The Present Conditions for Democracy – Four Challenges

That democracy is a global success does not mean that it is problem-free. Democracy began in closed nation states which endeavoured to maintain the idea of a people. Changing conditions in the international community present new challenges for democracy. We can identify four.

1. Multiculturalism. It can be difficult to maintain the idea of a people when mass media, tourism, immigration and the search for identity make all nations multicultural. How can democracy prosper with a diverse mix of cultures that all of them pull in different directions and perhaps aspire to be dominant?

2. Locally-based democracy. The emphasis on the individual and his/her rights intensifies the wish for direct democratic influence. As this cannot be achieved in a society with many millions of inhabitants, locally-based democracy provides a stronger feeling of making a difference. It creates conflict between efficiency and co-determination.

3. Global democracy. Democracy does not stop at the national borders, which are becoming increasingly less important. Is it possible to talk of European or even global democracy?

4. Presentative democracy. While ancient democracy congregated all citizens in the square, representative democracy had to make do with congregating the popularly elected in the parliament. The advent of the mass media, especially TV, has brought with it far more democracy than ever before. Everyone can keep themselves informed about politicians, programmes and issues – locally, nationally and globally. However, this is increasingly taking place on the mass media’s terms. The important political discussions cannot be followed on the basis of personal inspection, taking place as they do on TV. This means that citizens watch the democratic discussion like a theatre play instead of participating in it. Instead of representing the citizens, politicians end up presenting themselves to the citizens.

Let us briefly examine these four challenges.

1. Multiculturalism

Even though the majority of the world’s nations profess democracy, it is not something that can be taken for granted. Democracy comes in all shades and forms. In some places, it is a matter of blatant hypocrisy, in some places one can discern a tiny and ambiguous beginning, and in some places representative democracy has stabilised itself over a period of several hundred years.

It is possible to distinguish between traditional societies, where politics has an ideological or religious foundation that does not tolerate deviation, and modern societies where politics is a question of discussing and voting.

All cultures are built on prejudices that cannot be proven, but are taken for granted. Some cultures go further and defend not only their prejudices with words, but also with violence and force. Throughout history, this has caused countless wars and civil wars. The democratic solution to the problem of how cultures can live side by side is to put law before culture.

There is something comforting about the word Truth with a capital ‘T’. You do not need to know or trouble yourself with proving; you can make do with believing. If contradicted, you do not need to argue; instead you can turn your back on your opponent or lunge at his throat. Heretics are not entitled to tolerance; they must be fought, not understood.

A society with many cultures each nurturing its own Truth will be like a powder keg that easily explodes. Such an explosion can perhaps be prevented by physical force. Democracy employs another method. It seeks to create social order by spelling all truths with a small ‘t’. These truths can be discussed in public, and everyone can personally agree or disagree with them. A democratic election is not concerned with what is true and what is false, but with which views can gain majority support. All views have a right to be voiced and discussed; none are automatically wrong.

lead to agreement among the parties involved. But discussion is an expression of two things: firstly, respect for the opponent’s right to think differently, and secondly, an acceptance that the majority – not the Truth – determines the way things are governed. What is discussed, and who is voted into power can vary. Democracy offers a peaceful way to solving conflicts and deposing political leaders. It is not just a form of government, but it also protects the minority by means of political and social rights.

With democracy, we wave goodbye to Truth with a capital ‘T’. Even though a democratic society allows people freedom to express their opinions and to choose their religion and ideology, it does not permit religion and ideology to supersede law. In the event of conflicts, the law decides. In this way, restraints are put on fundamentalist groups, in the hope that many cultures can find their place next to each other.

The demand is for different cultures to tolerate each other, even when it hurts to do so. But tolerance is a self-contradictory concept, which in its radical form is also self-destructive. Showing tolerance towards those who are intolerant allows intolerance to run unchecked and thus undermines tolerance. In order to solve the problem, it is necessary, democratically, to distinguish between two levels: substance and form. In terms of form, a common democratic culture must be recognised by all, because it allows everyone freedom to express themselves and assert themselves. In terms of substance, people must be given the freedom to choose their special culture in the form of religion or ideology.

