Where Does the World of Democracy Stand
With Respect to Political Pressure from the Conservative Right?

A Working Paper

0.   Introduction

	First, let me briefly discuss the nature of democratic power. Second, let me discuss the nature of conservatism when issuing from the so-called ‘Far Right’. Third, let me discuss what possible threats are posed to democratic processes from all forms of political extremism, especially from the so-called ‘Conservative Right’. Last, let me draw some conclusions as possible points of debate in this working paper. (1)

1.   Democratic Power

	The political exercise of power always take place as a process, i.e., with a pre-conditional, pre-process state of affairs, a period of process, and a post-period of political consequences. When political power is effectively exercised from a single point, or concatenation of points in close proximity, in a population it is usually relatively non-democratic unless tempered by some sense of that ‘point’, i.e., a person or persons, acting in a representative role on the behalf of that population [in so far as that ‘virtual representation’ of that population is conducted existentially on its behalf. By ‘existentially’ is meant acting from the point of view of that relationship through the psychic center of that relationship as simulated within a(n overall) transcendental suspension of all features relevant to the outcome of that process of decision making (with a consequent transcendental suspension of ego-driven projects desired by that person or persons exercising power) on the behalf of that population]. (2)

On the other hand, when a territorial population actively exercises some active part in the political process it is relatively democratic. The only possible exemption to these two extremes is when some other power outside that population exercises power over them. Hypothetically, this could be done by a decision making machine or mechanism, e.g. a computer programmed with relevant algorithms, or, a dice or some pre-determined process of divination, etc. Normally, however, that relatively external exercise of power is itself usually subjected to the same relatively non-democratic-democratic spectrum of power that could have been exercised internally within that externally governed population. (3)

	Now, power is expressed through a process of change within this spectrum between the relatively non-democratic and the relatively democratic and itself involves a spectrum between a relatively active participation and a relatively passive participation. Why my insistence on this relativity of the non-democratic and the democratic, and, a relativity of active participation and passive participation? Because these orientations are ‘orientations’ and never pure exemplifications of type (because such extreme polarities can never be obtained). E.g., a king may be judged as possessing absolute power yet it is only in the activity of others enjoined by that king to act can they act through them by proxy. If their servants were to refuse to act as enjoined or were to subvert the command of their king the power of that king would be modified accordingly. Hence the necessity for the passive acceptance of commands by the servants of the king and their active commission of the same in order to carry out of those commands. Hence the extension of power must always involve an element of choice even if coerced. This ground of the passive-active being the metaphorical seed-bed for the development of the democratically oriented decision making process by virtue of its empowerment of that population by virtue of its recognition of an invited, and accepted, active participatory component in this formalized process of the active co-extension of power. (4)

	Just as a king can never be an pure absolute monarch so too can a democracy never be absolutely democratic. Even if we were to invoke an Athenian form of democracy and extend such suffrage to all members of society and even if all such members were to vote on each particular decision for consideration, still, who decides on what issues are to be voted upon, which issues are relevant, should not be re-voted upon, should be re-voted upon, should be amended, interpreted in a certain fashion, etc., etc. Hence our reliance upon representatives; an accepted body of precedences; the rule of law; the framework of a constitution; supreme courts; processes of dissemination, arbitration; processes of critical reflection and appreciation, etc. (5)

	Too often the following type of argument is run, namely, that because democracy is never an absolute democracy therefore it just is not democratic! But this type of argument is fallacious because although the democratically oriented process is never instantiated in an absolute manner it is always present to some degree or other (even if a particular political process under examination were to be judged as relatively non-democratic in ‘spirit’). Rather than dismissing the possibility of a qualified democracy its denominated existence should be carefully evaluated in terms of certain relevant criteria in the light of this qualified possibility, and, then judged accordingly as to whether it is democratic in an overall ‘spirit’ or otherwise. (6)

