Everyone pays lip service to democracy. It has become a “status” word and anything which can attach itself to the word thereby attains status. Surely what the Russian Premier means when he alludes to a “democracy” is a far cry from what the President of the United States has in mind when he uses the same phrase. Each may sincerely believe that his is the only “true faith” and that his concept of democracy is the only valid one. Even within our own national culture there are many meanings of the word. Hence a definition of some length and detail is necessary.
The Term “Democracy”
The Greek root Demos, the people, is combined with the word Kratos, authority, to imply that all authority stems from the people. Under such a definition of democracy all who must abide by rules, regulations, and controls are entitled to a voice in their creation.
Democracy, then, is the means by which individuals are able to determine what they may ultimately expect in the way of freedom without impinging upon the rights of others. The degree of democracy achieved is not measured by the degree of such freedom to act, but by the extent to which those whose acts are thus abridged possess the authority to do the abridging.
It is right and proper that we should return to the founding fathers for the origins of our own democracy. Too frequently this means we believe that they presented it to us complete, with power steering and brakes, automatic turn signals, and electronic headlight dimmers. Not so. Our present concept of democracy is a product of many years of evolutionary growth. As a matter of fact it probably would horrify most of the founding fathers.
In general, these creators of our political system were obsessed with the idea of personal and political liberty and were not at all interested in democracy. Many of them were monarchists, or at least oligarchists and our nation developed along those lines until the direction was changed by the one man who did have an abiding faith in democracy, Thomas Jefferson.
Jefferson recognized the evolving nature of democracy, the necessity for an ever broadening base, and the importance of universal education. He believed in the perfectibility of man. But let us permit him to speak for himself; few have said these things better:
To better appreciate the expanding concept of democracy it is worthwhile to examine the context in which the founding fathers spoke when they referred to “the people” or to “the electorate.” We have become accustomed to thinking of the beginnings of our democracy in the New England town meeting, or in the deliberative bodies of the various colonies. We seldom remember that these groups were made up of “the people” only as they were freemen as opposed to slaves, only if they were not indentured or apprenticed, only if they could read and write, and only if they owned real property. Most of all, no recognition as citizens was accorded women!
Even Jefferson, with all his insight, idealism, and faith in the future, was unable to project his ideas nearly so far as we have come. He did not believe that man would ever become truly responsible in his behavior unless he owned property. When he made the Louisiana Purchase this was uppermost in his mind, for he foresaw a vast nation of small landholders. Even his advanced thinking failed to visualize the day when ownership of an automobile or of common stocks would serve the same purpose. He surely did not envisage the possibility that vested rights such as pension security or collective bargaining would do the same thing.
We have discussed chiefly the political aspects of democracy, since the origins of the term are in our political past. As democracy has grown and expanded it has become more and more apparent that this concept invades every aspect of our lives, not only in our political thinking but in the way we carry out all our joint ventures.
Free men everywhere work hard to maintain their common institutions: their churches, schools, businesses, and governments. Many of the most important activities relevant to solving common problems take place at the community level – often by means of the social structure which we call the formal democratic group. The essence of democracy may be observed in these groups – small entities composed of people who interact in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. It is a part of the American dream that by the devotion of time and energy the group can solve problems and satisfy needs with which the solitary individual could not hope to cope.
This penchant of the American people was first documented in the early 1800’s when Alexis de Tocqueville, that astute observer of American life, wrote:
A citizen may conceive of some need which is not being met. What does he do? He goes across the street and discusses it with his neighbor. Then what happens? A committee comes into existence, and then the committee begins functioning on behalf of their need, and you won’t believe this, but it’s true . . . all of this is done without reference to any bureaucrat. All of this is done by the private citizens on their own initiative.’
If then, we have somehow approached the true meaning of democracy, and if it is best implemented by the formal democratic group, then how may this group be described?
It is the voluntary association of a group of equals into an entity capable of action – and recognized as such by both members and nonmembers. Further, it is a social structure within which the members partake of a pattern of interaction based on the premise that each individual has both the right and the responsibility to contribute to its tasks.
Such a definition, by its nature very broad, only begins to describe the formal democratic group. Usually such an organization has a name; often there is a constitution and set of bylaws. Elected officers are the general rule, regularly scheduled meetings are held, and a wide variety of activities are carried out. There are literally thousands of such groups and many examples come readily to mind.