I want to expand upon a point (a quote, specifically) from Hope08's superb diary Obama's Press Conference: A Re-education of the Media. It was a quote about what democracy truly is and it is something that I think more people here and around the world should reflect upon. The full quote and a bit of an exposition from a lawyer and history nerd below.
First, the quote:
It’s not the notion of democracy, per se or elections, per se. It’s the lack of understanding that in this region of the world and regions all across or in the Middle East and in areas all across the world, that democracy is not just going to the ballot box. It’s how we are strengthening our civil institutions, what are we doing with the press, what are we doing with the judiciary. Are there economic structures in place that are helping to build a middle class? Is there rule of law? You know a host of issues that this Administration typically neglected in the run-up to some of these elections.
I've thought about writing a book upon this and even have written a few rough chapters of it (maybe 20-30 pages). I've always supported Obama because I felt like he got this concept. It's the same reason I've always liked Joe Biden and the same reason I've always thought that Teddy Roosevelt was one of our greatest presidents (and someone who I think, along with Lincoln, would be a Democrat in today's America).
"Democracy" is not just voting, though voting is an important component of the whole. Democracy as we think of it, as we believe in, is a democratic republic. The definition I've come up with of a modern, western-style democracy is that, "a country and its people are free when certain fundamental rights are guaranteed by the state to all people by the application of the rule of law and guaranteed by the people to themselves through free elections and the avoidance of a tyranny of a bare majority."
It is, perhaps, convoluted, though I think it is relatively succinct as well. But it lacks the inspiration and impartation of hope that Obama's words provide. Still, I'd like to take it brick-by-brick and hope you will follow along with me. It's my humble attempt to explain in some detail what I truly believe, what I believe Barack truly believes (based upon reading The Audacity of Hope), and what this world needs in its governments for us to all reach a better tomorrow.
First, of course, is fundamental rights. Many of them are spelled out in our "Bill of Rights". Rights such as:
- Freedom of speech;
- Freedom of assembly;
- Freedom of religion;
- Freedom to petition the government for a redress of grievances;
- Freedom to keep and bear arms;
- Right to be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures;
- Right to trial by impartial jury;
- Right to speedy trial, information of the charges against one's self, and the assistance of counsel; and the
- Right to retain rights not specifically delegated to the government.
This is, by no means, a full exposition of fundamental rights, but it's a good start for anybody. Further, most all of these rights are subject to reasonable limitations (e.g. no private ownership of nuclear weapons, no shouting 'Fire!' in a crowded theater, no assembling in the middle of 5th Avenue in Manhattan without obtaining permits and showing some reasonable reason for assembling there as opposed to somewhere less disruptive, no right to take actions in the name of religion which directly harm others). Fundamental rights is a difficult topic and one which could take up volumes (I recommend reading Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right and Hamilton, Madison, and Jay's The Federalist Papers as a good starter).
The next piece is "guaranteed by the government." This is something which Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and the other idiots in the current presidency (all of whom took an oath to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States") seem to have chosen to selectively cooperate with at best. The further sadness is that the system of checks and balances that our founding fathers gave us failed through the corruption of those principles by the Republicans' failure to exercise their Constitutional obligation to serve as a check upon the Executive Branch's actions and the imposition of such despicable ideas as "a majority of the majority" by "Speaker" Dennis Hastert (R-Il). These are issues which are, sadly, ignored due to the Judicial Branch's doctrine of "political questions." The judiciary is there to serve as a check upon the powers of the executive and the legislative branches. While it is legitimate for the judiciary to avoid over-ruling a vote of the legislative branch (unless said vote becomes a law which is contrary to the Constitution), the judiciary should not be afraid to weigh in on the Constitutionality of a rule or procedure adopted by a coordinate branch when asked by a party with standing (e.g. a member of said branch).
Next is "to all people." This part seems self-explanatory. No matter your religious beliefs (note: religious actions are restricted in some ways), gender, skin color, sexual orientation, or just about anything else, you shouldn't be subject to discrimination. Period.
"Rule of law" is a very important component. This means that the judiciary is independent. In other words, they are not beholden to political whims but to a reasonable and proper interpretation of the Constitution of the United States and the laws adopted pursuant to and in accordance with said constitution (or whatever country's constitution and laws we are speaking about). Sadly the concept of "strict constructionists" has arisen. What this means in reality is not individuals who construe the Constitution and the amendments thereto in accordance with the beliefs prevalent at the time of their adoption, but rather modern "Conservative" (i.e. reactionary) values. If "struct constructionist" meant what it is propounded to mean, then these judges would support medical marijuana, unrestricted hemp growth (for fiber, paper, etc.), and many other things which the founders would have believed to be un-Constitutional restrictions on personal rights and/or states' rights.
Guaranteed to themselves means free elections. No government pressure on voters. No unreasonable governmental restrictions on electoral speech (note: requiring the speakers to identify themselves is not unreasonable, provided that the government is not given power to retaliate against such speakers; the lack of retaliation is a fundamental right, period.
The avoidance of tyranny through a bare majority is one of the most important rights. Our American Constitution provides for amendments only through the concurrence of two-thirds of the House of Representatives and the Senate and three-fourths of the States. First, this is "undemocratic" in the dictionary sense of the term. But it is not "undemocratic" to make certain fundamental rights unalterable except by a super-majority. Those rights are fundamental. Fundamental rights are those which should not be altered absent a super-majority of the citizens of the government in question. If those rights didn't require a significant majority to modify them, they would not be fundamental rights.
Well, I've rambled on long enough. I hope this diary is worth reading. If you think it is, I encourage you to recommend it. It's a "think" piece, I know. But I hope that you will recommend it because I think that what democracy really means is important, not only in general but also to the strength of our Democratic candidates. I look forward to your comments and will try to respond as best I can.
(Yes, I am a lawyer, but none of this is legal advice.)