Lýðræði - What is Social Democracy IV

Social democratic value terms:

Democracy

Today, democracy – popular government – is established as a political ideal in large parts of the world. But democracy as a form of government, is young, even if the concept itself has been inherited from ancient Greece. The idea of modern democracy was developed during the 1800s but remained for a long time an idea which met with strong opposition from conservative groups. The conservative ideal of a society was strongly hierarchical (graded); each social group had it own special place and its own special task. It was the special task of the higher ranks to govern society; the lower ranks were regarded as lacking the necessary qualities to do this. Universal suffrage, the foundation stone of all democracy, was achieved in most European countries in the face of strong political opposition from the right. In Sweden it was the coalition between the Social Democrats and the Liberals, which after several decades of very hard political conflict, pushed through a Bill on universal suffrage in 1918. Just when the principled opposition of the conservatives was broken there arose new opponents of democracy: in part the radical right-wing totalitarian movements (nazism and fascism), and in part the revolutionary elements in socialism which promoted the principle of the one-party state.

When it comes to the latter it must be said that all true socialism is incompatible with dictatorship and repression. Socialism as a movement arose as a reaction to the lack of freedom and against the repression which working people had to live with in the then non-democratic societies, and the goal of socialism was the liberation of people. It is impossible to realize this by means of totalitarian government, regardless of the attractive labels which are sometimes put on it. True socialism must always be democratic.

Today, democracy is accepted as an ideal even by its former opponents, with the exception of some extremist groups on the Right and on the Left. But unanimity is strongest when it comes to democracy as a form of government; there exists a considerable degree of disagreement between different political groups when it comes to the effective reach of democracy, i.e. those questions which democratic bodies must have the right to decide on.

Demands on democracy
The word democracy means, then, popular government. The word is used to describe a social order where all adult citizens have the right to participate in the political decision-making process: raise questions, form opinions, and try to win support, vote in elections to decision-making bodies. ”Democracy” is in other words a special form for making decisions on issues of social concern; it is then a question of a collective decision making process, which builds on equal individual rights for all citizens. In order to be able to talk of a democracy, certain basic constitutional demands must be met.

These include:
• universal and equal voting rights in free (and properly conducted) elections;
• freedom of opinion (which includes religious freedom);
• freedom of expression and freedom of the Press;
• the right to join political and trade union organisations;
• the right to build parties and to take part in elections.

If one or several of these criteria have not been met then one cannot talk about democracy.

But is this sufficient? One can say that these criteria are both necessary and sufficient in order to be able to talk about democracy in a political/constitutional sense, but they are not sufficient to guarantee that a democracy works in reality. It is not difficult to see that economic and/or social factors can in practice weaken the formal democratic rights. An insecure labour market where many people are worried about their jobs, can strangle debate and lead many to feel unsure about expressing their critical views. Insufficient education or poor language skills can make it difficult to follow political debate, to keep abreast of those issues under discussion or to assert one’s interests against other better educated or more articulated groups.

For this reason Social Democrats hold that a properly functioning democracy requires equality, in the sense we have earlier defined the term. Large economic and social divisions in a society weaken democracy, if not formally, then in reality, since citizens do not participate in the political process on equal terms: some will have infinitely greater opportunities than others to assert their own special demands on society. And if large groups begin to experience that the democratic process cannot protect their interests, then there is a risk that their faith in democracy will weaken – and the scope for non-democratic movements will increase. The protection of democracy requires that one must determinedly protect its external conditions such as freedom of expression, freedom of the Press and regular free elections. But it demands also a policy which makes democracy a living concept for every group in society.

The vigour of democracy
The protection of democracy is also a question of protecting the vigour of democracy. The purpose of freedom of opinion and of free and general elections is to achieve decisions which are well rooted in a majority of the citizens, as to how the common, social interests should be managed – decisions which can also become a practical reality. Both forming opinion and taking part in election lose their meaning of they do not lead to decisions which influence reality.

In that perspective the real threat to democracy today does not come from totalitarian political movements as was the case previously. It now comes from the global financial power seeking interests which have grown stronger and stronger during the ‘90s. We can speak of a double threat: on the one hand issues of importance for the citizens will be influenced more and more by power groups which they cannot do anything about themselves. On the other hand the consequences of this will often be the sort of growing divisions which in themselves are a threat to democracy and to social stability. Regaining room for manoeuvre from the global financial interest groups for the political democratic bodies is therefore a decisive democratic issue in our time.

But even with more room for manoeuvre for democracy there remains the question as to the effective reach of democracy. What decisions must the democratically elected, political organs have the right to make? And what can democracy not be allowed to become involved in?

