A Christian Apologist once said to me...
"The French and Russian revolutions began with nascent democratic institutions. So did our American Revolution."
This seems to me to demonstrates a basic misunderstanding not only of history but democracy. So here is an Introduction to Democracy for Evangelical Christians
1 Introduction
Before a society can begin to call itself democratic, it has to have a system of government by the whole population, typically through elected representatives. The representatives should obviously represent the population. In a democracy, the people have the opportunity to control their leaders and to "oust them without the need for a revolution." This can be considered to be a nascent democracy. Even if the entire population has a vote, there is a long way to go to full democracy. For example - who are the candidates that the people can vote for? How easy is it to vote? How accurate is the counting, how easy is it to stand for election, how fair is the process, and so on.
1.1 Basic Principles of Democracy
Democracy evolves over time from the nascent situation described above to become more and more sophisticated and beneficial. Some basic principles are:
- Democracies guard against all-powerful central governments and decentralize government to regional and local levels, understanding that all levels of government must be as accessible and responsive to the people as possible.
- Democracies understand that one of their prime functions is to protect such basic human rights as freedom of speech and religion; the right to equal protection under law; and the opportunity to organize and participate fully in the political, economic, and cultural life of society.
- Democracies conduct regular free and fair elections open to citizens of voting age.
- Citizens in a democracy have not only rights, but also the responsibility to participate in the political system that, in turn, protects their rights and freedoms.
- Democratic societies are committed to the values of tolerance, cooperation, and compromise. In the words of Mahatma Gandhi, "Intolerance is itself a form of violence and an obstacle to the growth of a true democratic spirit."
1.2 The 60 Indicators of Democracy
It's easy to assume that once a society has enabled its population to vote, it is a democracy. That's just the first step - it could be called a "nascent democracy". There's a lot more than that required to become a full democracy, as shown here... The 60 Indicators of Democracy
2 Revolutionary France, Russia and America as examples of democracy
The situations in 18th/19th Century France, Russia and America have been suggested as examples of "nascent democracy" during a religious debate, but they are obviously not. A worker's council, in a single city, or an assembly with extremely limited membership, do not qualify as examples of democracy. A system that provides a vote for a limited section of society is not a democracy. France became a "nascent democracy" in 1945. Russia became a "nascent democracy" in the mid 1990s, and is still a "nascent democracy" (assuming that elections are fair - which is debatable). America became a nascent democracy in 1931 but it can be argued that didn't happen until the segregation laws were abolished in the 1960s.
Previous discussions on the revolutions in France, Russia and America can be found here
Explaining the French Revolution to Christian Apologists
Explaining the Russian Revolution to Religious Apologists
Explaining the American Revolution to Religious Apologists
Explaining the French Revolution to Christian Apologists
Explaining the Russian Revolution to Religious Apologists
Explaining the American Revolution to Religious Apologists
3 The Evolution of Democracy
Totalitarianism (religious or otherwise) is being naturally superseded by democracy over time. This is a natural evolution. The development of human society leads to democracy.however, it is not a linear processes - it happens in fits and starts, but the long term trend is an observable fact. Democracy cannot be "forced" to happen (such attempts are usually a disaster). It has to evolve. Once it gains traction it improves all aspects of life: education, life expectancy, economics and political structures especially the participation of the masses in decision making. History shows this usually requires authority to be taken away from religion and
given to the people (or rather taken by the people) and it is often a bloody process.
The long-term trend toward democracy has always come in surges and declines. At the start of the twentieth century, only a handful of democracies existed, and even they fell short of being full democracies by today's standards. There was a major increase in the number of democracies following World War I, another surge following World War II, and a third surge at the end of the Cold War. Each of these surges was followed by a decline, although the number of democracies never fell back to the original base line. By the start of the twenty-first century, about 90 states could be considered democratic.
