Mediaboss Marketing

Posted March 17, 2017 15:44:37

Many people think that democracy is the right system in terms of being fairer and delivering the best outcomes for people, but does it actually make us happier?

Dr Matthew Beard, an ethicist and moral philosopher from the Ethics Centre, has looked closely at the issue by correlating three indexes on happiness, wellbeing and democracy.

Dr Beard used the Economists Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index report, published in 2016, which ranked different nations based on how democratic they were.

The index scored each country based on their electoral process, how well the government functioned, the level of political participation, political culture, and people's civil liberties.

Dr Beard said that nine of the countries in the Economists report which scored in the top 10 on level of democratic values, also scored well on levels of wellbeing (as defined by the OECD) and levels of happiness (as defined by the World Happiness report).

"So you've got these nine countries sitting really, really high up across three fairly influential studies," he said.

And yes, Australia was one of those nine countries.

"But we bounce up and down depending on which one," Dr Beard said.

Australia came in tenth in terms of democracy, second in quality of life, ninth in terms of happiness.

"So overall if you were comparing places where you could have been born, Australia would be right up there," he said.

Dr Beard said while more research was needed, it seemed that society played a large role in a person's ability to achieve happiness in life.

And he said there was an aggregation of particular nations who scored high in all of the different measures, which suggested that a person's ability to live a happy life was beyond their own control, and was largely influenced by where they were born.

"And that's something a lot of people have been calling attention to for a while, but just looking at the numbers here suggests that it's something that we can't put to the back of our minds."

Dr Beard said while on an individual level he would lean towards the saying "money makes it easier to be happy", when applied more widely it did not quite match up.

"When I looked at the relationship between wellbeing, happiness and democracy, I thought, well, the obvious thing to look at here is, it actually any of these things or is it just that all these nations are really wealthy?"

Dr Beard examined the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of the top-scoring countries, in terms of both raw GDP and GDP per capita.

"Some of the countries feature. So Canada features in democracy, happiness, quality of life and is in the top 10 for GDP," he said.

"Norway, Denmark and Iceland are all quite high in GDP per capita. But a lot of the other countries don't feature."

Australia appears in the top 10 list of democracy, happiness and quality of life is Australia but it is nowhere to be seen in the top 10 GDP list.

And then there is China, which scores high in terms of GDP, but does not feature in the top 10 of democracy, happiness or quality of life.

"So there is less correlation between wellbeing and GDP, between happiness and GDP, between democracy and GDP," Dr Beard said.

"So it might not be the case that money makes us happy."

Dr Beard said last year, for the first time, the Economist demoted the United States from a full democracy to what it called a "flawed democracy".

That meant it fell from 8.05 in 2015 to 7.98 in 2016, not a huge drop but enough to slip just below the 8.00 threshold ascribed to a "full democracy".

He said this was due to the Economist finding enough evidence to question the way the election transpired.

"Not just in terms of Trump or Trump voters or Clinton or Clinton voters but also in terms of some of the allegations about foreign governments involved in that election," Dr Beard said.

"That meant that they weren't as confident to the extent the US were holding on to some of those democratic ideals."

He said in terms of the rise of populism as seen in Europe and the United States the world could not look to any political system as the "silver bullet", and assume that as long as a country was democratic everything would be better.

"Historically we've seen a lot of times when we've tried to introduce democracy into a nation and think that that will fix the problem, and it hasn't," he said.

"Because political societies are complicated and the way you structure them is really important, but it's never going to be a single-factor solution to some of these problems around happiness, ethics and wellbeing."

Topics: happiness, emotions, community-and-society, government-and-politics, globalisation---economy, business-economics-and-finance, australia

Read more here:
Democracy: How important is it to our happiness? - ABC Online

You think the 2016 election season was rough? In the ancient city of Tlaxcallan, located in what is now modern day Mexico, archaeologists have discovered signs of an early democracy where potential rulers first had to serve as warriors, and then were subjected to a trial of punches and kicks (while naked) in a public city square. But that wasn't all, Science writes:

After this trial ended, the candidate would enter the temple on the edge of the plaza and stay for up to two years, while priests drilled him in Tlaxcallan's moral and legal code. He would be starved, beaten with spiked whips when he fell asleep, and required to cut himself in bloodletting rituals. But when he walked out of the temple, he would be more than a warrior: He would be a member of Tlaxcallan's senate, one of the 100 or so men who made the city's most important military and economic decisions. [Science]

For many years, archaeologists believed ancient democratic societies were exclusive to Europe, but Tlaxcallan, built around A.D. 1250, shows signs that it was a collective civilization where rulers were made, not born. The city's governors lived in modest homes rather than palaces and distinguishing the wealthy from the poor based on goods alone is difficult due to relative income equality among the residents. "This is like Superman's Bizarro World," said archaeologist Lane Fargher. "Everything is the inverse of what you expect for Mesoamerica."

