Keep Left Hook Alive!

Dear Left Hook Readers,

November is almost over and we still have a long way to go to hit our second anniversary fund drive goal- if we don't meet it by the end of this month, we'll have to severely curtail and scale back our work here.

Left Hook started out as and remains the only independent leftist youth journal in this country. And by leftist, we don't mean the kind of "pander to the conservatives" politics you see from the Democratic Party and its hangers-on.

From the very beginning - far before it became popular - we took a principled stand against the war in Iraq, predicting the emergence of serious resistance early as November 2003. We've been publicizing and projecting the anti-war movement from the front lines, publishing countless ground reports, highlighting cases of abuse, interviewing student anti-war activists and veterans of the Iraq war, and demolishing pro-war arguments.

Young writers here have taken up a much wider range of important issues as well: from the oppression of Palestinians to the drastic costs of higher education in America, from the administration's malice in Katrina to the larger role of capitalism and neoliberalism in producing such tragedies, it's all been covered here in political analysis, cultural commentary, interviews, ground reports, and more.

And our material here is fresh, original, and from a unique youth perspective: not the same standard fare stuff reprinted and recycled all over the internet.

Of course, you already know all that - otherwise you wouldn't be reading this space right now, where we receive hundreds of visitors daily thanks to word of mouth and larger sites constantly linking to our material.

But you undoubtedly also know that, as a small, independent leftist site, we cannot continue without the financial support of our readers - that means you! There's just two of us students here at the helm, and though the cost of Ramen noodles remains relatively stable, we have to maintain our (pretty modest) funding goals to keep bringing you the quality and content you've been regularly enjoying here.

So please help keep Left Hook alive and donate today! Be it $10 or $100 - every bit that you chip in helps. Thank you.

Sincerely,
The Editors
Derek Seidman and M. Junaid Alam

Answering the Question of Democracy

- by Steven Schoofs

Observing the human suffering that is taking place on a daily base in Iraq, one is left with the nagging question: in the name of what? Luckily, there is the Bush-Blair tandem which constantly reminds us that the ultimate goal of the Anglo-American enterprise is to achieve democracy in Iraq. We are told that the hardship and suffering imposed on the people of Iraq contributes to the creation of a democratic Iraq. Thus, the same Iraqis that are now being killed, maimed, tortured and harassed will one day enter the promised lands of democracy.

While we have made our way into the 21st century, democracy has come to be seen as a universal value without a real ideological alternative. Since democracy is seen as a 'good thing', there seems to exist a widespread belief that democracy should be universalised at all costs. One of the results of this belief is that we are witnessing democracy being put in place in Iraq 'through the barrel of the gun' and 'on the points of bayonets'. In the prevailing ideological climate which considers democracy as a prerequisite for human emancipation, it is hard to argue against democracy. Yet, given the perverted logic of democracy 'promotion' in Iraq, there is an urgent need for critical reflections on a peculiar type of democracy that has acquired near-universal appeal. The type of democracy I am hinting at is liberal democracy, which in essence is a Western form of democracy.

This paper attempts to expose the flaws in liberal forms of democracy. It will be argued that the neo-liberal approach to democracy has nothing to do with the essence of democracy, which is 'power by the people'. The argument I wish to make in this contribution is that the situation in Iraq discloses the moral deficit of liberal democracy as a political system. In addition to that observation, I posit that 'Iraq' highlights the need for the reinvention of democracy. To this effect, we have to answer the question of democracy in order to counter the neo-liberal usurpation of the question of democracy for its own purposes.

The Question of Democracy

To date, democracy remains a highly elusive concept that has intrigued students of democracy for centuries. Ancient Greece of two and a half millennia ago, and more specifically Athens, is usually referred to as the birthplace of democracy. It is in this particular region that humankind started to experiment with forms of self-government. The textbook definition of democracy is 'power by the people', the translation that comes closest to the Ancient-Greek words demos and kratos, which together form the word democracy.