3.1 Status of Democracy in 2015
Almost one-half of the world’s countries can be considered to be democracies, but, in our index,
the number of “full democracies” is low, at only 20 countries; 59 countries are rated as “ awed
democracies”. Of the remaining 88 countries in our index, 51 are “authoritarian” and 37 are
considered to be “hybrid regimes”. As could be expected, the developed OECD countries dominate
among “full democracies”; there are two Asian countries, one Latin American country (Uruguay)
and one African country (Mauritius), which suggests that level of development is not a binding
constraint, but is a constraint, nevertheless. Slightly less than one-half (48.4%) of the world’s
population lives in a democracy of some sort, although only 8.9% reside in “full democracies”.
Around 2.6bn people, more than one-third of the world’s population, still live under authoritarian
rule (with a large share being, of course, in China).
“Flawed democracies” are concentrated in Latin America, eastern Europe and Asia. Eastern
Europe does not have a single “full democracy”, as some of the region’s most politically developed
nations, such as Hungary, Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovenia, have suffered bouts of political
instability and popular support for democracy is surprisingly low. Despite progress in Latin American
democratisation in recent decades, many countries in the region have fragile democracies. Levels of
political participation are generally low and democratic cultures are weak. Asia has been catching up
with Latin America and eastern Europe when it comes to the number of “ awed democracies” (and
has overtaken eastern Europe in terms of its average regional score), adding three more to give it a total of 13 in 2015, compared with 15 in both Latin America and eastern Europe. “Authoritarian
regimes” are concentrated in Africa, the Middle East and the CIS countries of eastern Europe.
There was no change in the average global score in 2015, which remained at 5.55 (on a scale of 0
to 10). However, four countries fell out of the “full democracy” category (Costa Rica, France, Japan,
South Korea) in 2015, bringing the total number of full democracies down to 20 from 24 in 2014.
A total of 61 countries recorded an improvement in their score compared with 2014; 56 recorded a deterioration and 50 retained the same score as in the previous year. Three regions experienced a regression: eastern Europe, the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) and North America—as signs ed by a decline in their regional average score, with MENA recording the biggest decline. Four
regions—Asia & Australasia, Sub-Saharan Africa (SSA), Latin America, and western Europe—recorded
an improvement in their average score, although in the case of the last two, the improvement in the average score compared with 2014 was negligible (0.01), indicating continued stagnation of
democracy in these regions.
Important recent developments include:
Since 2008, US democracy has been adversely affected by the increasing polarisation of the political scene and political brinkmanship; the popular mood has soured and faith in political institutions and elites has collapsed. The popularity of presidential contenders Donald Trump (Republican) and Bernie Sanders (Democrat) illustrates the mood of popular disaffection with the status quo.
Popular confidence in political institutions and parties continues to decline in many developed countries. Poor economic performance, weak political leadership and the growing gap between traditional political parties and the electorate have spurred the growth of alternative populist movements in Europe. Discontent with democracy in Europe was expressed in 2015 in the form of growing support for populist parties, which pose an increasing challenge to the established political order, as was illustrated by election results in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
In eastern Europe, where democracy was restored only relatively recently, in 1990-91, there is a mood of deep popular disappointment with democracy, and the former communist bloc has recorded the most dramatic regression of any region during the decade since we launched the Democracy Index, as measured by its average score compared with 2006. As 2015 drew to a close, a further signi cant challenge to democratic standards was developing in Poland, following the election of a new, socially conservative government.
With the exception of Tunisia, the Arab Spring has given way to a wave of reaction and a descent into violent chaos; the ascendancy of the extreme jihadist Islamic State (IS) and other radical Islamist groups in MENA has been permitted by the political vacuum left behind by the demise of Arab nationalism, the failure of other political forces and the collapse of nation states over the past
two decades.
Japanese democracy faced challenges in 2015 and a decline in its score has resulted in its falling
into the “ awed democracy” category. South Korea, too, has joined the list of “ awed democracies”. By contrast, relatively free and fair elections in Myanmar, after 50 years of military rule, resulted in its move from “authoritarian regime” to “hybrid regime”.
