Open Forum: What are the Necessary Preconditions for 
A Democratically Oriented Culture, and, 
Are such Factors Being Cultivated or Disestablished 
In Contemporary Australia?? 
What are the Alternatives? 
Where Should We Be Heading?*

0.   Introduction

	In this brief introduction to this open forum, as a working paper, I would like to introduce the following ideas for discussion:

1.	That the dissemination of all forms of power is essentially democratic (because the dissemination of all forms of power necessitate direct or indirect forms of ‘democratically’ elicited cooperation by the individual, etc.);
	
2.	However, w.r.t. any instance of political power, its democratic flavour is eclipsed and disestablished by a number of factors, namely:

		i.	Historical-political preconditions and institutions,
		ii.	Lack of a middle class or some other historical equivalent,
	iii.	Conditions of extremism such as occur during wars, civil wars, failed states, and other conditions of anarchy or chaotic political transitioning;

3.	That the dissemination of democratically oriented forms of power can never be absolutely democratic; and,

4.	That a variety of factors and trends either establish or disestablish the current degree of democratic authenticity in a particular political setting;

5.	An examination of those factors in contemporary Australia that appear either to be establishing or disestablishing the current degree of democratic authenticity.

6.	A provisional conclusion to be established, by consensus, as to the current state of democratic health in contemporary Australia in the light of the above? (0)

Note: The reader might like to continue this topic by referring to a later paper titled: A Phenomenology of Freedom, etc., and, Its Application to the Spheres of the Political, etc. (xfree.rtf) which can be found at the same Internet address below.

Latest version of paper: www.homestead.com/noelshomepage/noelshomepage3.html 
1.   That the Dissemination of All Forms of Power is Essentially Democratic

	You might be surprised to know that all forms of power are democratically disseminated, at least hypothetically! (1)

	If I were a king and asked one of my ministers to order the wood-chopper to chop some more wood for the fire in the Great Hall that minister has the hypothetical options of either doing as requested or not doing as requested. Similarly, the wood-chopper can either take up their ax and chop all the wood required, chop some of the wood required, or, not chop any wood whatsoever. Of course, if I had a gun and pointed it at the minister they might think it expedient to do as directed. Still, they could refuse even to the point of forfeiting their life. Again, the wood chopper has the same hypothetical options as noted. Obviously, if everyone refused to participate in the dissemination of ‘my‘ power then I would effectively be stripped of that power! I would have to chop that wood myself, etc. Thus, we should conclude that all power is fundamentally and essentially democratically exercised! To some extent we ‘democratically’ give, or withhold, our permission to perpetuate the dissemination of power emanating from others and radiating through others. (2)

	If all forms of the dissemination of power are fundamentally democratic, as just recounted, then why is it that this is obviously often not the case in the practical reality of everyday life?! (3)

2.   Factors that Disestablish the Democratic Aspect/s of Power

	As noted political cultures are not all equally democratic, indeed, many are not remotely democratic despite this cooption of our hypothetical, democratically given consent to disseminate flows of power to, through and from ourselves? Those factors that conceal this fundamental democratic basis are essentially institutional and conditional forces. E.g., if we were to live in an authoritarian regime, whether it be so-called Left or Right, we would expect that the democratic exercise of the rights and powers of one individual would be quickly curtained by various forms of political repression, the ultimate form of repression being the murdering of that disobedient person. Or, and the following are a set of suggestions, we might surmise from reflection and observation that a lack of a democratically organized dissemination of power is an indication that there are no current institutions capable of exercising that type of power; that there is no middle class that would establish some form of stability needed for this form of politics; forms of political repression and other modes of inauthenticity are being exercised to prevent this type of a more democratically oriented form of power from being exercised. That through sins of omission and sins of commission this type of power play is effectively being repressed, etc. (4)

	These factors, as noted, being institutional and/or conditional, and, framed through acts of omission and/or commission. (5)

	Some might argue that because there is no middle class in Iraq (and that country is effectively involved in a civil war) democratic institutions could not be successfully transplanted there! In contrast, because there is a developing middle class in China one might investigate whether an increase in the process of democratization to be expected in that country (but contrary to these expectations does not seem to be evident)? Or, what is the equivalent to a middle class in India that has allowed it to become the largest democracy? Was it the case or is it the case that the existence of a pool of well-educated people (with middle class aspirations despite their non-middle class incomes) has given India this degree of democratic stability? Obviously, we can only make generalizations in this regard and that exceptions will be found? (6)

	Let me supply the following compressed or summarized list of factors that either establish or disestablish the development of a democratically oriented form of government: institutions; conditions such as the relative existence/absence of a middle class; degrees of extremism and polarization that de-center what political institutions happen to be present, etc. (7)

3.   That Democratic Power can never be Absolutely Instantiated

	Although I am arguing that a democratic basis is the fundamental condition in the dissemination of power I would also like to argue that there can be no absolutely purified form of democratic dissemination. (8)

