Pol. Ideology 58: Democracy, Coercion and Civil Society

Democracy has many definitions and people can reveal their philosophical and ideological leaning based on how they define the word. The most common or even generic definition of democracy perhaps is “power by the people, for the people.” This connotes or implies that  the people have similar if not monolithic interests and goals in society, which very often is not the case.

Another common definition is that democracy is  “rule and will of the majority/people” in society and such majority rule should prevail over the minority. Critics of this definition call this as “mob rule” where the mob act in behalf of the majority, whether real or imaginary majority.

And still another definition is that democracy means “equal participation” by the people either through direct involvement or elected/representative democracy.

A lesser-known definition is that democracy means “respect and tolerance of minority opinions” so that such minority opinion can be heard and discussed without feat of persecution and harassment by the State or other armed groups.

One indicator if people hate democracy is that they want all things to be legislated and forcibly enforced nationwide. Or if a local legislation, those things should be forcibly enforced province-wide or city-wide. Choice is zero as things have been legislated already, with fines, penalties and even imprisonment for violation.

Most legislations and coercion are done to favor one sector and deny the same favor to other sectors as if they are not citizens or taxpayers of the same country. For example, if a new state college or university is created in one province, only students and faculty, officials of that new university will get taxpayers' subsidy while students, faculty, officials of private universities in the same province or big city do not get the same subsidy, as if they and their parents are non-taxpayers of the country.

Or when a legislation or Executive Order was made to subsidize MRT/LRT passengers in Metro Manila, passengers in Ilocos, Cagayan Valley, Bicol, Visayas, Mindanao are not given the same fare subsidy as if they are not taxpayers of the country. That is why legislation that favor one sector but exclude other sectors should be avoided whenever possible. Such practices are actually undemocratic as a big portion of the country's population are excluded from certain favoritism by the state.

Most majority decisions are done outside of government and legislation. For instance, if people want cheaper clothes, cheaper shoes, toys, food, etc., they do not go to the streets to rally and demand that government through DTI or LGUs or Congress should impose price control on clothes, shoes, toys, food, etc. of SM, Robinsons, Rustans, Ayala malls, etc. Instead, many people go to Divisoria, Baclaran, tiangge-tiangge, etc. where cheap goods and services are available with zero politics and government horse-trading involved.

My good Indian friend, Barun Mitra, is correct in saying that for government "democracy has to be minimal, so that it does not offend or alienate too many people."

This implies that the more vibrant the democracy is, the smaller the government should be, where smaller social actors (the smallest actor is the individual, not a clan or trade union, etc.) are supposed to be empowered at the expense of the government. 

Civil society or self-government can be considered as democratic governance. When a Rotary club or Lions club or Jaycees etc. conduct medical and dental mission and give away free healthcare, free medicines even for one day, it already has high impact on the people of a community that received such civil society action. More self-government means less institutional, taxpayers-funded government. They are all part of real democracy.

Barun wrote correctly, 

"Democracy is not about majority rule, but about recognition of and respect for minority opinions. So that the minority view of today, may enjoy the freedom to peacefully persuade others, and could become a majority opinion of tomorrow."

A friend asked, “Can a state be truly democratic? Or democracy exists as its tenacious opposition?”

I suggested that unhampered democracy can lead to socialism and totalitarianism. If the majority will decide that they should eat, have free or subsidized housing, etc. even if they donot work or work very little, then a law will be passed to reflect the will of the majority. Socialism and forced equality is the ultimate result, and since the middle class and upper class will resist, then totalitarianism and strong arm dictatorship will evolve.

The limit to democracy is rule of law. The law applies equally to unequal people. If people want to eat even if they do not work, then all other people should be allowed to not work also, the socialist government can collapse. It can stay afloat by endless borrowing, and/or selling its land and other resources so it will have money to feed people who do not want to work. That is one proof why socialism will never be successful, but many intellectuals and masa want socialism. They want to be the new dictators.