Intellectual activity over the past millennia has bestowed on us a whole wealth of perspectives on the concept of democracy. Despite a truly impressive amount of definitions, I maintain that the definition 'power by the people' is the essential one. The phrase 'power by the people' adequately reflects the fact that it is right that 'the people' rule. Democracy should be regarded as an aspiration towards self-government and the ideal of popular control can be considered the sine qua non of any democratic system.

However, the problem we face is that 'power by the people' is perhaps not a very useful answer to the question 'what is democracy?'. It only helps to create more questions such as 'which people?', 'where does democracy take place?' or 'what kind of rule?'. Therefore, we should conceive democracy as an open-end question. We, the people, are asked to construct the social world we inhabit, in such a way as to achieve the ideal of 'power by the people'. The ambiguity of the term democracy means that it should be regarded as a question that can be addressed in several ways. History provides us with a useful overview of the various ways in which the question of democracy has been taken up and answered.

A historical perspective on the notion of democracy also makes clear that the word democracy in itself does not tell us much. In fact, it is the adjectives that are put in front of the word democracy -think of Athenian, liberal, classical, republican, deep, radical or participatory- that spell out how the ideal of 'rule by people' is interpreted and translated into democratic practices. The word democracy embodies a vision, a belief, a challenge, an ideal or aspiration and above all a question. The adjectives inform us in what ways the question of democracy has been answered. What follows from this observation is that we cannot simply refer to democracy in general terms. We need to be really specific when we think, talk, practise and theorise democracy.

This is exactly what drives me mad when I hear Bush and Blair spreading the gospel of democracy. True, most people on this planet will probably accept that the ideal of democracy -at least for now- has universal appeal. But it is one thing to regard and promote democracy as a universal value, it is still another to promote one particular type of democracy, namely liberal democracy. Let me remind you that liberal democracy is but one possible answer to the question of democracy. Although liberal democracy is at present the dominant form of democracy, we therefore should not consider it to be the only relevant form of democracy. Yet, this is what Bush and Blair are doing. They are universalising, promoting and imposing a particular form of democracy without even taking into consideration that there might be even better forms and practices of democratic government. They also seem to wilfully ignore history's testament that democracy has no final destination.

At this point we need to engage ourselves with the theory and practice of liberal democracy in order to understand the peculiar ways in which liberal democracies are operating.

The Theory and Practice of Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy has been inspired by political and philosophical liberalism, dating back to the Ancient Greeks. People that shaped liberal thought and subsequently the idea of liberal democracy include Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Adam Smith, Baron de Montesquieu, John Stuart Mill and John Rawls, to name a few influential thinkers. Hence, it is virtually impossible to sum up in a few lines what is meant by the idea of liberal democracy. Nonetheless, there are a few distinctive features of liberal democracy that need to be highlighted in order to grasp the essence of liberal democratic theory.

Liberal democracy, first and foremost represents an ideal of self-government that takes individual autonomy as its point of departure. The rule of law is a fundamental aspect of liberal democracies as it serves to protect the citizen from the state, church, other individuals, and the society at large. Equally, institutional devices such as separation of the executive, judiciary and legislative branches of government, equality under the law, impartial judiciaries and the separation of church and state are all put in place to guard the autonomy of individual citizens. Therefore, liberal democracy should be regarded as a framework of fundamental rights and personal freedoms that exist to guard the autonomy and subsequently promote the emancipation of the citizen.

Most people probably cherish fundamental rights such as freedom of speech, political equality and freedom of religion. Those rights have over time gained legitimacy after centuries of war, suffering and struggle and should not be taken for granted. Liberal theories of democracy take those fundamental rights as their point of departure whilst answering the question posed by democracy. At this point I feel the need to stress that I do not necessarily disagree with liberal approaches to democracy. My sense is that democratic theories deriving from political liberalism entertain elements that should be taken into account. At the same time, liberal theories have their shortcomings, which are reflected in the actual functioning of liberal democracies. In order to understand the flaws and shortcomings present in liberal democracies, we will take a closer look at the manner in which liberal democracies operate.

