THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY. Steve Zolno

to be governed by consensus, members of tribes, states, and then nations were expected to follow the dictates of a ruler. Subjects often pushed back against oppression. Rarely, though, have truly democratic societies emerged as a direct result of revolution.

      The first known democratic state, according to most historians, was Athens around 460 BCE. After the ancient Greeks there were elements of democracy in a number of political entities, including Rome, that extended citizenship to conquered peoples. As we will see, there even was a degree of democracy among serfs in the Middle Ages. But the idea of democracy at the level of a nation wasn’t resurrected until the approach of the “Enlightenment,” beginning around 1700, when European writers began to question the absolute rule of monarchs. This laid the groundwork for both the American and French Revolutions by the end of the century.

Since that time democracy has been tried on all continents, at times with greater success than others. After its introduction in the United States it slowly spread to over 100 nations that considered themselves democratic. Types of democracy have been established around the world and many governments have democratic elements.² Democracy exists to varying degrees within many nations, but no system is exactly the same. The United States, for example, is considered a constitutional republic, Britain is a constitutional monarchy, while India is a parliamentary democracy.

      Just as there are no individuals or groups of people exactly alike – with the same values and beliefs – there is no one model for democracy. The only standard by which any truly democratic institution must operate is that it continues to move toward government that benefits the largest number of individuals possible.

      Voting is no guarantee of real democracy that assures the rights of all. Candidates, referendums, and propositions are limited to what is on the ballot, and in some countries voting options are preselected by those in power. Voting often leads to unforeseen results which fail to live up to promises or expectations. If voting results in the domination by some groups or individuals over others, the result no longer is democratic. Debates – where people line up on one side or another about issues or candidates – are not the same as real discussions about how to maintain democratic values.

      Democracy, along with opposition to it, is found throughout our world. Yet nations are made of people, and to understand the progress and challenges of nations we must have insight into the human beings who make them up. There have been attempts to provide this insight from the time democracy began. Plato, Aristotle, John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and James Madison are among those who have written about how human ideals and inclinations affect our interactions and contribute to the success or failure of political institutions.

      There is a common thread to the themes of these great thinkers: maintaining respect for the aspirations of the individual. For democracy to succeed there must be a commitment by those involved to creating and moving toward a common vision. And what is that vision? In democracy power resides in the people as a whole. This, of course, is more easily said than achieved. If democracy is government by the people it requires a faith among them that they can work together to pursue self-governance. The goal of a nation – or organization – that considers itself democratic must be that the rights of all participants are honored, with the possible exception of those who prove a danger to society itself.

      In these pages we will discuss how genuine democratic elements within a country are likely to lead to a better future for its people. We will explore the ways that real democracy – that which benefits the largest possible number of people – contributes to progress and growth. We will consider how quality human interactions – those in which all are respected – affect relationships and organizations, and what can be done to bring them into play. We will examine why the continuation of democracy is challenged everywhere it exists. And we will seek to understand how our views – and our actions based on them – move us closer to, or further from, a society that honors the rights of every individual.

       Cooperation Based on Trust

      There are specific ways by which our institutions and governments succeed or fail. Success depends on establishing and maintaining trust. Preserving trust must be an ongoing effort if human interactions are not to regress to inequality or tyranny. This requires a commitment to maintain respect for every individual. Only ongoing respectful communication can guarantee the trust needed for democratic interactions.

      Cooperation based on trust is the most important tenet of every successful human interaction. It allows us to establish long-term connections as we create ongoing, non-threatening relationships. The cooperative pursuit of goals in our homes, schools, communities, nations, and international institutions benefits us all.

Trust is the ‘glue’ that binds us. It allows us to identify and promote mutual self-interest. Trust encourages effective communication to take place both within, and between, nations.³

      The democratic process involves making agreements with others that all are expected to keep. By living in a democratic society we agree to follow laws that are made by elected representatives on our behalf. In well-functioning democracies we support each other in mutual self-interest; laws are made and enforced for the benefit of all. Trust is essential to maintaining agreements, even if it is a guarded trust, because it makes democratic interactions and governments possible. It encourages respect for human dignity and rights. It allows democracy to exist and – hopefully – to thrive.

      Every family, organization, community, city and nation is made up of people whose customs and laws reflect their views about how they should interact. Within the family, there usually is a degree of trust that results in an ability to live and work together. As we participate in organizations such as businesses or governments, successful interactions also rely on trust. Our faith in the governments that so greatly affect our lives is based on whether we can trust those who run them. But as our myths, history, and experience tell us, trust easily can be betrayed and turned to distrust.

       The Consequences of Distrust

      The openness and trust of our early years yields to more caution as we mature. As children, our parents or teachers used criticism to redirect us from ideas or behaviors they considered inappropriate. We also felt betrayed when others seem no longer worthy of our trust. Our world view changed as we internalized new values – based on what we were told and our experience – on our way to adulthood. Our values shaped our concepts of right and wrong and became our guides in determining who to trust and who not to trust.

      Our assumptions about people became reflected in trusting some and distrusting or avoiding others. We become convinced that some people are to be treated warily or with hostility, often for good reason. We learned to fear them as a threat to our mental or physical well-being.

      Our distrust often is based on an assumption that others are different from us. They have different backgrounds, different looks or a different outlook on life – creating a distance between “us” and “them.”

      Trust seems easy between allies who focus on a common enemy. But when rebellions overthrow tyranny, distrust often develops among those who replace the old order, sometimes with the same level of intensity once focused on the tyrant.

      In our daily interactions we feel either connected to – or disconnected from – those we encounter. We tend to trust some people and distrust others. We vacillate between modes of trust and distrust throughout our lives, which becomes expressed in our relationships and political institutions. We interact positively with some and confront or avoid those we mistrust.

      In both our personal and political lives we find ourselves aligned with those we believe are like us – or think like us – and separate from those who are different. We become certain about the correct views that people should hold to make the world a better place, and criticize those whose views we think could potentially destroy it. Our distrust for those who we think are different can become intense as we construct a mental wall between them and us. But that wall