An unfettered or limitless democracy will ultimately result in socialism and totalitarianism and hence, a negation of democracy. Democracy tempered by rule of law -- the law against stealing and destruction of property, law against murder and harming other people, law against abduction and repression of individual liberty -- is ideal. Socialism and totalitarianism can never prosper in that condition.

Can unfettered democracy be the button of self-destruction to all types of states, or the button for further/endless expansion of states and governments? 

Notice that almost all democratic governments around the world, from N. America to Europe to Asia have an expanding public sector, not only at the national or federal level but also at the local (state, province, city, village/barangay) levels. Before, a lazy or irresponsible person will have no money, now he can get cash monthly from the government on top of free education for the kids, free healthcare. Before, it is relatively easy to put up a shop; now one needs to get dozens of permits and pay lots of taxes and fees to officially start a business.

To conclude, unlimited or unchecked democracy can lead to populism, welfarism and socialism. From books and education for the poor, medicines and healthcare for the poor, housing and relocation for the poor, tractors and credit for the poor, electric tricycles and MRT fare subsidy for the poor, cash transfer and condoms for the poor, all of which are existing and implemented, an iPad for the poor, 2nd-hand cars for the poor will not be far behind in the near future. All in the name of democracy, unfettered, populism and welfarism will expand.

-----------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 54: On the Multiple "Death" of Capitalism, March 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 55: Jules Maaten's Lecture on Liberalism, May 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 56: Democracy and the Devils, June 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 57: Radicalism, Islamic Militance and Terrorism, October 03, 2014

Hong Kong Democracy Vs. China Dictatorship, Part 3

An Indian friend, Barun Mitra, posted this interesting article from Live Mint, October 8, 2014. 

"Wang Zang is a Chinese poet who was taken into custody in Beijing on 1 October because he posted a photograph of himself holding an umbrella on the Internet. The umbrella has emerged as the unlikely icon of demonstrations in Hong Kong...

… each year on 4 June, when thousands of Hong Kong residents unfailingly congregate at Victoria Park and hold a candle-light vigil, remembering Tiananmen. China doesn’t like it but doesn’t do anything about it. This is partly due to that Basic Law, which is meant to protect Hong Kong’s character for 50 years....

Perhaps the unanticipated outcome of these demonstrations is gradual transformation in the way China’s leadership wields power. China reviled and insulted Hong Kong’s last British governor, Chris Patten, who said that the only way to deal with China is by treating it like any other country. If it glares angrily, stare back. China respects strength in its rivals, not acquiescent kowtowing. Patten had limited time in China, but he succeeded in broadening the political space. By staying firm on their demands, the demonstrators in Hong Kong are doing the same.

The outcome isn’t assured. Hong Kong might become another Chinese city. Many think it already is. Or China might become a bit more like Hong Kong. We do live in interesting times."

Beautiful analysis. Another Indian friend commented,

Why should Asians accept the Western religion of democracy? One place that has reduced wretchedness is not democratic India, but dictatorial China. And HK and Singapore are among the freest places in the world despite not being democratic.

I understand some ramblings against democracy, that majority rule can ultimately lead to majority dictatorship, the 50% + 1 of the population can wield dictatorship over the 49%+. I support some of those sentiments actually. I find this thesis on democracy by Barun as brilliant. He wrote,

Democracy is not about majority rule, but about recognition of and respect for minority opinions. So that the minority view of today, may enjoy the freedom to peacefully persuade others, and could become a majority opinion of tomorrow....  For democracy to survive in large communities and countries, where only representative democracy is possible and practical, democracy has to be minimal, so that it does not offend or alienate too many people. Secondly, as societies become complex, there is a need to recognise the challenges of centralised government, and devolve greater political authority and autonomy to lower tiers of government and local communities. Because only at such community level, with shared values, can there be a realistic prospect for widest consensus on such complex issues.

Right. As economies become more prosperous, people become  more impatient with dictatorship  and authoritarianism. Democracy is not be-all and end-all for them, but the freedom of expression available under democracy is a lot more preferable than the unfreedom and self-censorship of undemocratic but rich economies like HK and Singapore. The Singapore government is more flexible and more sophisticated in its political dictatorship than that in HK or China. But there are several signs of discontent looking for more sophisticated outlets there.

