|
|
ForewordIn Denmark, we have considered freedom a matter of course for generations. Democracy is self-evident. And respect for life, freedom and property is taken for granted. However, these years we experience that various quarters call these values into question, both in Denmark and in other countries. We must face the fact that support for democracy and respect for the fundamental freedoms are not a given thing. Every new generation has to win, develop and defend freedom. The Danish Government therefore wishes to strengthen knowledge of the principles of freedom and democracy on which Danish society is based. This was the background to the establishment of the committee that has drawn up this democracy canon. The aim of a canon is to highlight Danish and international historical events, philosophical trends and political texts that have had a special impact on the development of the fundamental freedoms and democracy in Denmark. I wish to thank the members of the committee for having presented their ideas of what we ought to know about events, philosophers and texts if we want to understand what has shaped the development of Danish democracy. A canon is not an answer key. It is qualified input for debate. I hope that the democracy canon will be used actively and dynamically in teaching, in associations, in liberal adult education, and everywhere in society to strengthen awareness, consciousness and discussion of the fundamental principles of democracy.
Anders Fogh Rasmussen Democracy and Democracy CanonOn 31May 2007, the Danish Government set up a committee to draw up a democracy canon for the purpose of strengthening knowledge of the principles of freedom and democracy on which Danish society is based. A chairman and eight committee members were appointed. The taskAccording to the terms of reference of the committee, the members are “to identify the key events, philosophical trends and political texts that have contributed to the debate about and impacted on the development of the fundamental freedoms and democracy in Denmark. This collection should include both foreign and Danish as well as historical and more present-day contributions”. Furthermore, the terms of reference state that the canon must consist of “the events, philosophers and texts that have had a special impact on the view of the individual’s fundamental freedoms, the cohesion of society, and the development of Danish democracy”. Consequently, the pivotal point according to the terms of reference is Danish democracy, and the task of the committee has therefore been in particular to select and present reasons for an appropriate number of canon items that can provide the basis for a sensible and well-informed debate about today’s Danish democracy as well as its historical and philosophical preconditions. The committee was, furthermore, assigned the task to present proposals for ways in which the democracy canon can be introduced and disseminated through text, film, internet, etc. for use in the teaching at primary and lower secondary school, general and vocational upper secondary school, etc. The entire text of the terms of reference is printed at the end of the canon. The double meaning of the word democracyThe word democracy derives from the Ancient Greek word demokratia. Demos means “people”, and kratos means “rule” or “power”. Accordingly, the word democracy means “rule of the people” or “power of the people”. In other words, in a democracy, power lies ideally with the people as such and not with an individual, as is the case in an absolute monarchy or with a limited group of people, as in an aristocracy or an oligarchy (rule of the few).. It is inherent in the wording of the terms of reference that the word democracy in this context has two main meanings: first of all, as the designation of a political ideologythe concept of which today is connected with ideas such as freedom, equality and tolerance – three ideals that are specified in detail in the human rights; and second, as the designation of a system of governmentwhere the Government belongs to the entire people on the basis of the idea of the sovereign will of the people and the active participation of legally competent citizens in the political process. Democratic ideals and a democratic government system are inseparably linked. This is established in unambiguous terms in the Preamble of the European Convention on Human Rights of 1950, to which all the Member States of the Council of Europe have acceded. The Preamble refers to the members as “Reaffirming their profound belief in those Fundamental Freedoms which are the foundation of justice and peace in the world and are best maintained on the one hand by an effective political democracy and on the other by a common understanding and observance of the Human Rights upon which they depend”. Democracy as ideology
Democracy in the sense of ideology is not
particularly Danish, but the result of Western
civilisation’s lengthy modernisation process. In
principle, the concept can be traced all the way
back to the democracy of the Athenian city-state;
but it was only in the course of the European Age
of Enlightenment in the 18th century that it
developed into a coherent ideology with
consequences in terms of practical politics.