As was stated before, the essence of any form of democracy is and should be popular control. Tied to this is the notion of political equality, as it entails the belief that rule by an elite is not democratic. Hence, if we want to judge the quality of liberal democracies, it should be against these two fundamental principles of democracy.

Beginning with political equality, it can be argued that in liberal forms of democracy, political equality has been secured by conferring on every citizen the right to vote. The idea behind the principle of 'one human, one vote' is that every citizen can take part in the democratic process, regardless of socio-economic particulars. The problem with the liberal conception of political equality is that the right to vote may put you on a par with other citizens, but this is only so in a narrowly defined political sphere. More specifically, the notion of political equality rings hollow in the light of persisting economic and social inequalities. The fact that you are for instance black, woman, disabled or Muslim may shape in very profound ways your ability to take part in a liberal democracy.

To give one example, being poor not only means a lack of financial resources, it also means a lower social status. The consequence is that in liberal democracies, due to your low social status, and lack of resources in general, you probably will be overlooked when decisions are taken. What it boils down to is that socio-economic contingencies have repercussions for individuals' ability to enter the democratic process. Thus, in today's liberal democracies, having the right to vote does not necessarily imply that you have a say in democratic decisions.

Dwelling a bit further on this issue, we could argue that the notion of political equality, embodied by the right to vote, fails to deliver equal access to democratic processes due to existing socio-economic structures. The major flaw in liberal democratic theory is that it separates the political realm from the social and economic realms. It fails to grasp that socio-economic characteristics determine the way in which individuals are represented in the political sphere. The outcome of this particular blind spot in liberal democratic theory is that only a few individuals within a democratic society are able to fully participate in decision-making. In turn, what we are witnessing and experiencing nowadays is liberal democracy representing a political system that is being run by small elitist parts within society, who treat the desires, aspirations and ideals of 'the people' with utter contempt. The practice of liberal democracy can best be described as 'rule of the people by some people'. It is cynical to observe that the real threat to democracy is not so much the 'tyranny of the majority', a (legitimate) fear that has informed a whole body of democratic theory. Instead, it is the tyranny of the minority which threatens to debase the whole idea(l) of democracy.

In summary, what has gone awfully wrong with liberal forms of democracy is that it excels at sidelining people, leaving them out of the democratic equation. Participating in 'democratic' decision-making is an exclusive and elitist enterprise in liberal democracies. This means that we cannot speak of popular control in the case of liberal democracies. If we take popular control to be at the heart of any form of democracy we cannot but conclude that liberal democracy is not democratic. The events surrounding the US 2000 elections support this harsh claim. Although more people voted for Gore than Bush, this did not prevent Bush from taking power. Bush forced himself into office by exploiting and manipulating democracy. The people could only watch, effectively sidelined due to the curious workings of American democracy. What good is it then to be politically equal, what good is it then to vote and what good is liberal democracy then?

Where It Went Wrong

I already posited that democracy is an open end question that asks us to work out the ideal of power by the people. Crucial to our understanding of the flaws inherent in liberal democracies is to investigate who answers the question of democracy. My central argument is that the question of democracy is not being answered by 'the people'. Instead, the question of democracy has been hijacked by small elites within Western societies. As a result, their answer -liberal democracy- reflects the interests, ideals and values of small but powerful Western elites. I will briefly elaborate on this as it is crucial for our understanding of liberal democracy.

It is hard to define the exact moment and place when the question of democracy was hijacked by Western elites. However, I think in a very broad sense that the moment when Reagan, Thatcher and the elites they represented, came to power, the ideal of democracy was in trouble. It is during that particular era that the so-called neo-liberal project finally gained decisive momentum and was able to penetrate Western societies.

For the purpose of this essay, we need to understand that at the heart of the neo-liberal agenda was a (successful) attempt to separate 'politics' from 'economics'. The promotion of free market economics demanded the eradication of every possible barrier that could potentially hinder the free flow of capital and trade and thus wealth-accumulation by the elites. The economic sphere represents for neo-liberals, in its most basic form, an area where the elites can become richer at the expense of 'the people'. Yet, if 'rule by the people' would be applied to the economic sphere, the neo-liberal project would be in jeopardy, assuming that most of us are not willing to exploit oneself for the benefit and enrichment of neo-liberal elites. Thus, the market, which so brilliantly serves the interests of 'the few', had to be insulated from 'the many'.