I emphasized"self-censorship" above and not "HK (government) censorship". For instance, can ordinary HK people rally in the streets and shout or have huge placards saying "Down with China Communist Party", the same way that Filipino activists can rally in the streets and shout "Down with President Aquino (and all previous administrations) and the Liberal Party"?

If the answer is No, then there is self-censorship.

The HK demonstrators, including friends at the Lion Rock Institute (LRI) reject the status quo, that all major political issues must get approval  from Beijing. There has been a slow but steady reduction of free market culture in HK under the status quo. Friends at LRI and Momentum 107 have protested the huge tax hike of real properties in HK that has been implemented several years ago. They did not support the creation of a new bureaucracy, the Fair Trade Commission, which I think has been created already. They did not support the enactment of minimum wage law in  HK.

HK under the status quo is following Beijing footsteps. The protesters want a break from Beijing, to get out of China Communist Party delegated dictatorship as much as possible. The status quo  is leading towards bigger government in HK. The Democracy movement, though not a monolithic ideological movement, has elements unsupportive of more, bigger HK government.

Good posting by LRI . Exec. Dir. Peter Wong last Sunday with a link to an article by The Economist, What’s gone wrong withdemocracy,

The rise of  China which threatens democracy is nonsense. However, "one reason why so many democratic experiments have failed recently is that they put too much emphasis on elections and too little on the other essential features of democracy. The power of the state needs to be checked, for instance, and individual rights such as freedom of speech and freedom to organise must be guaranteed. The most successful new democracies have all worked in large part because they avoided the temptation of majoritarianism—the notion that winning an election entitles the majority to do whatever it pleases."

Hong Kong (and many other countries or economies) needs more democracy than ever. Democracy is good, not bad or unhealthy, for Asia. Freedom of expression without the use and advocacy for violence and aggression is more needed now. When governments use more force and coercion, explicit or implicit, by police or court harassment to limit freedom of expression, that means governments are getting bigger and becoming more allergic to protecting individual rights and liberty.

------------

See  also:
Part 1, September 25, 2014
Hong Kong Democracy vs. China Dictatorship, Part 2, September 29, 2014
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
Lion Rock 13: LRI Position on the Hong Kong Protests, October 08, 2014

Pol. Ideology 56: Democracy and the Devils

A friend, Ms. M, posted this in her facebook wall. The images I just added, all taken from the web.

Demokrasya... government by the people, for the people. Ang nakararami ang mapagpasya.

de·moc·ra·cy [dih-mok-ruh-see]

noun, plural de·moc·ra·cies.

1. government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

2. a state having such a form of government: The United States and Canada are democracies.

3. a state of society characterized by formal equality of rights and privileges.

4. political or social equality; democratic spirit.

5. the common people of a community as distinguished from any privileged class; the common people with respect to their political power.

(http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy)

I commented that democracy can be dangerous in certain instances, like if the majority decides that they should eat even if they do not work, then that majority decision can become a law, and it should be implemented. One danger of majority rule.

On the other hand, many countries do not practice democracy. Their people do not understand what "representative democracy" is, they do not know what election is, because a monarchy or dictatorship has ruled them for 100 year, 200, even 400 years, like several countries in the Middle East and Africa. In such situation, people will be happy that they live in a democracy, with all its warts and impurities, including abuses and robbery.

Then my friend and I have a short scenario building:

Ms M: How would you like a benevolent dictatorship with me at the helm, Nonoy?

Nonoy: I prefer a small government by devils, than a BIG government by angels. So if you wish to do evil things as a dictator provided your sphere of intervention is small and limited, I go with you. 

Ms M: I'll run it mafia-style-- gov't as business enterprise, streamlined bureaucracy, centralized corruption, everyone's beak will be wet but zero tolerance for greed, zero tolerance for dissent, family is sacred, quid pro quo, etc. You still with me, Nonoy? LOL!

Nonoy: that architectural outline is BIG government, so not joining you, hehe. Your minions will allow you to make such grand design, then eliminate you later. they will take over the set up you designed.