While most other ancient cities in the region had great kings and massive pyramids, palaces, and plazas, Tlaxcallan was assembled without a clear hierarchy or central meeting place. Plazas, for example, were scattered throughout the city, and Fargher believes the rulers would meet in a grand building less than a mile outside of town, indicating a dispersal of power.

"Democracy isn't a one-shot deal that happened one time," Purdue University archaeologist Richard Blanton explained. "It comes and goes, and it's very difficult to sustain." Read more about how archaeologists are learning to recognize the signs of early democracies and the possibility that there were other collective societies in ancient Mesoamerica at Science. Jeva Lange

Excerpt from:
Archaeologists discover an ancient democracy in the Americas - The Week Magazine

Democracies die behind closed doors.

Those were the words of federal judge Damon Keith about secret deportation hearings after the 9/11 attacks. Judges Keiths eloquent phrase could also be applied to thousands of back room government meetings in town halls, courthouses and statehouses across this country.

Many candidates preach transparency on the campaign trail, but fail to practice it in office. The issue can expose a canyon between a politicians words and actions.

Some local boards develop a bad habit of gathering as quorums outside their chambers. City commissioners in my town headed for a main street saloon after adjourning. Those sessions lasted longer than their actual meetings.

Our county board had a similar routine. On meeting day, commissioners took a lunch break together. It would be nave to believe county business did not come up at the caf, or city business was not rehashed in the downtown bar.

Local officials are often criticized when caught breaking laws against secret meetings. Meanwhile, elected officials at the state level roam free to do the same thing.

In bright red South Dakota, Republicans make up 85 percent of the State Legislature. GOP lawmakers meet privately in committee quorums, scripting kill or pass strategy for bills before public testimony is even heard. Legal? Yes. Right? No.

Consider the citizens who drive across the state to testify at those committee hearings. Their time and words are wasted when votes are mere rubber stamps of pre-negotiated deals. It is a less than transparent system.

After the committee hearings, South Dakotas Republican legislators hold large closed caucus meetings before the afternoon floor session is gaveled to order. As with the earlier pre-meeting meetings, these top-secret gatherings amount to giant executive sessions on the state level because the super majority caucus has a clear quorum.

Some say its harmless for a quorum of Republicans lawmakers to caucus secretly. We say its a case of too many elephants in the room.

The closed caucus is a place to get those elephants in a row away from public view. Its a place where decisions are made about teacher pay and taxing food and Medicaid expansion. Its a place where Democrats and Independents are excluded from meaningful dialogue about issues important to people of all political labels. Its a place where citizens cannot monitor public policy debates and those who seek to influence them.

Shouldnt people buying the sausage get to see it made? They have a right to watch the Legislatures machinery grinding in all its rust and dust and glory. Let them observe the logic, reasoning, horse-trading and arm-twisting that propels all those ayes and nays on the House and Senate floors. Open caucus doors to media and the public!

Those who say private meetings are more productive and efficient do not give citizens enough credit. Officials should have faith that people smart enough to elect them are also wise enough to judge their deliberations.

Meanwhile, legislators pass state laws requiring local boards to conduct the publics business in public. Hypocrisy anyone?

Wheels of change turn slowly in local government, but some progress has been made. More city and county officials strive to follow open meeting rules. Commissioners in our town no longer meet after meetings for cold beer or hot beef sandwiches. Slow open government beats no open government.

Meetings at the statehouse level are a different story. The addiction to secrecy grows stronger as a majority grows larger. The party in power assumes election success is a license for top-secret business as usual.

Democrats are just as prone to secrecy. One party rule by either party is not conducive to open government. It eliminates checks and balances. Genuine transparency is poisoned.

In most states, there are no laws against a statehouse majoritys secret meetings. But there could be and should be. State lawmakers tell local officials, Do as we say, not as we do. They should be saying, Do as we say and we will, too.

Because democracy dies behind closed doors.

(Brian Hunhoff is a South Dakota journalist who has written extensively about open and closed government. His defense of First Amendment principles was recognized with the Freedom of Information award from the National Newspaper Association. He is contributing editor for the Yankton County Observer.)

See the original post:
Democracy dies behind closed doors - The Montgomery Herald

To the editor:

Public education should not just be limited to preparing students to attain a good job but more importantly a well-rounded quality of life. A lot of that quality of life can be worsened or bettered by the health of democracy. Currently, our democracy is in distress.