	In the passive acceptance of decision-making people do as bid, i.e., carrying out those instructions as interpreted. In the active acceptance of decision-making decisions are re-interpreted in the course of their commission and/or co-extension. (7)

	In the light of the above, all forms of democracy are representative to some extent or other. Even in a one party system the appellation of representative is valid to the extent that those decisions are actively re-interpreted (or their received interpretation is accepted more or less as re-interpreted by default). (8)

	Ideally, and existentially, all decisions that affect a certain population should be actively exercised by that population. In effect, the democratic spirit is a reflection of this axiom. The manner of its exercise in this regard being a reflection of that democratic style in play (e.g., representative, delegated, etc., or, after the American Model, the British Model, the German/New Zealand Model, etc.). Ideally, each population should adopt and adapt what is found to best work for them in the light of a reformation of institutions already found present and appropriate to this type of task subject to an ongoing reformation of the same (whether formally or non-formally organized in this regard). (9)

	Practically, democratic processes are never uniformly spread throughout a complex population because power is always instituted and therefore reflects its historical constitution and the relatively independent individual evolution of the same. E.g., we may have a democratic government in Australia but are businesses, hospitals, universities, etc., governed in the same manner to the same degree? Would institutions function better, both quantitatively and qualitatively, if they were more open to democratic processes? I believe a critical appreciation of relatively successful institutions would highlight this fact; that this democratic spirit was present in either a de facto form through the democratic manner of its leadership or actually incorporated in a more formally instituted manner. (10)

	Power can always be contested. A democracy recognizes that fact but also institutionalizes constraints on how that contestation is to be conducted. Radical realignment in these genres of resolutional activity dealing with processes of contestation being revolutionary to that same extent. Normally, contestation is channeled by institutional means. Successful revolutional transitions being incremental and relatively peripheral within this body of genre conventions dealing with those institutions dealing with the arbitration and co-extension of power. (11) 

	Contestation always assumes a spectrum between the rights/obligations of the individual versus the rights/obligations of the state (and the same for all institutions/loci of power in between and external to a particular population/state, as e.g., in normal exercise of corporate law, and, the exercise of international law, etc.). (12)

	There can be no absolute rights and no absolute obligations! Since all forms of power are both suffered and co-extended. In the Life-World of being-with-others there can be no absolute demarcation between de-ontological senses of ‘self’ and ‘other’ (in all their phenomenal-phenomenological complexities). (13)

	The apparent privileging of the individual direction of this spectrum usually is a feature of the so-called Right. The apparent privileging of a population/the state usually is a socialistic feature of the so-called Left. A tendency to resist change or revert to old, idealized forms of practice is the province of the so-called Conservative; of either the Left or Right. A tendency to seek change or revert to new, idealized forms of practice is the province of the so-called Progressive; of either the Left or Right. With the deconstruction of both the Left and Center, and, the imminent deconstruction of the Right(?), we should note how the complexion of the political landscape is now more pluralistic in tenor rather than a traditional bi-polarization. (14)

2.   Conservatism

	In political practice, the Conservative Right usually is divided between those who invoke an indirect influence of a dominant (or seeking to be dominant) religious philosophy and a more direct influence of a dominant (or seeking to be dominant) religious philosophy. The latter type usually being more extreme and less representative of the psychic center of that political spectrum associated with that population. On the Left, ideological extremism is usually not influenced by religious ideologies although, phenomenologically, there is very little difference in their styles of performance? Ideological extremes at either end of the spectrum are usually manifested with an inflexible adoption of principles and absolute ideals. An addiction to such extreme forms of idealism usually manifests itself as a pseudo-psychosis with its consequent distortion of reality though the ensuing loss of a healthy sense of a transcendental distance (as a result of a defectively exercised overall transcendental suspension). In a pseudo-psychosis this unable-to-be-crossed-psychic-chasm between the projected ‘ideal’ and the currently ‘real’ is experienced as a form of cognitive dissonance wherein this dissonance is experienced but the cause is not directly and consciously identified, hence this partial psychosis with respect to this cognitive part of the psyche only (in distinction to the general, more global nature of a psychosis). (15)