A small government run by devils would be like this: No government schools and universities, no government hospitals, no government banks, no government farms or agri trading and credit agency, etc. Govt will simply be a regulator and referee of many private players competing with each other. The devil regulators will definitely pick winners (their friends, family members, etc.) but other devils from other agencies will also come in to ensure their friends will not be totally wiped out. There is balance of terror among devils, but government is never a player itself. The sphere of evil deed is limited and that is a good protection of the public.

Ms M: How will this government be funded?

Nonoy: there will still be taxes, consumption-based taxes (VAT, excise tax, transaction tax) but no income tax, personal and corporate. The devils in government will be limited to enforcing rule of law, go after devils in the private sector who steal, murder, abduct and rape other people. The government devils will have the upper hand over private sector devils. Even the poor will benefit from this arrangement. They can save and invest, acquire simple things like cows, tricycles, boats, modest house and lot, assured that the smaller devils among the populace is checked and terrorized by the bigger devils in government.

-----------

See also:

Pol. Ideology 52: What is the Main Purpose of Government?, October 29, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 53: Zero Government, Zero Taxes, Then What?, November 11, 2013 

Pol. Ideology 54: On the Multiple "Death" of Capitalism, March 11, 2014

Pol. Ideology 55: Jules Maaten's Lecture on Liberalism, May 11, 2014

Election 9: India's Political Dynasties vs. Democracy

India is the world's biggest democracy. People directly vote their representatives and local executives. And they are doing it now, in India's general elections 2014, happening in various phases from April 07 to May 12, 2014.

I like this article by a good friend, Barun Mitra, founder and Director of Liberty Institute (LI) in Delhi. Originally posted in LI website last April 09, and reposted in EFN Asia website last April 11. For brevity purposes, I removed certain details from the original article so that readers here can focus on Barun's general argument,

dynasties may exist in politics but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to (this). Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

Check the two links above to read the article in full. The photos I got from the web and not part of Barun's original article. Enjoy reading.

Diminishing electoral dividend for the political dynasties

Barun Mitra

Any discussion on dynastic politics in drawing rooms or in the media, usually degenerates in to a slanging match. One side tries to wrap itself in a democratic halo, and who see political dynasties as anathema in democratic polity. The other side aggressively argues that after all the dynasts do have to get democratically elected too and therefore legitimate.

Hardly any political party is immune from their own dynasties, small or big. The list of candidates related to political families in the 2014 election is a long one indeed.

But how do political dynasties stand out in terms of political performance? Do successive generations measure up to their famous ancestors? Why do some families make their mark on the political landscape, while others fail? Is there legitimate space in a democracy for favoured families? Are political dynasties an aberration in a democracy where at least at the time of the ballot, every citizen is truly seen as equal? Or does the focus on political dynasties diverts our attention from the truly equalising impact of a democracy?

The Nehru-Gandhi family is of course seen as the standard bearer of political dynasties in the democratic world. Since Independence in 1947, three members of the family has been elected as India's prime ministers, another son became notorious for wielding enormous extra constitutional power, without actually holding any elected office. A daughter in law came quite close to the ultimate political position, but political necessity ensured that she renounce office. And a son who seemed reluctant to join the race, and can't figure out either to get off the track, or take the plunge whole-heartedly.

This is the beaten track, travelled many times in the past. However, what seems to have been almost completely missed by the critics and supporters of political dynasties is that like in all other fields of life, there is a consistent diminishing returns for the dynasties in politics.

Motilal Nehru was the patriarch, and twice president of the Indian National Congress, during the British colonial rule. But it was his son Jawaharlal Nehru, a protégé of the original Gandhi, the Mohandas K Gandhi, who became India's first prime minister.

Nehru won three successive general elections and was in office from 1947 to 1964. Indira Gandhi, Nehru's daughter was selected for the post by a powerful section of the party bosses to be India's Prime Minister, following the untimely death of Lal Bahadur Shastri, in 1966. Indira was in office through the tumultuous days of the emergency rule, till 1977,when she became the first of the many prime ministers since to lose a general election. Although she led her party to another victory in 1980, and had yet another turbulent term in office, she was assassinated in 1984 by her own bodyguards.  Mrs Gandhi held the high office for about 15 years.