This makes being human complicated. One must distinguish between what applies to a special culture and what applies to society as a whole. The strong words spoken in the religious or ideological group are transformed into weak and personal opinions in the public arena. One must also accept that, despite having the freedom to speak, one does not automatically have the freedom to translate one’s words into action.

A common democratic culture is not neutral. Whilst it makes different cultures equal before the law, it can reject cultural customs that have been practised for many centuries. All cultures are subjected to a test in order to see whether they meet the requirement of fundamental freedoms. Democracy represents an attempt to foster civilised social interaction between different cultures that all contribute to a rich society. The American philosopher, John Rawls (1921-2002), believed that it required an area of overlapping consensus – an area of principles that everyone can agree on, despite disagreeing otherwise.

This is still unacceptable for those who insist on having Truth with a capital ‘T’ on their side. But no ideological or religious Truth can prove itself true. If it had such proof, it would be a matter of knowledge, not faith. For this reason, democracy does not yield. No Truth has the right to prevent other truths from being expressed. No Truth has the right to punish people for having other truths. No Truth has the right to prevent people from thinking, speaking and changing standpoint.

Democracy is a culture for cultures. It allows freedom of choice regarding creed and way of life, but it obliges such choices to fit into a common system of order, so that politics triumphs over both religion and ideology.

2. Locally-based democracy

In antiquity and even with the philosopher, Rousseau (1712-1778), democracy means that people decide directly. They physically turn up, participate in the discussion and at the end put their hand in the air. This type of democracy is a thing of the past, and already in antiquity it was only selected segments of the population that were allowed to turn up, participate and vote. That “the people” decide does not mean that everyone can feel that they are the one deciding. Consequently, democracy can be experienced as something remote: You cast your vote and become silent. You are a drop in the popular ocean and your cross on the ballot card is purified of the thoughts that lay behind.

For this reason, municipal democracy can be perceived as being more pertinent than national democracy. In small municipalities, people know the person(s) they are voting for, and if they have confidence in a person, they may be willing to turn a blind eye if they do not fully agree with that person’s party manifesto.

The smaller the group, the more each single person makes a difference. Your voice is heard. Therefore, the demand for democracy can repeat itself in ever decreasing circles, so that democracy becomes the form of government not just in the nation and the municipality, but also at the workplace, in the union association, in the neigh - bourhood and even in the family.

Referendum as a decision-making process in representative democracy

Even though on the internet you can become a “friend” to an almost infinite number of people, your attention is limited. Furthermore, in practice, you cannot develop a meaningful relationship with more than a couple of hundred people – a number which corresponds to an old-fashioned village. That is not many. So the joy at participating in the decision-making that takes place in a local community is dampened by the limited reach of the decisions that are made.

Democracy is confronted by two opposing demands: on the one hand, efficiency, which often requires large units; and on the other hand, proximity, which requires small units. Whilst the world integrates and becomes a global community, people are maintaining their interest in the near and the local, so that economies of scale prosper side by side with exceptions, special rules and opt-outs. Even political leaders who claim that their eyes are fixed rigidly on what benefits everyone are often caught showing special consideration to family and friends.

Modern societies place many demands on loyalty, and it cannot be determined in advance what carries the most weight. Family, group, religion, workplace, municipality and nation all form part of a person’s identity as a basis for a “wefeeling”. Which “we” is the strongest: “We the family” or “we Danes”? If a person ranks their family highest, they risk being accused of nepotism.

On the other side of the municipality, the “wefeeling” begins to fade away. “We, Danes” has lost ground in the last 50 years, and it is difficult to appeal to national patriotism. Larger community entities such as “we Europeans” or “we people” are thin and have little motivating power. Few people are willing to accept deprivation for the sake of Europe.

If one examines the two local government reforms that Denmark has implemented during the last 50 years, the trend is towards larger units. With the Local Government Reform of 1970, the number of municipalities was reduced from around 1,300 to 275. With the Local Government Reform of 2005, municipalities were again merged, this time reducing their number to 98, whilst the 14 counties were replaced by five regions.