	All forms of extremism are the result of invoking a defective process of an overall transcendental suspension. The invocation of a non-defective overall transcendental suspension, however, does not rule out the appearance of a non-neutral position since the restoration of balance could call forth for the same. E.g., in a society that traditionally promotes and privileges a certain segment of its population, say Caucasians and/or males, might only be able to restore some existential sense of balance though the rectification of a short-term over-privileging of non-Caucasians and/or females. In other words, restoration of balance is dynamically called for, not a mere static, non-involved neutrality! (16)

	The nature of the Conservative Right, therefore, is a mixture of political tendencies generally oriented towards a religious involvement in the political process (rather than its separation from the political process); an apparent emphasis placed upon individual rights and obligations at the apparent expense of the rights and obligations of the state; an orientation towards idealized forms of past practice; etc. As a rule of thumb the Conservative Right, or people acting on their behalf, often indulge in a pragmatic over-emphasis upon ‘means’ at the expense of ‘ends’ (despite their proclamation of an adherence to so-called true ideals). (17)

3.   The Consequences of Extremism

	All forms of extremism de-center the political process and as a result are less representative of that body politic and its contained population/s. (18)

	As a result we would expect extreme forms of a Conservative Right to blur and abuse the current degree of a separation of ‘state and church’ already found in that political population; ideologically insist on smaller government (even if not realized in political fact); insist on an less support and more self-reliance of the individual (rather than promoting a blanket welfare and other forms of economic assistance for the relatively dispossessed); a reversion to the perception of more traditional forms of dominant practice and behaviour despite their current inappropriateness in this Postmodern age of multi-culturalism and/or Contemporary era of political pluralisms; along with a re-iterated unhealthy pragmatic preoccupation with ‘means’ often at the expense of professed absolute ‘ends’! (19)

	The consequences of all forms of extreme privileging is a de-centering of that political process and its ensuing less-representative reflection of that denominated population. In effect, a disenfranchisement of the population in that regard (often one sector of that population gaining/re-gaining at the expense of some other). (20)

	All forms of political extremism, from a democratic perspective, are eventually disruptive of that political process unless checked! Effectively, the de-centering of the body politic disrupts its efficiencies of functioning as all relationships function more effectively when they are aligned with their own sense of a ‘center’. (21)

	Existentially, a relationship functions more effectively if all relational resources attached to that population (entailed by that overarching political relationship) are harnessed to the establishment of a common end (however complex and diffuse its current thematization). Although an ongoing sense of dynamic balance is restored and maintained through small acts that are deliberately off-centered in order to restore that sense of balance such pragmatic micro-deviations are properly called for otherwise that state of unbalance could well persist, deepen and find itself entrenched in that new form of relative equilibrium! An existential, dynamic equilibrium is never self-assured through processes of chaotic intervention and the creation, therein, of non-existential, relatively non-centered equilibria! (22)

4.   Conclusion

	Just as the mental health of a person calls for the proper exercise of the overall transcendental suspension so too does the political health of the political process call for the exercise of its political equivalent. This, usually, is better facilitated by the practice of democratic-like processes. “More heads are better than one” and the democratization of the political process in this age of increasing complexity is facilitated by a better use of its essential resources, namely, all the members of that resident population. E.g., in the light of the above, I am sure that the practices of hospitals, one among many institutions that stand in need of an increasing degree of democratization, would be better facilitated through an appropriate democratic re-organization of their institutions and organs that exercise power; the democratic process naturally acting as more transparent facilitator of information traveling in both directions within that ‘economy’ and thence ensuring a better yield for ‘our’ efforts along with a greater degree of quality control that is currently arrived at, if arrived at, by less natural means. Increased democratization also ensuring an increased sharing of relatively local and global responsibilities within that population, in the process ensuring a greater authenticity of response! (23)