In China, the tension generated by rising popular support for the concept of democratic government—which resulted in a modest improvement in the country’s score and an eight-position rise in the global rankings, to joint 136th place—and the authoritarian practices of the ruling communist party is increasing.
In 2015 a popular backlash against corruption gathered pace in Latin America—where rampant crime, violence and drug-trafficking, as well as corruption, have had a corrosive impact on democracy—leading to investigations and arrests at the highest levels of government and business in countries such as Brazil and Guatemala.
In SSA, Nigeria experienced in 2015 its rst democratic change of power, and Madagascar and Burkina Faso also made progress. However, the score for 18 countries declined in 2015 and, despite an improvement in the average regional score, the average ranking of countries in SSA fell by seven places, suggesting that it is falling behind other regions.
Since 2008, US democracy has been adversely affected by the increasing polarisation of the political scene and political brinkmanship; the popular mood has soured and faith in political institutions and elites has collapsed. The popularity of presidential contenders Donald Trump (Republican) and Bernie Sanders (Democrat) illustrates the mood of popular disaffection with the status quo.
Popular confidence in political institutions and parties continues to decline in many developed countries. Poor economic performance, weak political leadership and the growing gap between traditional political parties and the electorate have spurred the growth of alternative populist movements in Europe. Discontent with democracy in Europe was expressed in 2015 in the form of growing support for populist parties, which pose an increasing challenge to the established political order, as was illustrated by election results in Greece, Portugal and Spain.
In eastern Europe, where democracy was restored only relatively recently, in 1990-91, there is a mood of deep popular disappointment with democracy, and the former communist bloc has recorded the most dramatic regression of any region during the decade since we launched the Democracy Index, as measured by its average score compared with 2006. As 2015 drew to a close, a further signi cant challenge to democratic standards was developing in Poland, following the election of a new, socially conservative government.
With the exception of Tunisia, the Arab Spring has given way to a wave of reaction and a descent into violent chaos; the ascendancy of the extreme jihadist Islamic State (IS) and other radical Islamist groups in MENA has been permitted by the political vacuum left behind by the demise of Arab nationalism, the failure of other political forces and the collapse of nation states over the past
two decades.
Japanese democracy faced challenges in 2015 and a decline in its score has resulted in its falling
into the “ awed democracy” category. South Korea, too, has joined the list of “ awed democracies”. By contrast, relatively free and fair elections in Myanmar, after 50 years of military rule, resulted in its move from “authoritarian regime” to “hybrid regime”.
In China, the tension generated by rising popular support for the concept of democratic government—which resulted in a modest improvement in the country’s score and an eight-position rise in the global rankings, to joint 136th place—and the authoritarian practices of the ruling communist party is increasing.
In 2015 a popular backlash against corruption gathered pace in Latin America—where rampant crime, violence and drug-trafficking, as well as corruption, have had a corrosive impact on democracy—leading to investigations and arrests at the highest levels of government and business in countries such as Brazil and Guatemala.
In SSA, Nigeria experienced in 2015 its rst democratic change of power, and Madagascar and Burkina Faso also made progress. However, the score for 18 countries declined in 2015 and, despite an improvement in the average regional score, the average ranking of countries in SSA fell by seven places, suggesting that it is falling behind other regions.
See here for more detail… http://www.viet-studies.info/kinhte/how_development_leads_to_democracy.htm
3.2 A Poetic Interlude
The Mask of Anarchy is a poem written in 1819 by Percy Bysshe Shelley following the Peterloo Massacre and is an impressive argument for nonviolent resistance. It was published posthumously in 1832. And what does this have to do with democracy? The Peterloo Massacre was a turning point for democracy in England at a time where fewer than 2% of the population had the right to vote, hunger was widespread and bread unaffordable. 60,000 people protested peacefully, 18 were killed and 700 seriously injured. It was a turning point because it changed public opinion on the right to vote and was therefore the start of democracy as we know it in the UK today. The poem highlights that the freedoms of the people in England at that time were an illusion. Freedom, says the poet, is reaping the benefits of your own labour, not being oppressed by Lords and Kings.