Rajiv Gandhi took office within a few days of his mother's tragic death in 1984, swept the elections a couple of months later, and won an unprecedented 3/4ths majority in Parliament. He came in with great hope, but in the later half of his term his government got embroiled in corruption scandals and political crisis, and lost the general election in 1989. Since then the Congress party has never been able to win a majority of seats in any general election. And no one from the Nehru-Gandhi family has been the prime minister in the past 25 years.

No one can say with certainty whether another one from the fabled family will become India's elected prime minister in the foreseeable future. This dynasty has clearly seen better days. Democracy has been a great leveller.

Not surprisingly, the other political families in India have not done any better. In fact, one would be hard pressed to find a political family whose star is on the ascendant.

Charan Singh, once a very powerful chief minister of Uttar Pradesh, went on to hold the prime minister's post for only a few months, and became the first PM who never faced the Lok Sabha….

In Maharashtra, the Shiv Sena had been led for decades by the fire brand Balasaheb Thackrey….

In the small but prosperous state of Punjab, one family, the Badals, has survived the past 3 decades. Following the decade long separatist violence in the state in the 1980s, the society started picking up the threads again in the early 1990s….

In the Himalayan state of Jammu & Kashmir, the family of Sheikh Abdullah has been the preeminent political family since the 1950s….

There are many lesser families, which have survived but experienced diminishing political status…There are countless other examples of offsprings trying to wear the mantle of their ancestors, and failing.

So far, the only exception to this diminishing political trajectory traversed by the dynasties, has perhaps been the Patnaik family in Orissa….

Political dynasties may get a head start, but ultimately they have to perform to meet voters' expectations, or perish.

While every political party has its own dynasties, preeminent or localised, equally every party has tried to leverage a split in the dynasties to undermine the family brand. The most famous schism is in the Nehru-Gandhi family, where the widow and son of Sanjay Gandhi, are today prominent members of the BJP…

There are many members of parliament who come from political families. But equally there are many others who try to enter politics on the back of their family connections, but fail to make a mark electorally. The numbers in the latter category would be far larger than the former category. Unfortunately, there is no register of documenting familial ties among those in politics.

But one thing is clear, dynasties may exist in politics, but democracy has the power to equalise the dynasts. The diminishing power of the political families in India bear testimony to the deep roots democracy has struck in the country.

Democracies have little to fear from political dynasties. As long as the elections are free and fair, it is the dynasts who need to fear political marginalisation or oblivion once the voters give their verdict.

---------

Other articles by Barun Mitra in this blog: 
Energy Econ 3: Market Reforms in India's Electricity Sector, July 30, 2012 
Lion Rock 11: Barun Mitra on Democracy, Reading Salon 2013, October 28, 2013 
EFN Asia 34: Rainer Adam and Economic Freedom in Asia, March 11, 2014

See also:

Election Watch 6: On Political Dynasty, May 11, 2013 
Election 7: My Candidates for Senators, May 12, 2013 

Election 8: Growth, Debt and the 2013 Polls, May 30, 2013  

EFN Asia 22: Dealing with Economic Nationalism, Jeju Forum, June 03, 2013 

EFN Asia 31. Friends in the Asian Free Market Movement, November 07, 2013

Lion Rock 8: On Opposition, Factions and James Madison

* This is my article yesterday in thelobbyist.biz.
-----------

When people are free, diversity and spontaneity among them is to be expected. Some will have very high ambition and would employ the most efficient ways to achieve things and accomplish more. Others will be less ambitious or less efficient and would settle for lesser economic and social accomplishment, in exchange for a less stressful, less complicated life. Social inequality is a natural result and it is not to be feared nor demonized by free people.

Certain sectors of society though would not look kindly at this situation and would device ways via government coercion to limit if not control such diversity and inequality in society. Political groups and factions are created and their size and influence will grow in direct proportion to the degree of coercion and intervention to be exercised by government.

