| < Texts on topics |
cikon.de | deutsch |
|
Democracy forever? Over the millennia, many different forms of governance have emerged in different human societies in different parts of the world. They are, inter alia, the subject of an academic discipline known as "political science". A system of governance is characterised by its institutions and rules (tacit or in writing). Rules determine how and by whom decisions affecting a community are made, how and by whom rules are established and how they can be changed. One of the main problems of "good" governance is to prevent uncontrolled power from destroying the livelihoods of the respective society. But more often than not, rules and institutions are designed to keep those in check who might challenge the powers-that-be. The term "democracy" refers to systems of governance based on ideas popularised in Western Europe, particularly in France, England and Scotland, during the historical epoch of the "Enlightenment" or "Age of Reason" (late 17th - early 19th century AD). These ideas can be traced back to the endeavours in ancient Athens (600 - 350 BC ) to involve citizens directly in the affairs of the community. The people - not a single individual or small group of individuals - is supposed to be the sovereign of the state, that is the heart of the matter. "Democracy", literally "rule by the people", comes down to a number of principles of which the following are perhaps the most pertinent:
These principles were in direct contradiction to the practices in previous feudal societies, whose aristocratic rulers, supported by the guardians of the faith, derived their legitimacy from a fictitious supreme authority called "God". They were the sovereigns, declared wars and could exercise their power arbitrarily, checked at best by a small group of "noblemen". The people had no say. Democracy is undoubtedly a great idea, but extremely difficult to implement. How can the totality of all members of a society become the sovereign of a state? How can such a sovereign make decisions? Members and representatives of "power elites", "political scientists" and scholars specialising in constitutional law have pondered and hotly debated these questions. Various answers have been given, competing ones, in fact, none of which has yet won the beauty contest. One of the strangest answers came from a certain Carl Schmitt, a kind of crown jurist of the Nazis. Apparently an appalling character, whose prolific writing nevertheless still arouses the interest of many academics today. One of his most quoted statements is: "The sovereign is the one who decides on the state of emergency", which for him was obviously not the people. A prime example of the modern relapse into the Middle Ages. A more appropriate characteristic of sovereignty would be the power to decide on the use of a state's resources, the most important of which is the labour of the people and its results (in Marxian terminology, subsistence plus surplus value). However, a socio-economic order that was established in large parts of the world (the "East") at the beginning of the 20th century with the aim of giving "the people" responsibility for production and its utilisation has failed for reasons that are too complex to summarise in one paragraph. In the "West" the democratic principles soon became incompatible with the prevailing economic model (called liberal and then neo-liberal capitalism). "Democracy" turned out to be too weak to curb the power of large private properties, of large fortunes and the interests associated with them. The power that should actually belong to the people, in whatever acceptable form, is openly or covertly ceded to large, globally active corporations and their "financial industry". A state that allows this to happen loses its credibility and makes a "de-mockery" of democracy. The question remains wide open: Can a society be organised in such a way that its social product is shared fairly among all its members according to their abilities and needs? Occidental democracy, with its innate plutocratic tendency, may not be the answer. At this historical moment, it seems that the Chinese model, rooted in a millennia-old tradition, prevails over only a few hundred years of socio-economic development in the westernmost appendage of the Eurasian continent and its transatlantic offshoots. In view of the current geopolitical situation, it must be ensured at a global level that the fear of losing socio-economic supremacy fuelled by the "Western" power elites does not lead to destructive conflicts between competing governance models. The answer must not be shame and blame, not confrontation, but mutual understanding and co-operation. This seems to require a much higher (collective) consciousness than what we see today. Hans-Georg Stork, 1/2024
|