"Ye are many - they are few"
Read the poem here
4 Secularism
Democracy and secularism go hand in hand. Secularism is a principle that involves two basic propositions.
a) Strict separation of the state from religious institutions
b) People of different religions and beliefs are equal before the law.
4.1 Separation of religion from state
The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures that religious groups don't interfere in affairs of state, and makes sure the state doesn't interfere in religious affairs.
4.2 Secularism protects both believers and non-believers
Secularism seeks to ensure and protect freedom of religious belief and practice for all citizens. Secularism is not about curtailing religious freedoms; it is about ensuring that the freedoms of thought and conscience apply equally to all believers and non-believers alike.
4.3 Religious Freedom
Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge disproportionately on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.
4.4 Secularism is about democracy and fairness
In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else.
Secularism champions human rights above discriminatory religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.
4.5 Secularism is not atheism
Atheism is a lack of belief in gods. Secularism simply provides a framework for a democratic society. Atheists have an obvious interest in supporting secularism, but secularism itself does not seek to challenge the tenets of any particular religion or belief, neither does it seek to impose atheism on anyone. Secularism is simply a framework for ensuring equality throughout society – in politics, education, the law and elsewhere, for believers and non-believers alike.
4.6 Secularism protects free speech and expression
Religious people have the right to express their beliefs publicly but so do those who oppose or question those beliefs. Religious beliefs, ideas and organisations must not enjoy privileged protection from the right to freedom of expression. In a democracy, all ideas and beliefs must be open to discussion. Individuals have rights, ideas do not.
"Secularism is the best chance we have to create a society in which people of all religions or none can live together fairly and peacefully."
4.7 Atheistic Societies vs Theistic Societies
A common claim by Christian Apologists is that atheistic societies are brutal, or unsuccessful, etc. and therefore illustrate that Christianity is good and atheism is bad and therefore God exists. The problem here is how do we define an "atheistic society"? If we assume an atheistic society is one where the population are coerced to believe that God does not exist by those in authority, then we can define a theistic society as one where the population are coerced to believe that God does exist by those in authority. History shows that both of these versions of society can only exist as authoritarian dictatorships, and therefore both are as bad as each other.
What Christian Apologists often forget, or gloss over, or are unaware of, are the atrocities committed in the name of their religion, when their religion held authoritarian power.
The powers that be in any authoritarian society will often refer to high ideals, (political or religious) but actions speak louder than words. What history shows is that the fairest and most successful societies are secular democracies. Anti-theists will blame religion for atrocities, but in my opinion it deserves neither blame nor credit. The blame lies with the dictators, whether they are theists or atheists.
Also see Section 2.
4.8 Wolves and sheep
In the 1990s the LA Times published the opinion of Martin Simkins that "Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99% vote." A Christian Apologist is very fond of regurgitating this analogy (although I'm not sure why). This is an example of how he phrases it...
"Democracy per se could just as easily be two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for lunch."
Anyone who has to rely on a fairy tale situation to argue an aspect of reality is already on shaky ground. But more importantly, it is virtually impossible to discuss democracy sensibly with someone who fails to recognise the most fundamental and basic requirement of democracy, which is representation of the entire population. The "wolves and sheep" argument is a disanalogy for many reasons but the key point is that in reality, sheep outnumber wolves and so in a democracy, it's the sheep who form the majority. A society where the wolves are making the decisions cannot be a democracy, by definition.
Those who swallow Simkins' argument without thinking it through not only demonstrate an ignorance of reality (why not use a real example/ instead of a cartoon?) They also fail to comprehend a deeper truth regarding prey and predators: The prey will always outnumber the predators and the reason for this is obvious (isn't it?)