	Imagine, if you would, that all power is decided by referenda. Even in the advent of such a system we need to ask how those questions for the referenda are formulated and exercised? Or, how do we go about interpreting the results of those referenda. Even if an absolute consensus was realized through those forms of referenda the interpretation and exercise of those unanimous decisions would still need to be exercised in a relatively non-democratic manner through forms of representative delegation. Let us say, for the sake of an example, that everyone in Australia decided that indigenous health needed to be prioritized. The question/s then would be how! Obviously, how those interpretative decisions were to be formulated and interpretatively enacted could not be conducted in an absolutely democratic manner (through the same institution/s of referenda). Thus the natural state of a democracy must be representative! Hopefully, this institutional subsuming of power would be conducted in the spirit of those democratic aspirations? Thus the facile argument that claims representative democracy as not democratic must be fraudulent since there can be no form of an absolute democracy. On the other hand, a relative democratic orientation is possible on the grounds that democracy comes in degrees (that through the inevitability of change can only be either augmented or diminished in the course of time).  Thence a need for vigilance in this regard! (9)
	Thus we must assume that when a democratic style of government is realized (and instituted either by violent and/or non-violent methods?) the degree of democratic authenticity is going to be either augmented or diminished in the course of time (on the grounds that all things must change). That being the case let us look more closely at the types of forces that might effect these types of changes.(10)

4.   The Establishment/Disestablishment of Democratic Authenticity

	I would like to argue that the exercise of a(n overall) transcendental suspension is necessary and instrumental for the development, preservation an augmentation of the democratic condition! I don’t mean that philosophers must become philosopher-kings and supervise democratic processes! Just, that when we put our own egos aside, so to speak, we are often in a better position to look after our institutions, others and our own selves. That left to it own devices institutionalization would progressively disestablish this ‘spirit of democracy’ in what ever degree it has arisen in the body politic. And with politics in general, left to its own devices, democratic forms of political power would not arise either! Alas, too often political power has to be fought for although on some occasions it has been granted by a ruling personage (e.g., Gorbachev in the USSR) or power (e.g., Britain and its colonial exit from Malta). (11)

	That there is a need for this form of existential government by individuals and institutions! That facilitation of this exercise promotes the exercise of democratic aspirations. Moreover, government by one person, and one person alone, must inevitably be become less and less effective. Similarly, government by the same committee or party, and forever that same committee or party, must inevitably become less and less effective. On one hand, “the more heads the better” is one insight we should note (to be tempered by the opposite insight “that too many cooks spoil the broth”). Furthermore, changes are best conducted incrementally in the adaptation to changing circumstances. As the pace of so-called progress is accelerating then we are even more in need of this democratic flexibility in order to survive and successfully compete in the global marketplace…! (12)

	What other observations and suggestions might be apposite here? (13)

5.   Democracy in Contemporary Australia

	So, let us consider the current nature of the democratic condition in Australia. Are commentators (on the so-called Left or liberal Right with a small ‘l’) correct to complain about the state of democracy in Australia today? Without a doubt there is a definite need for eternal vigilance! But to what extent do we need to be vigilant in the light of trends apparently promoted or obstructed, developed or diverted on the political landscape of the last decade, or, of the last two decades?? (14)

6.    Provisional Conclusion

	What should we conclude? There is a need for vigilance! There is a need for people to exercise a relative selflessness on all levels of government all too often not evident but, still, obviously being enacted to that extent that our current democratic aspirations are being met to some extent? That democracy is the best form of government despite, and in spite of, the imperfections of the human conditions! That democratic institutions need to be strengthened institutionally and personally through exemplary behaviour (with all people in relative positions of power, or as instruments in the dissemination of power, needing to practice adequate forms of transcendental detachment along with balanced forms of transcendental motivation)! That the democratic condition is better able to help us to adapt to the changing conditions of this global world and that we should foster the same sense of a democratic spirit (locally, nationally and internationally) in order to better coexist and compete with others in (the non-democratic complexities of) this marketplace of the world in this World-of-Life, this Life-World wherein we-must-live-with-others in an open, existential, democratic sense of community to some extent or other (since it is through the mutual democratic mediations of the marketplace that communities are able to arise?)?! Imbued in a transcendental balance between all aspects and minorities in a community let us hope all reasonable democratic aspirations are eventually realized. So, in this existential spirit of the other, let democracy rule!  (15)
						    Noël Tointon, Sydney, 16.6.07/9.9.07.

Topics for a Supplementary Discussion

	As we enter the election season for the 2007 Elections in Australia various allied and non-allied topics could be addressed in the light of this paper (and others):

1.	Do Australian Workplace Agreements (AWA’s) represent a better form of democracy in the workplace? Does the existence of more highly sought after skills alter this equation? How democratic is it for management to deny the use of collective bargaining and agreements in its workplace should they be desired by its workforce?

2.	Over the issues of so-called ‘Australian’ Values what role, if any, is given to democratic aspirations? Were they in evidence in the Dr Haneef Affair? 