The right-wing parties which opposed the introduction of democracy at one time now belong to the strongest supporters of democratic forms of government. But at the same time it would appear that their efforts are more directed at ensuring that these democratically elected organs should have as little say as possible in running things – decisions must instead be taken on the market, in the civil society, in the family and so on. Sometimes one just cannot avoid thinking that the old overclass opposition to democracy has merely changed character: the forms are respected but they try to empty them of all meaning. What is then recommended turns out by coincidence to give the greatest advantages to the same socially strong and well-established groups which held power in society before the break-through of democracy.

Not everything is a question of politics. The fact that Social Democrats abandoned the demand for nationalisation was an expression of the insight that not everything can be run by political bodies, which we will discuss in the section on economic democracy. Democracy in the wider sense of ”participation”, is something more than representative bodies and it requires more opportunities for citizens to act than is provided for them as voters every fourth year (more about this in the section on the public sector).

But there is good reason to warn people about the debate which is formulated in terms of what ”the State” can be allowed to do. The very choice of words is highly misleading; ”the State” implies supremacy, and the question gives the impression of dealing more with what public authorities must do. But if we exchange ”the State” for ”democracy” then we can see that the question is not so much about what public authorities must do for the people, it is much more a question as to what the citizens say they want to do together. Democracy can never decide on limitations on human freedom and human rights, but apart from that it is an issue for the citizens themselves to decide what they want ”the State” to do. One cannot introduce rules which remove from citizens this right – this is something which one strand of the debate on limiting democracy’s reach would appear to be advocating.

But that debate is strangely divided. On the one side there are those who maintain that people are knowledgeable and competent enough to look after their own affairs without the interference of ”the State”. On the other hand it is presumed that these same knowledgeable and competent people merely force through irresponsible and bad decisions when they make these decisions together in their role as voters. What we can see here is a glimpse of the same contempt for voters which was expressed in the early 1900s in the arguments against the introduction of universal suffrage. Social Democracy believes now, as then, in the ability of citizens to make wise decisions in concert. This is also the case in the question of where to draw the line between the responsibility of the community and the individual. Who outside the community of citizens would be able to draw this line?

As we wrote in the introduction, democracy is a collective process by which citizens decide on matters of common concern. And a number of concerns are common, and must be settled by decisions which everyone has the opportunity to influence – otherwise there will only be chaos or real injustice. We cannot each and every one of us build our own sewage systems. The market is unable to provide every child with education on equal terms. It is far too great a burden for individual households to manage the care of the elderly on their own and the courts can quite definitely not be run by citizen’s defence committees.  There is much in the life of the individual which is determined by the way in which society is organised. For this reason we will never avoid the question of the democratic process, the collective form for decisionmaking, no matter how much we wish to emphasise individualism and individual responsibility. And for this reason democracy, or for that matter politics, must have an effective reach to make those decisions which affect the organisation of society.

The tension in democracy
However, the fact that democratic decisions are designed to create social structures which are advantageous for the development and welfare of the individual, does not mean that all individual desires can be met. The political process is focused on trying to find joint solutions which – considering a number of external conditions, such as economic resources for example – are the best possible for the majority. Democracy can therefore not be defined as the right to get what you want. Democracy is the right to be involved and to exercise influence but not to dictate decisions according to your own ideas; on the contrary, democracy requires respect for decisions which have been made, also when these decisions are contrary to one’s own desires.

Here we find an inevitable in-built tension in democracy. The overriding goal is, at the end of the day, the freedom and well-being of the individual. But the necessary means are collective co-operation since people are and remain social human beings dependant on others for their individual welfare. This can of course be experienced as a limitation. What must be stated clearly is that the alternative to the democratic process is not a happy deregulated civil society where everyone can follow their own desires – it is rather a society where everyone must struggle against everyone else for their own welfare and where the strong will force out the weak. The in-built tension in democracy is at the same time a major challenge and can also be the factor which creates the dynamism and vigour of democracy: to create an order where everyone has the opportunity to participate and where the social order is not created by some groups being by definition subordinated to others.

Democracy is a question of rights but at the same time it is also a question of a responsibility: the responsibility of taking part in the democratic process and making it a living process. For this reason, Social Democracy rejects the view of democracy which is usually described as somewhat like a market: the voter goes around looking at the supply of views and promises of reform and chooses those which suit him/her best. The question is who has decided what alternatives should be on offer in the market???

To use a simile, democracy is not like a public square, it is much more like a building – a building where we all discuss the drawings, where we all take part in the building work and where we are all responsible for ensuring that the materials are used in the best possible way.