Due to their exclusive access to sites of power and decision-making, and hence discourse, neo-liberal elites found themselves in a privileged position to answer the question of democracy. The subsequent result is that democracy has been reinvented in such a way that it serves the interests of neo-liberal elites. In other words, liberal democracy has become a neo-liberal instrument that separates the many from the few, the haves from the have-nots, the elites from the people. Liberal democracy appears to take heed to the notion of political equality but its preoccupation with economic rights, which exist to serve neo-liberal interests, infringes on political rights. More to the point, liberal democracy is constructed in such a way that when democracy meets the market, the market always wins, which goes at the expense of 'the many' who have to bear the brunt of the dehumanising and devastating consequences of neo-liberal policies. To make things even worse, neo-liberals get away with it because they can hide behind the façade of liberal democracy.

'Iraq'

We must admit that neo-liberals have done a splendid job for themselves. Neo-liberal elites have answered the question of democracy in such a way that it perfectly serves their interests while keeping the people in check. Liberal democracies make the people powerless, rendering this distorted political system a cynical answer to the question of democracy.

The hegemonic status of liberal democracy seems to support the observation that we have not been very successful in wrenching the question of democracy from the hands of neo-liberals. At the very least it points out to the fact that we are facing a very powerful adversary, which is not easily brought down. We have to realise that neo-liberals have crafted a very comfortable position for themselves. From their stronghold they are able to claim in a 'Thatcher-ite' manner that 'There Is No Alternative' to liberal democracy. The ongoing universalisation of liberal democracy only seems to confirm neo-liberal hegemony.

Given the firm grip by neo-liberals on the discourse on democracy, the reinvention of a better and more just form of democracy may seem like a daunting prospect. Yet, I believe that 'Iraq' presents us with a tremendous opportunity to derail the neo-liberal project. 'Iraq' has exposed the real face hiding behind the mask of democracy. 'Iraq' made it clear that 'democratically' (s)elected leaders can go to war, distort the truth and deceive the people without being held accountable for their perversion of democracy. 'Iraq' made it clear that political leaders in liberal democracies can deliberately overrule the will of the people.

Both Italy and Spain represent cases in point were large numbers among domestic constituencies were opposed to the war, yet the opinion of the majority did not square with the private agendas of both Berlusconi, Aznar and the elites they represent. 'Iraq' affirms that when liberal democracy enters the front door, neo-liberal monsters such as Halliburton and Bechtel sneak in through the back door. Above all, 'Iraq' proved to be, in terms of democracy, one of the most painful moments for those of us that believe in the ideal of democracy. Millions of people around the world, united in a truly impressive movement, could not prevent the war on Iraq. In essence, the 'many' could not abort the distasteful enterprise that was about to be carried out by the 'few'.

In the case of Iraq, it seems that 'the people' lost and the neo-liberals won. Yet, I feel that at the same time 'we, the people' have won. We have gained the insight that liberal democracy caricatures the notion of power by the people. We are beginning to understand that liberal democracy is the handmaiden of neo-liberals. We won because we finally realised that we can vote but do not have an adequate say in decisions that affect our lives. Neo-liberals lost big time because 'Iraq' unmasked liberal democracy as an empty shell. Neo-liberals lost because we start to understand their sleight of hand tricks. Neo-liberals lost because they can no longer hide behind democracy.

Answering the Question of Democracy

Yet, acquiring a better understanding of the mechanisms at work behind the façade of liberal democracies should not be a cause for self-congratulating behaviour. We have to keep in mind that the real battle to be won is about who answers the question of democracy. Discarding the neo-liberal answer by exposing the shortcomings and moral deficit of liberal democracy merely should serve as the starting point for the reinvention of democracy. But what should a possible answer to the question of democracy look like? How should we interpret the ideal of 'power by the people' and how do we translate such an interpretation into a democratic reality on the ground? These are very challenging questions without straightforward answers. However, I venture the thought that at the very least there are some tentative suggestions to be made, which could guide us whilst answering the question of democracy.

