Occupy Wall Street: democracy or farce?

The WS protests have spread to a thousand cities (that’s a lot of unhappy people). Select unions have joined them; the media has taken up coverage. The 99% campaign is visual and personal, which tends to draw support. Over $4,000 has been raised on Kickstarter to fund their “paper”.

Today in Cairo the military/police drove armored vehicles into the protesting mobs and started shooting. Domestically, we hear that our WS protestors are defecating on police cars and dancing topless. Both sets of protestors want jobs and a voice in government. Or maybe not.

No one seems to have articulated what the protestors want. What do they want? You can’t be both against corporations and pro jobs (look at how well that worked in the USSR). Being anti-Wall Street is great…I joke we should just shut all of the banks (stop using credit or debit cards, checks, pay back your mortgage or other loans now, etc.).

And, then there are the analogies to kids with no adults in charge.

But isn’t that the point exactly? Where is the leadership? And I don’t just mean in the protesting parks around our fine country I mean in all of those cushy elected ofices in our capitals. Why are people in our country having to mass together to finally be heard…even without a leader or a message?

And to be clear, most of our “leaders” hire experts who craft and write their messages. They practice delivery and talk to reporters to expand their audience. So these protestors haven’t found that charismatic leader yet…they will. I just hope they chose wisely.

I’ve been writing the sequel to my thriller, Captive. The first book addressed a terrorist plot. The second one heads to the streets of Cairo and New York and into revolution, riots and a call for democracy. So to me, these Wall Street protests are very interesting. What I’ve learned about revolution is: it often starts small, creates turmoil, which is then exploited by a savvy and ruthless group to seize control of the momentum and take political power. Not to sound paranoid….

To quote Steve Jobs, a great leader: “It isn’t the consumers’ job to know what they want.” Is it the protestors? While we may not be sure what they want we do know that it’s different from what they have. And they aren’t turning to elected leaders to drive change but are rather joining together to complain. To state the obvious - it’s easier to be heard in numbers.

With any mob comes a group think element. Much like going to a rock concert being a part of a communal event is fun. But so are a lot of other things. Voter turnout in elections can go below 10% for local ones, and rarely gets to 50% even in a presidential election. Are we seeing an increase in activism as it becomes local and personal? Are people more willing to get involved, sacrificing other activities, when they can work together for change (hope versus a rote task)?

I’ve been reading Tocqueville’s book, Democracy in America. It should be required reading for all in our “democracy”. He makes an interesting point, that any wise ruler will shift the social order periodically to lower those in power and empower those lacking to secure his own job. Basically, no other group is able to mass enough power to challenge the ruler.

Is that what’s really happening here?

I really don’t know; but when I don’t know my rule is to go back to what I do know. So here’s my best shot.

People in this country are starved for an inspirational leader that is willing to make tough choices and improve the lives of the most not a few. What steps that leader should take are highly contested.

A leader will fill that void. If he/she doesn’t self select an organized political group will find someone.

Equity is a subjective term.

To the WS protestors, find someone who can write and come up with a mission statement. No political change will come about without a practical platform that people can support. If you want something be specific and articulate what steps will get you there. Personally, I find that if I tell people exactly what I want them to do – they might say yes or no – but at least I get an outcome. “Help,” means little to nothing.

As Lewis Carroll says, if you don’t know where you’re going any road will get you there.

We really need to pay attention to the social messages in our country. Look at the turmoil in the Arab world and let’s hope we don’t end up there. Revolution is losing control; it isn’t like democratic and orderly change…but rather too easily devolves into chaos and a despotic government (only way to control the out-of-control people). Our demographics are risky: too many educated young are unemployed and have time to congregate in parks. Dangerous. Unnecessary.

Class warfare, the us against them mentality and attack rhetoric are all political tools. Don’t just believe what you think you hear…do the research. Our country is a great and blessed one so let’s pull it together and not tear it apart.

In our democracy people shouldn’t have to protest in over 1,000 cities to be heard. I’ll continue to write on this topic (and am writing a book on it) and am glad to be in America where the related news stories aren’t about torture, imprisonment without charges and death.

One more way in which our system – democracy – works? We’ll see

Is Democracy the Best Religion

Is democracy the best religion: exportable and broadly workable in today’s diverse and divisive world? As practiced in the United States democracy is a representative form of government – with the majority deciding on their representatives. It is less the classic ancient Greek implementation – which went directly to the public for policy and decisions. Armed by the media, we are led to believe that democracy works for all countries. But where in modern history has democracy worked? In Haiti, Somalia, Iran and Zimbabwe? In such countries, democracy is synonymous with anarchy – run by an elected tyrant.