	But, how is an increased degree of democratization to be achieved, and, in what forms should it be adopted, adapted, managed, transformed and judged proper and appropriate to a set of objectives (of that institution under review) that are deemed democratically valid for that population (or state)..? Hence the tentative course of this working paper has here only been outlined in the hope that a refinement of its working concepts can be adopted and adapted with this objective in mind, namely, just where should the democratic process make its stand (especially in regard to current trends wherein it is being non-existentially re-defined by distortions from a Conservative Right in the light of recent deconstructions from the Left and Center which can no longer act to the same degree as healthy forms of a counter-balance in this regard). Thus, we must re-consider the importance of the Center in order to refine the democratization of the political process along with a re-determination of the role those relatively non-central segments of a population must also play in the formation and reformation of the same! (24)

	A democratically oriented process is never a perfect one, but, hopefully, a process more attentive to the aspirations of its population. Still, although trading the ‘tyranny of a minority’ for the ‘tyranny of a majority’ how, in the complexity of a modern democratic state, does the overall political process include rather than exclude segments of its population, indeed, define that democratic population? Surely, is it not, through the establishment of a working consensus that there will be ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ but never ‘absolute winners’ and ‘absolute losers’. This working consensus, therefore, must insist that despite differences both the winning democratic party or parties and the loosing party or parties must never feel apart from a more fundamental sense of belonging to the same political population. In this there must be civility, the rule of law and mechanisms for ensuring the rights of minorities are also taken into account. As a recipe for stability a successfully working democracy, it would appear,  depends on a large middle class that is not allowed to be either disenfranchised or excessively polarized. Upon this relatively firm bedrock political elites should then be allowed to direct and re-direct that mass within the context and limits of a democratic process. At the same time the relatively disenfranchised should be re-enfranchised and helped to participate in an inclusive democratic process as long as those members seek to subscribe to these fundamental attitudes encompassed within this democraticized population that allow it to survive as a political unit. And this must include migrants who give every sign of wanting to subscribe to that type of body politic. Into this mix a flexibility must be ‘atuned’ both internally and externally, assisted by genre conventions that normally facilitate that type of arbitration of power on a daily basis. In reality we are not beholden to one master or mistress but to many masters and many mistresses and most of the time this is uneventfully achieved without too much stress and distress. Although segments of the population may wish to re-make the rest of that society in its own image this should only be allowed to occur democratically, peacefully and with consent of the majority and never at the fundamental expense of a minority. In this light, any deviations from this acceptable path of possible reform should not be allowed whether instituted by the Right or the Left! Hence there forever exists the real need for vigilance lest we non-democratically undermine this ‘living rule of law’ and destroy what no so-called ‘terrorist’ could ever achieve in their own right! To this end it is my opinion that the rule of law should recognize some form of a constitution that recognizes and arbitrates a viable middle ground between the non-absolute rights of majorities and the non-absolute rights of minorities. Even if we merely start talking about it in the end such a platform will find itself erected with a complex richness that only time and a working consensus can achieve. A dynamic balance is the name of this game… an overall transcendental suspension… a political house of being forever in need of repair and preservation… something all of us must be given an incentive to make our ‘own’… as we peacefully stand-up-before-others and stand-up-to-others… being both respectful and finding respect! (25)

	As a final point let us note that the process of democratization is the natural expression of the fact that its style of emission and reception is nothing more than a fuller explication of its co-extensional nature already implicated in the transmission of power, and, that resistance to the same is inherent to the very nature of it imperfect passive-active re-iteration albeit within the context of an ongoing resolution of the tensions in that resultant relationship (as found denominated within the open ambit of the Life-World). That, essentially, democratization is the natural thematization of this inherent passive-active constitution/re-constitution involved in this co-extensional transmission of power! 				  

  Noël Tointon, Sydney, 24.12.05.