This originally appeared on my political blog at https://politicalmusingsofkayleen.blogspot.com/2021/12/democracy-needs-human-rights.html.
***
Democracy is a system that ensures - or should ensure - that those without social power/influence have as equal a say in how they are governed as the powerful.
This is intended to be accomplished through the "one person-one vote" principle - to me, that is the essence of democracy.
However, some places undermine this by actions such as:
- sexist or racist restrictions on who can vote (the original forms of democracy excluded,
for instance, slaves and women, and imposed other conditions - such as
military training, or ownership of land - necessitating long struggles
for voting rights [see here; here, here, here, here, & here; here, here, and here; here, here, and here] );
- imposing qualifications that favour certain sections of society over others - as the USA has a history and current trend of doing (see here, here, here, here, here, and here);
- or, in my opinion (IMO), giving businesses votes (see here, here, and here). My concerns with the latter are that (a) businesses, particularly large corporations, already have massive economic power (although individual small businesses don't), and (b) they are not people.
(For others' thoughts on the topic, see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here. There are also some points on the justification for democracy here and here, some criticism here, and useful thoughts on the evolution / development of democracy in this, this, this, and my post here [including the many links]. )
Democracy depends on a few aspects. Those that I wish to raise here (there are others - see the links in the preceding italicised paragraph) are:
- adequate education on democracy of voters - they need to know fundamentals such as:
- elections are held,
- the purpose of elections is "W" (usually, to elect representatives of the voters),
- the rules around elections are "X",
- the duties / expectations / accountabilities / rules applying to elected representatives are "Y" (this also needs to cover what elected representatives and governments cannot do), and
- when things go wrong, what can be done is "Z"; (this where an independent judiciary, which Geoffrey Robertson writes on clearly in this and this, becomes essential);
- Voters
need to be capable of making reasonable decisions - which is not
decisions that agree with others nor what others consider reasonable,
but some sort of mature decision making process . . . and that validly
be based on emotional reactions.
This effectively means some people will be excluded from elections - for instance, the young (although there is debate about how low the voting age should be [a cut off no higher than military service, for instance - or perhaps the age at which criminal responsibility can be assigned would be appropriate . . . ], no-one would suggest a babe-in-arms or a toddler should be allowed to vote) or the clinically mentally incompetent, but must NEVER be judged on the basis of an FBU or FoC type reaction (the 1987 film "Nuts" illustrates some useful points on this).
It should also be kept in mind that such cut offs can be arbitrary - I know young teenagers who are better able to decide who to vote for than I was when I started voting and who are better than many older, rigid thinking people (see also here and here).
Other aspects of this are: - Voters need to be protected against undue influence - which is where the benefits of the secret ballot (see here, here, and here)
become, IMO, self-evident. This is also one of the arguments against
having a voting age that is too low - the risk that at least some
children will not vote as they consider best, but as instructed by their
parents . . . which is also a problem in some workplaces (I have heard managers say people "should" vote in a certain way) and some militaries (I have seen video of soldiers' ballots in an overseas nation being checked by their commanding officers).
So this is an important principle, but one that needs to be universally respected, ensured and protected. - Voters also need access to accurate information.
Typically, this is where a free press gets a guernsey, but . . . some parts of the free press shoot themselves in the foot (by either lurid gossip and personal abuse, or active proselytising of one political position) and that destroy the credibility of all the press.
Social media is a mixed bag - it can spread rumours and conspiracy fantasies, but it can also aid in breaking through misinformation or bias from governments. - That last
point also raises the issue of the way public debates are held on issues
- e.g., the so-called postal vote on Equal Marriage (see here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and here ) allowed - as expected - unconscionable conduct (overwhelmingly on the side of the haters)
and created massive divisions, and appears to have been about the
neoliberals' intention to give neochristian and similarly religiously
motivated haters a big public voice to shout down and actively attack a
minority who outnumbered the haters. That created massive divisions in
our society - for instance, there are places, groups, and people I will
avoid because of the vehement vitriol - rabid outpourings that were
really about wanting people in all the LGBTIQ+ communities dead.