Democracy and the philosophy of majority rule is supposed to address animosities among competing factions and political groups in society. How should it be done?

This question will be explored by participants of the Reading Club Salon 2013, in a round table discussion this coming October 19, 2013 in Hong Kong. The event is sponsored by the Lion Rock Institute, Hong Kong’s first and only free market think tank. I will be one of the foreign participants of that discussion.

Among the materials that participants must read are The Federalist Papers, essays promoting the ratification of the US Constitution and were published between 1787-1788.

James Madison, among the fathers of the US Constitution and also served as the 4^th US President  (1809-1817) wrote Federalist No. 10 (November 23, 1787), particularly on political factions. He said,  

… two methods of removing the causes of faction: the one, by destroying the liberty which is essential to its existence; the other, by giving to every citizen the same opinions, the same passions, and the same interests.

It could never be more truly said than of the first remedy, that it was worse than the disease. Liberty is to faction what air is to fire, an aliment without which it instantly expires. But it could not be less folly to abolish liberty, which is essential to political life, because it nourishes faction, than it would be to wish the annihilation of air, which is essential to animal life…

The diversity in the faculties of men, from which the rights of property originate, is not less an insuperable obstacle to a uniformity of interests. The protection of these faculties is the first object of government. From the protection of different and unequal faculties of acquiring property, the possession of different degrees and kinds of property immediately results; and from the influence of these on the sentiments and views of the respective proprietors, ensues a division of the society into different interests and parties.

This is true. Factions, diversity and inequality among people is natural and inevitable if society is free. Individual freedom allows people to choose their fate, to be lazy or hardworking, complacent or ambitious. So from such liberty, acquisition of private property (from cell phones to tv, cars, houses, shops and offices) is inevitable, and it is an important function of government to protect private property. Madison continued,

But the most common and durable source of factions has been the various and unequal distribution of property. Those who hold and those who are without property have ever formed distinct interests in society. Those who are creditors, and those who are debtors, fall under a like discrimination. A landed interest, a manufacturing interest, a mercantile interest, a moneyed interest, with many lesser interests, grow up of necessity in civilized nations, and divide them into different classes, actuated by different sentiments and views. The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government.

Again, this is true. Since inequality and diverging economic interests is inevitable, a minimum degree of regulation, not zero regulation, is necessary to protect the people's right to property and right to liberty, without resorting to violence and heavy coercion resulting in property expropriation.

My American academic friend who teaches part-time at UP Visayas, Bruce Hall, made this important clarification. He wrote,

Let me, the lecturer in history, put Madison's quote into context. To Madison and other 18th Century American political thinkers, factions were evil things. Factions, as opposed to interests, were permanent organizations of politicians who worked to increase their organizations power and wealth, bending the powers of the government to favor them. They were in short organized special interests, that continued issue across issue… This needs to be contrasted with different positions on a particular issue. There will always be multiple sides on any single issue. But those sides are not permanent. They do not continue once the issue is resolved. Nonoy and I might be opponents on Issue A but on Issue B we are allies. Factions are always opposed to each other, across the issues.

Americans were opposed to factions -- or special interests -- and this was an argument against creating a federal government out of the 13 original states. Those arguing against federalism and in favor of separate or nearly separate countries -- those arguing against centralization -- argued that a central federal government will be used by factions (special interests) to favor themselves over the public good. Madison argued in the Federalist paper, in favor of a federal state, in favor of more centralization, that factions exist in human nature. Freedom and human nature creates factions. They will exist regardless of what the political structure is.

Lion Rock 7: Reading Club Salon 2013, Hong Kong

The Lion Rock Institute (LRI), Hong Kong's first and only free market think tank, will hold its second annual round table discussion on some theoretical concepts, billed as "Reading Club Salon 2013". The first event, "Reading Club Salon 2012" was held in early November 2012, two days before the Economic Freedom Network (EFN) Asia conference which was held in another hotel in Hong Kong. I attended both events. Below, our group photo at the conclusion of the 1 1/2 days LRI event. 