It is time that we realize that our public schools must prioritize the teaching of civic education. By civic education I mean that students should be able to graduate from high school with a comprehensive understanding of how to navigate their democracy. This civic education must go beyond informing students that they can call their representatives when they dont agree with a policy. It should give students the tools to have a critical and productive conversation with their fellow citizens, to organize to bring forward effective change, to engage in their local communities and to take into consideration the equal voice among all people.

It should also present students with an encompassing view of American history so that we can learn from past successes and mistakes and apply them to the future. We cannot turn away from of our history no matter how ugly some of the details may be.

Showing students, even at a young age, that elected officials work for them and that they can exert pressure on those officials is vital to a civic revival. In comparison with STEM courses (science, technology, engineering, mathematics), the teaching of social studies, civics, and the arts is positioned by school systems as being less important.

Our political discourse is trash. Not only does it reek in the heat of campaigns, but within the halls of government and in interviews presented to us in the media. Now, lies are spewed, science and fact are ignored, and events are made up out of thin air. The fourth estate is being attacked as fake and deemed worthless. This is not a partisan issue. This is an issue where we must be able to look past the labels of liberal and conservative. I urge you to call your state representatives and senators regarding Bill SD954/HD2189 that is waiting to be heard in committee at the Statehouse. If passed it would provide Massachusetts youth with a student-centered civic education.

While better civic education programs wont solve all of our problems, it can instill people at a young age with the skills, tools, and will to create a healthier democracy. Civic education may just be the spark we need inreclaiming that power.

Matthew Mogavero

Peabody

View post:
Letter: Better education, better democracy - The Salem News

The political alternative to public divisions is to fix elections or perhaps censor one side, to create an illusion of unity, like those polls where the dictator scores 98 per cent. That would be as anti-democratic as the mock democracy of continually calling for another referendum when you dont like the result of the last one.

Historically speaking, bigger and wider divisions in modern political life have emerged as a product of mass democracy. It was as representative democracy spread that political parties formed to represent different competing interests in a necessarily divided body politic.

For example, Americas Founding Fathers originally envisaged a US republic without political parties or factions, united in one common national interest. George Washington thought party politics agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms, kindles the animosity of one part against another. Thomas Jefferson declared that if I could not go to heaven but with a party, I would not go there at all. This outlook reflected their strictly limited original vision of how democratic America should be, with voting rights restricted to a minority of property-owning males who could agree where their mutual interests lay.

However, as the republics political life began and voting rights spread, political divisions and factions quickly took shape. By 1793 Jefferson the anti-party man had resigned from Washingtons cabinet to lead the opposition and form the Democratic-Republican Party, via which he won the highly divisive presidential election of 1800 in a battle against the authoritarian Alien and Sedition Acts. America the anti-party republic thus became the first to have national political parties competing for power at the ballot box. As US democracy expanded and deepened, in other words, so did political division.

Of course, our supposedly anti-division politicians understand that a political divide is inevitable. What they really seem to object to is raising the wrong kind of division. Such as, the gaping divide between the political and cultural elites on one hand and the deplorables, the revolting proles, on the other, as highlighted by reactions to the Brexit referendum and the election of Donald Trump.

Today, societys divisions are most often presented in terms of identity or demographics rather than ideas and outlooks. So the EU referendum result has been endlessly analysed as a product of a generational divide or an educational divide in UK society, rather than a moral/political divide over values. And divisions over everything from free speech to immigration tend to be seen in terms of intersectionality, disputes between minorities and identity groups.

Such divisions then become seen as fixed and immovable, often leading to exchanges of identity-based abuse and competitive offence-taking rather than engaged, opinionated debate. The solution is not to try to wish divisions away in empty calls for unity, but to draw different dividing lines in the debate.

What we need for a proper democratic divide is a political choice the thing that ultimately makes democracy worth voting for. Democracy has to mean more than a pencil cross in an empty box. It must involve making a choice about the sort of society we want to see, and taking responsibility for that decision. Such meaningful choices are sadly lacking in a culture where leading Western political parties have become mere election machines rather than popular movements, offering different brands of managerialism rather than distinct ideologies or outlooks.

But dont despair. The current heated issues provide the opportunity to start drawing new dividing lines and not along the traditional left-right divide. The first line we need to stand on is the division between the supporters and the new enemies of democracy, the most pressing issue of our times.

Divided we must stand in defence of democracy. Down with the internecine identity wars, bring on the divisive politics of choice.

Mick Hume is spikeds editor-at-large. His new book, Revolting! How the Establishment is Undermining Democracy and what theyre afraid of, is published by William Collins. Buy it here.

For permission to republish spiked articles, please contact Viv Regan.

View original post here:
Divided we stand in defence of democracy - Spiked