President Mubarak just chose to step down from his Egyptian post (nudged) and the military has taken over. They are reevaluating the country’s constitution. Events are too new for us to know whether the protestors’ cries were really accepted and a true democracy will be allowed to reign. Northern Africa and select middle-eastern countries have similarly been facing cries for freedom from long subjugated masses.
Not so long ago, Iran – nominally a democracy - had mass demonstrations – matched by bullets - against a (most likely) rigged election. Honduras ousted its elected president – Manuel Zelaya – who, taking lessons from Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, was using elected power to change the country’s Constitution on his behalf (and was arrested based upon a warrant from the country’s Supreme Court). The American government supports Zelaya – though we don’t support his advisor, Chavez (also elected). We’ve long supported Mubarak and other like regimes in the region. With such examples, can we say that democracy has proven its workability outside of Western-oriented, economically developed countries?

Indeed, the list of recent successful (not nominal) democracies is small, and includes: Chile, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Korea, Portugal, Spain and South Africa. What sets these countries apart from those that are democracies in name but not in practice? After all, in 1900 only 10 countries were democracies. That number reached 30 by mid-20th century then didn’t grow for 25 years. By 2005, 119 of the world’s 190 countries considered themselves democracies. So what defines a “true” democracy?

True democracy requires certain factors including: a strong rule of law; property rights; a broad based, effective educational system; a well developed middle class; separation of church and state; a system of checks and balances; fair elections; stable transitions to democracy; a multi-party system; freedoms of the press and speech; and incentives for the wealthy to create jobs and retain their capital domestically. Of these factors, a few typically precede the others. A strong rule of law and – somewhat related – property rights are non-negotiable foundations for true democracy.

Surprisingly, modern true democracies often follow disciplined dictatorships that established such basic rights. An enforceable code of laws creates certainty, fairness, recourse and a basis upon which to make long term planning assumptions. Property rights – and registration of property –protect the rich and support a functioning infrastructure: encouraging the wealthy to retain capital domestically and invest these assets in creating new jobs and industries. Collectively, these rights also provide the poor with stepping stones out of poverty by giving them an asset base to leverage and use as a foundation for building businesses. Capital is what powers a market economy – which then creates a solid middle class.

But establishing such a system can be rocky. In Chile the media still treats lauds Allende (democratic – elected by a minority) and demonizes Pinochet (dictator). Yet under Allende Chile had anarchy and a disrespect of law. The newly empowered masses showed no respect for contract or property rights and the economy spiraled downwards. Chile hadn’t built the necessary base to support a new democracy. Pinochet restored the rule of law, repaired the economy and brought back the middle class. His advisors included free market disciples such as Milton Friedman and the University of Chicago school of thought. True democracy followed; built on the framework Pinochet established using his dictatorial power.

Russia wasn’t prepared for democracy after communism and its rule of law was both weak and selectively enforced. It became a country of mobsters – with the former communist leaders being the mafia bosses. Putin – elected – was a dictator who restored order. Have the changes necessary to establish a true democracy been implimented? Thus far, the signs aren’t promising – in part because the rule of law is still being exercised as a political tool.

Zimbabwe took property rights away from the rich (white) farmers leading to starvation and ultimately chaos. The wealthy fled the country, taking their money and farming expertise. Foreign capital followed them. Today the country is in anarchy.

In contrast, in Peru Hernando De Soto Polar advised (elected) Presidents Fujimori and Garcia – to reform the property system which stabilized the economy and the currency. This upward mob of newly empowered (and better educated) used their newfound capital to increase production and expand the country’s collective wealth and prosperity. DeSoto has since gone on to advise numerous other “fledgling” democracies in helping create the strong middle class and accessible capital necessary for building a true democracy.

Can a true democracy flourish if hindered by religious, ethnic or other inconsistent ideologies? No democracy controlled by religious zealots has yet succeeded. Imams in a mosque aren’t competent rulers. Ultimately, they are taught to honor a holy book and not the realities of modern geopolitics. Dissenters face religious decrees and damnation.

Indeed, ethnic tensions, language differences and religious conflicts greatly complicate the implementation of democracy – the elected majority uses its power against the minority groups. Many countries have used the cover of democracy (or other forms of majority rule) to descend into anarchy, to limit the rights of minorities and to cover up – and perpetuate - war crimes. Yet, the United States – itself the greatest melting pot that ever existed – has shown that people will work together regardless of their differences – in a democracy.

Each political system has proven that the leaders and how they govern profoundly affects its eventual success. Yet no other system outside true democracy gives the people a strong voice and a real chance at long term prosperity. The Internet has “democratized” communication bringing a broad meeting of the masses – making democracy perhaps more relevant today than it has ever been. And, recent events have demonstrated, the people will speak up for their rights when elected leaders try to deprive them of true democracy. To quote Winston Churchill, “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.”