Even though Denmark is one of the most democratic societies in the world, one hears complaints about a democratic deficit and a demand for “real democracy”. But a Denmark with five million inhabitants and an EU with 400 million inhabitants cannot have real democracy if by that one believes that every single citizen must have personal influence.

The technical problems that are associated with governing Denmark or integrating the EU make it an open question as to whether the most direct relic from locally-based democracy, the referendum, is an appropriate method for making decisions. The population can vote about parties, individuals and issues that require a yes or no – e.g. on whether Denmark is to or is not to cede sovereignty to the EU. But the consequences of such a decision are not something the people can fathom. Not even politicians are fully able to acquaint themselves with the technical, legal and administrative issues that Denmark or the EU raise. Politicians have to communicate between the general public, who look at what affects them; civil servants, who look at the technical side; the mass media, which are critical and very much focused on what goes wrong; and other politicians, who are also seeking office.

What becomes of democracy if the popu la - tion’s size and experience prevents it from participating in politics in a qualified manner? Is sober discussion, which requires time and insight, to be replaced by simple slogans that require repetition and feeling? And how can people have faith in elected representatives who they have no contact with in their daily life and who weigh their words on a professional set of gold scales, so that strategy becomes more important than conviction.

There are many reasons for having reservations. But democracy prevails nonetheless, because it has three great advantages: firstly, it allows all aspects of an issue to be illuminated; secondly, it forces political rulers to be aware of what preoccupies the population; and thirdly, it can depose rulers without further ado.

3. Global democracy

The Peace of Westphalia in 1648 turned the state into the political unit in Europe. State formation, which was given the stamp of approval by the Peace, was the first large movement forward towards global integration if one disregards military conquests. Local regions – Vendsyssel, Zealand and Southern Jutland – had during a century-long process become united under one umbrella, and many of them gradually lost their desire for independence.

Europe became a continent of states. In the 19th century, these states transformed into nations, in which political integration was followed up by cultural integration. The transformation into a nation happened in several ways. In some instances, for example in France, there was first a state and then a nation. In other instances, for example in Italy and Germany, there was first a nation with a common language and then a state. From the middle of the 19th century, the nations evolved into democratic nations, and after the Second World War, they further evolved into welfare states.

The desire for national self-determination has not ceased. Many states incorporate several nations, in the sense of being cultural communities, and many of these communities are fighting to become independent. Ex-Yugoslavia is divided into several nations, and in the Basque country and Scotland strong forces are fighting for secession.

The democratic nation is currently experien - cing global success. While the UN had around 50 members in 1945, it now has around 200. But does this mean we have reached our journey’s end? Is the trend moving steadily towards more nations, or is there a counter-trend whereby nations are joining together in alliances and federations? Globalisation is a reflection of the world becoming increasingly more integrated – economically, politically and legally. But even though we can speak of a “global community”, there is no corresponding “global state”.

The UN General Assembly in New York.

Between the individual nation and the global community there are middle steps. In the same way that the USA in the 19th century became a model for European democracy to emulate, there are also forces that are currently striving to create a United States of Europe or – less ambitiously – a European federation, a union of independent states. If the nation is perceived as a weakened entity, pressed from below by demands for local self-government and from above by global markets, alliances and treaties, the idea of a united Europe is alluring. A Europe with a single voice would be a strong voice in the global community.

Democracy and nation are at the present time closely connected, because popular rule is based on the idea of a people, irrespective of the fact that “the people” in practical terms is heterogeneous. The nation provides a collective framework for the personal identity, and even though the national sense of community is weakened, the nation remains the place where one belongs by virtue of language, culture, citizenship and family. But is it not possible to supplement national democracy with European democracy and later global democracy, so that democracy works on multiple levels – from municipality and nation to federation and the entire planet?