4.9 The "Threat of Sharia Law" argument
A Christian Apologist, in common with most right wing conservatives, suggests that if secular democracies welcome Muslim immigrants, then eventually those democracies will be overrun by Islamic Values (whatever they are) and subject to Sharia Law. This ignores the obvious fact that no country ever democratically decided to implement Sharia Law. Sharia Law is implemented by unelected authoritarian regimes, in the same way that the Christian Church implemented their violent version of the law in Europe the middle ages.
The ordinary Muslims seeking asylum in the West didn't vote for Sharia Law in their own countries (no one did) so there's no reason to think they'd vote for it if they lived in the West. Secular democracy tames their religion just as it tames all religions.
5 - Democracy vs Irreligion - is there a correlation?
Based on a report from “The Economist Intelligence Unit” plus...
This table lists the top 12 most democratic countries
Countries listed according to Ranking in Democracy League Table
The countries with the most highly rated democracies have a majority of the population who are not religious.
#
|
Country
|
non-religious
|
1
|
Norway
|
78%
|
2
|
Sweden
|
88%
|
3
|
Iceland
|
60%
|
4
|
Denmark
|
83%
|
5
|
New Zealand
|
67%
|
6
|
Australia
|
67%
|
7
|
Switzerland
|
57%
|
8
|
Canada
|
61%
|
9
|
Finland
|
69%
|
10
|
Netherlands
|
65%
|
11
|
Luxembourg
|
64%
|
12
|
Austria
|
51%
|
Countries ranked by percentage non-religious
The majority of the top 20 most non-religious countries are also in the list of top 20 democracies. Notable exceptions are China, Hong Kong and Cuba.
#
|
Country
|
non-religious
|
Democracy Ranking
|
Regime Category
|
1
|
Sweden
|
88%
|
2
|
Full democracy
|
2
|
Denmark
|
83%
|
4
|
Full democracy
|
3
|
China
|
82%
|
142
|
Authoritarian
|
4
|
Estonia
|
78%
|
34
|
Flawed democracy
|
5
|
Norway
|
78%
|
1
|
Full democracy
|
6
|
United Kingdom
|
76%
|
16
|
Full democracy
|
7
|
France
|
74%
|
28
|
Flawed democracy
|
8
|
Hong Kong
|
74%
|
63
|
Flawed democracy
|
9
|
Czech Republic
|
72%
|
17
|
Full democracy
|
10
|
Japan
|
71%
|
23
|
Full democracy
|
11
|
Finland
|
69%
|
9
|
Full democracy
|
12
|
Belgium
|
68%
|
24
|
Full democracy
|
13
|
Australia
|
67%
|
6
|
Full democracy
|
14
|
New Zealand
|
67%
|
5
|
Full democracy
|
15
|
Netherlands
|
65%
|
10
|
Full democracy
|
16
|
Cuba
|
64%
|
127
|
Authoritarian
|
17
|
Luxembourg
|
64%
|
11
|
Full democracy
|
18
|
Uruguay
|
64%
|
18
|
Full democracy
|
19
|
64%
|
167
|
Authoritarian
|
|
20
|
Germany
|
62%
|
14
|
Full democracy
|
Top 20 most religious countries and their Democracy Ranking
The majority of the world's most religious countries are also at the bottom of the democracy league table. Notable exceptions are Indonesia and Thailand .
Country
|
Democratic Ranking
|
Central African Republic
|
157
|
Comoros
|
127
|
Indonesia
|
53
|
Malawi
|
75
|
Sierra Leone
|
104
|
Yemen
|
140
|
Burundi
|
125
|
Ecuador
|
87
|
Guinea
|
146
|
Kuwait
|
119
|
Mauritania
|
110
|
Niger
|
111
|
Nigeria
|
120
|
Sri Lanka
|
89
|
Thailand
|
58
|
Afghanistan
|
152
|
Cambodia
|
100
|
Djibouti
|
147
|
Kenya
|
104
|
Laos
|
156
|
No comments:
Post a Comment