19 | Democracy or Democrazy?

Context: The following text is a reflection based on experiences made during a five-day workshop at the Technical University Berlin, called "Democratizing Sustainability". The learning in this course happened through high engagement and interaction between the participants. Nobody has ever learnt cooking from reading or memorizing recipies. People learn cooking through cooking. That is the key  pedagogical appraoch in this course. (Further details in the footnotes.) 

Relevance: The democratization of humanitarian aid and development work has become increasingly relevant for donors, policymakers, and implementing institutions. There seems to be a collective understanding of what that entails. At the same time, it is by no means obvious what the goal of this endeavour might be, or whether it is even desirable.

The five days in Berlin with this group of people was one of the most thought-provoking and challenging times I have ever experienced. I had a few questions before the workshop. I found not a single answer to any of them. Instead, I discovered more questions. The following paragraphs will each raise a question, including some context of why the question emerged. 

Is democracy voluntary? The first group task, to discuss the distribution of speaking time led to a questionable scenario. Those who talked, talked about those who didn’t talk. Which raised the question whether participating in a democratic process is obligatory. Not speaking inevitably leads to the acceptance of the status quo, which is a silent conformity to the norm. Neutral action, therefore, is an illusion. Not acting/speaking is not neutral but can be described as “diffuse resentment” to change the status quo. If participation in democracy is obligatory, what are the consequences of “non-participation”? Can a potential compulsory participation in democracy violate a potential freedom to remain silent? Especially contrasted with the widely discussed freedom of speech, do people have the freedom of “non-speech”?

Do we need rules? If yes, how many? Some rules, especially cultural norms, are inevitable. They often are implicit, which makes them more difficult to be perceived as rules. Some cultural norms may be needed to act as a guiding framework for humans to navigate social space (What is acceptable to say? What is considered polite/offensive? Etc.) In the context of our small circle of people, sitting in a room in Berlin, the following question arose: Does a person need to raise their hand before talking? A more general way of asking this question would be: What rules do we need to function as a group and make valuable decisions, which enable us to act. At first sight, it seems reasonable to have a rule for “who talks when”. However, change (to the status-quo) becomes increasingly difficult, with the number of (implicit and explicit) rules in a group. Not following a rule to encourage change is likely to be viewed as “rebellion”. Possibly against rebellion against democracy as such.

Is democracy the wisdom of crowds or collective insanity? The term “democracy”, suggests an idea along the lines of “governed by the people”. The question about raising hands before talking was answered through a majority vote. But who said “the people” will make the best decisions? Rick Gervais asks in one of his stand-up shows, “do you know how fucking stupid the average person is?”. As part of a joke he suggests to take “do not drink”-labels off all bleach bottles for two years, “and then have a referendum” (ibid). A majority decision seems to reflect the literal interpretation of the word democracy. Whether it is the best way to decide societal issues remains questionable.  

What makes a group? A recurring dilemma throughout the week was the interdependence between the individual and the group. All participants in the room were present as individuals, with their (individual) bodies, minds, and spirits. Simultaneously, all of us formed constantly changing groups. Sometimes this process seemed active and intentional, other times it appeared that groups emerged according to similar attributes of people. In groups, we influence one another, inevitably changing who we are as individuals. The question arises, whether we hold opinions and defend certain positions because we (as individuals do), or because we define who we and what we think are through group identity. Further, a group can be defined using a positive or negative statement. For example, “all people who are students” (positive) form a group. So do all remaining people; “all people who are not students” (negative). The extent of a group identity is often defined by its context. Whether a group is perceived as strong depends on how they present themselves. As individuals, we can assume that forming a group can be a helpful tool to raise an issue in society. Doing so, inevitably leads to a tension between the group identity and the position held by all individuals forming the group. There seem to be no lines between individual and group identity. 

What about the imperceptible? A group can only be formed and perceived if it makes itself know as a group. This seems rather obvious but becomes less clear in certain scenarios. For example, what about those individuals who reject being part of a group. Isn’t this situation the formation of a group itself? And what if people would like to become part of a group, of which they do not know of? In fact, there may be an infinite number of groups in any amount of people. It remains a matter of which groups manifest themselves as such. Many groups are formed according to similar held worldviews, ideas, interests, cultures, opinions, etc. Those are groups which are more likely to be seen, visualizing certain aspects of society. It often takes skills and resources to form a group, which can bring people in difficult situations. This scenario emerged several times during the week. It became most apparent during the example used earlier, where people who did not talk were represented by people who did. Do people with resources to form groups have an advantage over others who are potentially unable to establish groups? If yes, do we need advocates for “imperceptible groups”? And if yes, how could anyone ever represent a group that they are not part of themselves? 

Do groups have the right and/or responsibility to protect individuals? “Ihr hättet mich beschützen müssen! You should have protected me!“, said one of the participants, after he felt attacked by another course participant. The group that supposedly should have protected the attacked person, appeared stunned. Can a group protect its members? Can a group claim the right to protect its members? If yes, at what cost? In the example given above, the person even stated that the group was in a position of carrying the responsibility to protect. 

The topics raised above are only a selection of questions that emerged during the course. Strangely, I doubt that finding answers to those questions will help us in establishing “better democracies”. We hardly seem to understand what democracy really consists of, or how it ought to be. And going back to the field of humanitarian aid and development work: How great of an idea is it, trying to enforce a structure that is hardly understood by neither scientists, politicians, or the “fucking stupid average person”? 

Footnotes