I am now convinced more than ever that we need strong human rights laws - they enable some protection against populism, and they also protect against discrimination (on that, we have no Bill of Rights in our constitution because most of the old white men who wrote it wanted to be racist against Chinese people).
It also provides protection against rabid hate seen during the so-called postal vote, and other forms of direct and indirect discrimination (see also here, here, here, here, and here) against minorities - currently seen most clearly in conservative states in the USA.
On this, see also https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/12/14/human-rights-are-key-democracy.
Those who are discriminating against others on the basis of inherent characteristics (such as gender, sexuality, race, etc) or reasonable / benign and lawful choices (such as a non-harmful religion) are:
(a) committing acts of active harm (equivalent emotionally to an "active shooter") that infringe on the freedoms of other people and rob society of the contributions of those people;
(b) making gross mistakes (or "thinking" and emotion) that are at the babe-in-arms / toddler level of human evolution / development.
Now,
people who have emotionally and mentally evolved through those basic levels also make mistakes,
but those mistakes tend to be (i) subtler, and (ii) less damaging. They
will still make mistakes - for instance, a political policy may be flawed - but they don't commit pogroms, massacres, and genocides, not create ghettoes nor slavery.
Those people making the gross mistakes are bigots - that term's generally disliked, but it means "a
person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own
opinions and prejudices, especially one who regards or treats the
members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and
intolerance ". [See PS]
The term fits, as does the reality of the harm they are doing.
And that is where laws and an effective justice system come in. In the words of the great Dr Martin Luther King, Jr.:
It may be true that the law cannot change the heart, but it can restrain the heartless.
A legal / justice system is about ensuring that the powerful and/or bigotted do not inflict harm on minority groups, and that no other interference to the existence and efficacy of democracy (such as corruption or interfering with voting or any other key aspect of democracy [such as free press]) is permitted to occur. This covers more than only human rights violations, but our laws, here in Australia, are weakest on the human rights aspects, which is why I am raising the topic here.
There are a couple of other aspects I wish to touch on.
Firstly, as Martin Luther King also said:
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
We need to be active in ensuring justice occurs everywhere, much as we need to ensure the COVID-19 pandemic is properly managed everywhere, or the problems will affect us as well. This, it is good that we finally have a Magnitsky-style Act, but we now need to start using it.
Secondly, there some other Martin Luther King sayings that merit consideration:
Like an unchecked cancer, hate corrodes the personality and eats away its vital unity.
(The bigots are haters, and they are harming themselves.)
Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.
(Don't hate the haters - which is difficult when one has been deeply wounded or scarred by them.)
The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.
(The
struggles for improved suffrage and improved rights are not over, but
we are better off than we were . . . say . . . two centuries ago.)
The
ultimate weakness of violence is that it is a descending spiral.
Returning violence with violence only multiplies violence, add deeper
darkness to a night already devoid of stars.
(Use
of the legal system, and legitimate political activism and community
education is the best - the only - long term solution.)
In the end, we will remember not the words of our enemies, but the silence of our friends.
(We
need to ensure others get the benefits of justice and of genuine
democracy as well - and we need to be effective allies along the way.
No-one is safe against the current pandemic until everyone is safe -
likewise with democracy and human rights.)
Finally, a court case against our Premier, who I consider has done a very hood (not perfect) job of getting us through the pandemic as a community as safely as possible, had a court case brought against him by an individual.
The case has been thrown out, which I consider the correct decision, but it illustrates the following:
- the person was able to bring the case, which is an example of freedom;
- the article mentions another person, completely separate
to the person bringing this case, who has been declared a vexatious
litigant because of their use of multiple court cases of little or no
merit against public figures. The fact that it was considered that a law
enabling such declarations to be made, along with the implementation of
anti-corruption, anti-discrimination (including our newly minted Magnitsky-style Act), and similar laws shows that our democratic system is not perfect: it needs to continue emotionally and mentally evolving.
As do we.
PS - since writing the above, which also drew on this and this, I have come across the concept of "the left brain interpreter" in Grant Cameron's book "Contact Modalities". This is a possibly plausible explanation for the mental rigidity of both bigots and pseudo-sceptics - for more on that, see here, here, here, here, and here.