At the present time, the idea of European democracy does not enjoy popular support. Many perceive EU institutions as distant and bureaucratic, and the absence of a common language makes it difficult to create a European public. In both large and small countries, there is resistance to a united Europe, where each nation would always be in the minority. Even though the idea of national sovereignty is only a few hundred years old, it is not an idea that is easy to relinquish. Europe does not have a strong identity and does not enjoy strong loyalty.

So while the world is being integrated by free markets, treaties, cooperation and tourism, European democracy and global democracy are an idea for the future, depending on whether one views the ever more expanding democracy as an attractive or frightening image of the future.

4. Presentative democracy

According to the philosopher, John Stuart Mill (1806-1873), the great advantage of democracy is that all interests are voiced. Any group in the population can choose the “best among equals” and send him or her to popular assemblies in order to represent the group. Together with other representatives, they can then discuss their way to what benefits the whole community.

This idea of representative democracy rests on certain preconditions: firstly, that the population actively keeps abreast of societal developments; secondly, that the various groups become clear in their own mind about how they can benefit their own interests and at the same time contribute to creating a better society; and thirdly, that each group out of their midst finds the best-suited person to promote and defend their interests.

One can ask whether representative democracy in its strong form has been anything more than a valuable illusion – a crowbar for demolishing anachronistic absolutism. One might ask whether the sober democratic discussion has ever been anything more than a beautiful dream – a cover to disguise cynical-minded attempts to force through own interests. These questions do not, however, fatally undermine democracy. Even though democracy is not perfect, it may well be better than the alternatives.

To the old questions comes a new one: What is the impact of modern mass media, especially TV, on democracy? Here, we shall examine two features of the relationship between democracy and mass media.

On the one hand, mass media represent a dramatic expansion of democracy. Everyone can, from one moment to the next, inform themselves about events near and far; not just about what is happening locally, but about what is happening throughout the country and in other countries. And when politicians appear on the news and give interviews, one gets a feeling of knowing them far better than if one saw them live in person once a year – if at all. Mass media can ask pointed questions on behalf of the voters, and they can deliver effective arguments in defence of fundamental freedoms. Through its mass media, a society learns something about itself each day. Mass media are not democracy’s enemy, but its best friend and guarantor.

On the other hand, all these things come at a price. Politicians do not appear up-close in person, but on TV, so voters have no opportunity to test their credibility through direct contact. A professional politician must be in close proximity to parliament and does not need to have local connection. Conversely, a local party association might be pleased to have a well-known politician – a TV personality – as its candidate. This presents politicians with a challenge: to convince people who they do not know personally, but only through opinion poll surveys and focus groups. As a result, rhetoric takes centre stage; the art of seducing an audience. A politician must appear convincing on TV and preferably have charisma.

Former US President Bill Clinton during an election campaign in 1992.

Instead of representing the group to which they themselves belong, politicians end up presenting themselves to a public who are not known to them personally. For better or for worse, TV becomes the key democratic battleground. Politicians become professionals, and in the chase for a majority they adopt a clinical approach to finding out partly what the population wishes and partly how they can influence the population’s wishes. What theologian, Hal Koch (1904-1963) called “democratic conversation” between electors and elected is replaced by strategic communication, controlled by spin doctors who do not have political viewpoints but who are experts in methods designed to influence the voters. It becomes tempting for politicians to abandon their firm ideological standpoint, their cause, and instead flexibly adapt to the prevailing mood of the moment. All the family silver is up for grabs.

Even though the population still elects the Folketing’s members, democracy has lost its innocence and some of its old soul. The distance between democratic ideals and democratic reality is so considerable that it has ceased to be a problem. A politically ignorant population informs itself through the mass media and is onlookers at spectacular TV shows, where politicians, like sports stars and rock stars, battle for victory in carefully staged duels. Only top politicians are visible and can sell tickets. The result can be presentative democracy, where “democracy” does not mean “rule of the people”, but “ruling of the people”.

OLE THYSSEN

Finance Minister Poul Møller having make-up applied before a TV duel with Mogens Glistrup in 1971.

This page is part of the electronic publication "The Danish Democracy Canon"
© The Ministry of Education 2008