentic deliberation is deliberation among decision-makers that is free from distortions of unequal political power, such as power a decision-maker obtains through economic wealth or the support of interest groups".

 

 There are plenty of professional facilitators. Citizens’ assemblies for the deliberation of community issues with or without government officials are structured forms of deliberative democracy if they are authentic deliberation, not government-staged rallies. Beyond that, however, deliberation should be integrated into individual lives regardless of its organized forms. If you initiate reaching out to people to deliberate common issues and succeed in engaging them, it is bound to be genuine and empowering.

Martin Buber, clearly pronounced the fact, in his words "that peoples can no longer carry on authentic dialogue with one another". He regarded it "not only the most acute symptom of the pathology of our time, it is also that which most urgently makes a demand on us. I believe, despite all, that the peoples in our hour can enter into dialogue with one another. In a genuine dialogue each of the partners, even when he stands in opposition to the other, heeds, affirms, and confirms his opponent as an existing other. Only so can conflict certainly not be eliminated from the world, but be humanly arbitrated and led toward its overcoming."

                                         

In the last chapter of this book, I intend to present to you a program for political power organization that, according to the theory guiding this study, will be politically effective and consistent with the paramount democratic value of the equality of all people. At the heart of this program is deliberation. I also intend to address the many psychological hindrances that could extinguish good-intentioned attempts to deliberate with people and make good decisions. Here, I wish to give you only one practical advice and two essential pieces of equipment for your possible foray into the terrain of deliberation.

Unlike most casual conversations and social meetings, deliberation is not a pastime. It has a purpose. It must have an agenda and end with some form of decision-making. Minimally, it could be a decision whether to meet again and where and when. At any rate, do not end the deliberation meeting without deciding what would be the next action steps for any of the participants. Without that, their motivation to continue deliberating will dwindle.

The first piece of indispensable equipment for deliberation is feedback, which in my view is the most valued contribution of Applied Behavioral Science to social life. When you have finished deliberating with your partner or partners on whatever it was, always (!) save a moment or two to focus on what has been going on here and now. What made any of you feel disappointed or angry? Ask if anyone wants to give some feedback to you. What can we do differently, better, next time? How? And the like. Feedback brings to consciousness what people are going through and lets interpersonal problems be addressed there and then rather than buried down for a later spoiling of the relationship.

The second is a listening device, a golden key to opening interpersonal broken lines. When the other person has finished talking, you respond with a version of “If I have understood you correctly” followed by an essential rendering of what they have said and ending with “Is that correct?” The big trick of the device is that you must really listen because if you do not, you will not get that confirmation from the speaker that you understood them correctly. And if you get such a confirmation, they have reached a point of agreement with you in what could otherwise become a defensive disagreement. It does wonders.