3.	Is the threat of terrorism from terrorists itself being used as a ‘weapon’ in the political arena? How should a balance be re-realized, if at all, in our traditionally arrived at democratic freedoms (of assembly, not to be arbitrarily arrested, etc?)?

4.	To what extent should a greater degree of democracy be in evidence in the workplace in an our institutions like hospitals, universities, courts, etc?

5.	Has the right to protest been curtailed rather than supervised (e.g., as ‘demonstrated’ during APEC?)?

6.	To what extent should the federal government intervene with or without consultation as in Aboriginal issues in the Northern Territory, management of water across state boundaries, the recent takeover of the hospital in Bernie, Tasmania, etc?

7.	Should the community have any input in the selling or non-selling of Uranium to countries like India, Russia, China or Pakistan, etc? 

8.	How could a spirit of democracy be augmented in Australian politics?

9.	How could ‘healthy’ democratic aspirations be promoted in public schools, and, private schools both secular and religious? Is there a role for multiculturalism or political pluralisms, etc?

10.	Other topics such as…? (16)

Appendix A – Is Democracy Potentially the Best Form of Government Possible?

	In paragraph no. 15, I made the claim “that democracy is the best form of government despite, and in spite of, the imperfections of the human conditions!” Can we successfully argue for such a conclusion? How should we qualify such an answer when all too often democracies can fail and/or get subverted by non-democratically oriented political forces? (1)

	In the course of this paper various arguments are directly or indirectly run on this premise and in support of this premise. Let me note those arguments (and others) that might let us achieve this conclusion? (2)

	I first argued in Section 1 that all forms of power have a democratic basis if only hypothetically realized to the extent that people are co-opted and co-opt others and only through such co-operation can power be disseminated. That people have the ability, if not the motivation to refuse this fact of co-operation with others in what ever form they thought fit. But, in reality, this possibility is rarely exercised and even more rarely exercised collectively (even though that latter option can be very effective in a transformation of government to a more democratically oriented form). (3)

	A more successful form of government should take into account the aspirations of the elites, the aspirations of the middle classes  and the aspirations of the relatively impoverished. By co-opting the participation of those three classes, and others such as legal and illegal migrants, foreigners outside the country in question and other nations etc., a more responsive and responsible form of government might well arise to meet the realization of such disparate needs. Obviously, such disparate needs could only be met by a relatively democratic forum, representing such ‘classes’, that takes these various types of aspirations into account, would be engaged with, reflect and meet the realization of such aspirations! (4)

	In paragraph no. 12, I noted ‘that more heads are better than one’. That in the increasing transformation or change of the ‘marketplace’ in our increasingly globalized sense of world a democratic form of government would be better able to meet such challenges. Furthermore, I quipped ‘that too many cooks spoil the broth’ and would like to suggest that through democratic forms of representation there might be less likelihood of this occurring through a more conventionally radiated dissemination of power whereas in a one-party regime or a regime centered on one individual or small elite, in the break-down of the same, relatively autonomous areas of power can form in a process of de-centering or dispersal of power (as seems to be occurring in Pakistan at the present? Also Iraq?)? (5)

	Hence some provisional grounds for making a start in formulating this argument? (6)

Appendix B – A Summary of the Consensus Reached in this Open Forum

	Overall, our topics, when discussed, seemed to score negatively suggesting some degree of an incremental erosion of democratic presence. On the other hand, a spirit of optimism might well be allowed to overcome this negativity on the grounds that through a proliferation of political organizations on the Internet such as blogs through to the media and cultural commentators heavily critical of the erosion of democratic freedoms and obligations, etc., we might still find considerable grounds for an optimism that democratic aspirations can be augmented rather than diminished over time, at least reverse some recent trends? (1)

	Certain proposals were mooted for augmenting our current democratic footprint on the Australian political landscape. A summarized list might entail the following with no apparent order of emphasis – Freedom of Information enquiries should be promoted, facilitated and not obstructed by government; spin and political advertising should be exposed; comment and protest should not be stifled be in the public or private arena, in government bureaus or the marketplace; that a greater transparency in decision making on all levels of society be promoted both in politics but also in business, education (universities and schools), hospitals, etc; excessive political forms of pressure from special interest groups be published and exposed to the public gaze; that the political bureaucracy be less politicized; that democratic failures be properly accounted for my independently conducted enquiries; increased forms of meaningful participation; etc. (2)

	An interesting segment of the discussion noted that in a democracy with a small effort or shift (in public opinion) we can effect quite radical shifts as a consequence contra revolutions where considerable degrees of effort might be needed to effect radical shifts that may or may not lead anywhere democratic or productive for that political culture. That the spectre of political change is itself politically therapeutic, and, if the current political powers that be are not successfully responsive to new issues they can be replace by another party or faction that might be more successful (with the added protection that they too can be removed if not up to achieving a satisfactory resolution of such issues). (3)

	That democratic forms of government may be better, and not able to be surpassed, still, this form of government is not without its inherent contradictions, conflicts, damaging impasses, etc., and therefore in need of an eternal vigilance! (4) N.