The Reading Salon is unique because (1) there are no primary or resource speakers, every participant is a speaker, and (2) all participants have to read some or all the e-books and short articles in the reading list, before they attend the discussion. A moderator introduces the topics and relevant reading materials then asks the participants to share their ideas and observations on those materials, in relation to some practical experiences and policies.

Last year, the foreign participants came from China, India, Thailand and Philippines (me). The rest of the participants are from Hong Kong, both native and expats.

The theme last year was "Dealing with Populism" and our reading list included books by Ludwig von Mises, Friedrich Hayek, Eric Hoffer, Allan Salinsky, Mao Tse Tung, Tom Hayden, plus short articles or chapters of books.

This year, the theme will be Democracy -- Past, Present and Future. The announcement says,

Democracy does not mean populism. Majority does not mean truth. Standing where we are today, how do we view democracy with its legacy from the past, and projection into the future?
 

The Lion Rock Institute is proud to present our Annual Reading Club Salon 2013. In this event, we will investigate the topic of democracy through four sessions: 

I. Athenian Democracy v. Roman Republic
II. Federalism
III. Subsidiarity
IV. A Way Out for the World – Can Democracy Survive?

The reading materials will be sent to us soon. For me, democracy can be liberating, or enslaving if the will and biases of the majority is forced upon the minority even if such programs or policies can cause harm to the minority. Especially if we keep in mind that the smallest minority, the smallest political unit in society, is the individual, not a village or a clan or a corporation.

We then must focus on the liberating aspects of democracy, and that is by providing check mechanisms that will prevent the majority to unfairly impose their will on the minority that can result in physical or economic harm on the latter. Government is force and coercion, and government almost always wave the "will and interest of the majority" mantra in justifying the use of various coercion (regulations, prohibitions, penalties, imprisonment, taxation) in society.

I like these words from Friedrich Hayek in Chapter 7, "Majority Rule" of his book, The Constitution of Liberty (1960):

Advance consists in the few convincing the many. New views must appear somewhere before they can become majority views. There is no experience of society which is not first the experience of a few individuals... It is because we normally do not know who knows best that we leave the decision to a process we do not control. But it is always from a minority acting in ways different from what the majority would describe that the majority in the end learns to do better... The imposition of the will of the majority's coercive, monopolistic, and exclusive character destroys the self-correcting forces which bring it about in a free society that mistaken efforts will be abandoned and the successful ones prevail…. 

If opinion is to advance, the theorist who offers guidance must not regard himself as bound by majority opinion. The task of the political philosopher is different from that of the expert servant who carries out the will of the majority... he will often serve democracy best by opposing the will of the majority…. 

The individual has little reason to fear any general laws which the majority may pass, but he has much reason to fear the rulers it may put over him to implement its directions. It is not the power which democratic assemblies can effectively wield but the powers which they hand over to the administrators charged with the achievement of particular goals that constitute the danger to individual freedom today... The most enthusiastic supporters of such unlimited powers of the majority are often those very administrators who know best that, once such powers are assumed, it will be they and not the majority who will in fact exercise them…. 

Democracy will remain effective only so long as government in its coercive actions confines itself to tasks that can be carried out democratically... Though democracy is probably the best form of limited government, it becomes an absurdity if it turns into unlimited government. Those who profess that democracyis all-competent and support all that the majority wants at any given moment are working for its fall.

There. Democracy can lead to limited or unlimited government. Limited government means limited coercion, like limiting and controlling the "right" to kill, stab, shoot, abduct, steal of people against other people, especially by big, organized and armed individuals and groups. 

Unlimited government and coercion is wrong and evil. It means totalitarianism. Democracy guided by the rule of law must work to prevent this from happening.
------------

See also 
Lion Rock 2: Populism and Anti-Capitalism, LRI Forum, HK, October 05, 2012
Lion Rock 3: The New Poor, Free Poor and Eric Hoffer, October 30, 2012
Lion Rock 4: Leftism and Populism by Intellectuals, November 05, 2012 
Lion Rock 5: Free Will vs. Power Over Others, December 26, 2012 
Lion Rock 6: Honoring Milton Friedman, July 31, 2013