Each of these events sparked texts presenting policy statements that are seen, even today, as important landmarks in the politico-ideological history of Western civilisation. They are:
At the overall philosophical level, the democratic ideas were formulated successively and based on different approaches by political philosophers such as:
It is worth noticing that the word democracy had in general a predominantly negative ring, almost like “mob rule” right up until the beginning of the 19th century. Today’s unconditionally positive meaning as a word signalling ideals such as freedom, equality and tolerance did not seriously gain ground until the major middle-class revolutions in the first half of the 19th century. Democracy as a system of governmentThe above landmarks of the development of Western civilisation towards democracy as the sustaining ideology constitutes the broad background to the second main point of the terms of reference, i.e. the identification of some important milestones in the special Danish version of democracy as a political system and as a system of government and community. In order to meet this demand, it is necessary to try to delineate to some extent what in particular characterises the Danish version of democratic rule compared with other forms of democracy. According to political theory, there are three ideal forms of democratic rule: 1) participatory democracy, where ideally all citizens participate directly in all decision-making processes and exercise co-decision rights on an ongoing basis; 2) representative democracy, citizens is indirect and primarily exercised through elected representatives who risk not getting reelected if they act in opposition to the electoral basis; and 3) constitutional democracy where the role of the Government is confined to acting as the overall protector of the citizens’ rights in relation to each other and to the state (the nightwatchman state). Like other Western democracies, Danish democracy is a representative democracy in which common decisions are taken by the elected representatives in the Folketing (Danish Parliament), who at least every four years are to provide accounts of their activities to the electorate. Basically, Danish democracy is not very different from other Western democracies, even though there may naturally be considerable mutual variations in the specific designs of the countries’ democratic institutions. However, due to historical developments, Danish democracy has developed a number of special characteristics over time, which combined provide the outline of the Danish democracy model. These characteristics include a strong and well-functioning Government, which is usually perceived by the citizens as incorruptible and as the protector of the citizens. Furthermore, Danish democracy has developed into a consensus democracy, in the sense that major political decisions are often reached as a result of broad agreement, and where the yardstick of good political craftsmanship is the ability to achieve broad agreement regarding important decisions. Lastly, modern Danish democracy is closely linked to the Danish welfare model, which is inherently inclusive, in the sense that a comprehensive safety net has been set up for the most vulnerable in society. This is financed through some of the highest tax rates in the world, which is accepted because the citizens in general have confidence in the Government’s ability and will to ensure social justice and an equitable distribution of goods. This overall understanding of the organisation and mode of operation of Danish democracy has been a guiding principle for the committee’s identification of the “Danish” canon items. The canon workIn the period from 27 June 2007 to 30 January 2008, the committee met 10 times. In the course of the process, the committee’s legal expert, Professor Henning Koch, communicated that he wished to withdraw from the work. Instead, the committee secured the legal assistance of Professor Claus Haagen Jensen, Aalborg University. Claus Haagen Jensen has neither participated in the meetings of the committee nor in the selection of the canon items, but assisted the committee with legal review of relevant sections as well as provided supplemen tary factual information in places where this was considered relevant. In the course of its work, the committee decided to apply a time limit with respect to the selection of canon items with the year 2000 chosen as the cut-off year. The reason is that the committee is of the opinion that it is difficult to assess the historical effect of events, texts, etc. that are very close to the present time. All the members of the committee have contributed to the final product. The reasons for and descriptions of the canon items were, in the first instance, written by individual committee members and subsequently reviewed in plenum at the committee meetings. Consequently, the canon is a joint project. In the descriptions of the selected canon items, there may be references to the other canon items. Where this is the case, the canon point to which reference is made is underlined in the text. Following the selected canon items, a section sets out the committee’s proposals for presentation and dissemination of the canon. To place the democracy canon in perspective, the committee decided by way of inspiration to include a section in which Ole Thyssen in a philosophical form discusses the current conditions for democracy from four different angles: the multicultural society, locally-based democracy, global democracy and the significance of the mass media to democracy. The committee is grateful to Ole Thyssen for having assumed this task.
The canon as a source of inspirationThe following canon items reflect what the committee believes are some of the important landmarks in the long development history of democracy. They indicate, furthermore, what the committee has found it important to pay attention to in the endeavour to understand the preconditions for modern Danish democracy. The members of the committee have not been in full agreement on all details. However, the final list with accompanying texts is the result of committed and sometimes heated debates at the committee meetings. In good democratic fashion, the committee members eventually chose to accommodate each other after having given thorough consideration to the views and arguments presented. The result of this, by no means painless democratic process, is the canon below. The canon list must neither be perceived as a curriculum nor as a recipe for what to study to become a good democrat. It is primarily envisaged as a source of inspiration for the hopefully many who wish to understand the preconditions for our modern democracy on a considered basis. Food for thought, for debate, for contradiction – and especially for enrichment. KNUD J.V. JESPERSEN Composition of the committee
Chairman Knud J.V. Jespersen, Professor, Doctor of Philosophy, University of Southern Denmark
|
|
|
Top of the page |
This page is part of the electronic publication "The Danish Democracy Canon"