The first thing to do is to ask ourselves what we would like democracy to be. My answer to that question is rather simple; we should aspire to give each individual the opportunity to have a say in decisions that could have an impact on her life. I believe that this answer should serve as the guiding principle for the reinvention of democracy. The apparent simplicity of the principle I put forward is rather deceptive. Once we start applying it to the present world, it becomes clear that this is a principle that has radical implications for the ways we construct the social world.

To begin with, the principle remains vague about what democracy should look like. The principle asserts that everyone should have a say in relevant decisions but leaves open the question how to create such a reality. It allows us to explore and experience various democratic practices and it does not seek to offer us a blue-print of democracy. My answer to the question of democracy is radical because it recognises diversity, in opposition to liberal democracy which embodies a one-size-fits-all approach to democracy. The form of democracy I embrace allows for democratic practices that take context-specific localities into account. Where neo-liberals try to globalise the concept of liberal democracy, I conceptualise democracy as a process that constantly mediates between the local and the global. As such, democracy allows for a plurality of opinions, beliefs, ideals, norms, values and thus ultimately a plurality of voices. It renders democracy a deliberative pro-active practice, explicitly questioning the passive practice of voting in liberal democracies.

My answer to the question of democracy is radical because it denies the exclusionary practices of liberal democracies. Whereas in liberal democracies categories such as race, gender, class or religion define who is to effectively take part in decision-taking, new forms of democracy should seek to include/exclude individuals by granting them a say in decisions affecting their lives, instead of resorting to exclusion on the base of socio-economic characteristics. Reframing principles of inclusion and exclusion implicitly challenges borders of any kind. It means for instance that if we apply this principle to democracy in the US, the Iraqi mother whose child has been killed by US soldiers, should have a say in US democratic decision-making.

After all, here life has been affected as a consequence of decisions in which she could not led her voice heard. The fore-going example also suggests that democracy is not exclusively tied to the nation-state. It subsequently throws up the question where democracy actually belongs. I posit that if decisions are taking everywhere, thus not exclusively at state level, and we agree that those decisions should be taken conform the principle I formulated, then the conclusion should be that democracy is omnipresent. In other words, we need to democratise our social world, which spans across local, regional and global dimensions and involves diverse entities such as agencies, organisations, states and transnational communities. Put simply, wherever there are self-governing associations, we should find democratic practices.

Although far from an inclusive overview of the implications that derive from my answer to democracy, I hope that it has become clear that reinventing democracy will not lead to a single answer and thus a dominant form of democracy. However, what binds new practices of democracy together is that they reject the neo-liberal version of democracy. Instead of a vehicle for profit making, democracy needs to be reframed as a vehicle for social justice. Having a say in decisions that affect your life is right and crucially helps to attain the ideal of societies that take social justice as their moral objective.

The last part of this paper represents a rather theoretical approach to the question of democracy. Yet, at the closing stage of this paper, I feel the need to stress the crucial importance of experiments in new forms of democracy that at the moment are taking place in several parts of the world. To address the question of democracy ultimately forces us to come up with an answer that is grounded in reality. The people can only acquire a taste for new forms of democracy by experiencing them. Challenging the neo-liberal approach to the question of democracy critically depends on the presence of successful showcases of alternative forms of democracy. Current events in Brazil with regard to President Lula and his PT show that we face an uphill struggle to reinvent democracy. However, 'Iraq' has opened many eyes all over the world as it has exposed the perversities of neo-liberals and their answer to the question of democracy. We need to capitalise on this whilst reinventing democracy and use the momentum to save democracy from neo-liberals.

Let us frame the 21st century as the century where democracy has been brought back to the people!

---

If you found this piece useful, please keep us alive by making a donation to our second anniversary fund drive .

Steven Schoofs, 24, is a Belgian student living in The Netherlands, completing an MA degree at Wageningen University, Netherlands. He can be reached at Steven.Schoofs@wur.nl.