Democracy, "free markets" and a "free press".

A month or so ago, I wrote a post about Economic Justice and it has caused some questions - but one of the main ones is about the relationship of economics to democracy.

Can you have democracy without a free press, or a free market?   What is a free press or a free market?  What is democracy,  anyway?

 Even if a consensus on precise definitions has proved elusive, most observers today would agree that, at a minimum, the fundamental features of a democracy include government based on majority rule and the consent of the governed, the existence of free and fair elections, the protection of minorities and respect for basic human rights. Democracy presupposes equality before the law, due process and political pluralism. Is reference to these basic features sufficient for a satisfactory concept of democracy?

That definition from the Economist's, Democracy Index, is,  I think,  OK with me.  Too often though there is conflation of the concept of democracy with unfettered markets.   In my view, the words free press and free market generally mean a society where one can purchase and invest without limitations,  in which one can purchase a press/media/access to an audience and run it unencumbered - these days even by promoting insurrection or an overthrow of the government, if you happen to be in a State that wants a non-American model. (Cuba and Venezuela and China come to mind, though obviously Cuba takes the worst of the criticism,  then Venezuela and then China,  even though Venezuela has free and independent elections and China has none.)  But, we do have a lot of trade with China (they make it, we buy it) and they are not expected to part with their "state" oil, whereas small South American countries are expected to make it available, cheaply to U.S. interests or they are "dictatorships" - like Venezuela which, in fact, has had free elections with int'l observers.



Most definitions seem to assume that a free press is just one which runs encumbered by the State and it's regulations - where the state does not regulate the press in any way.  But is this really a "free" press?  Those governments that have more planned economies, promote legislation to help the poor, and/or that do not have completely open "markets" where rich Americans (primarily) cannot just come in and take the resources and flee, or exploit the labour and flee, and who regulate the press, to try and educate people and resist the attempts of trans-national corporations and their lies  - can they have a "free" press?  How would we measure it?  Hopefully,  not by following the resistance to hate speech, and calling it a failure of free speech, as the so-called "International Free Press Society" does.

Too often I hear people talk about democracy related to "free markets".  Free markets generally means an unencumbered, even unregulated market - one where people are less important than profit; one where corporations have the same rights as people,  and where you have more "rights" when you have more money.  As soon as a society starts to regulate, to make society "fairer", more "just" -  at that point - corporations, and people with lots of money,  start crying foul because they cannot make a profit from your labour, or by exploiting our common resources, without paying a fee/royalties or taxes, or just being outright prevented from their aims.

There is a difference between democracy and a free market.  One can vote for leadership, at the neighbourhood, district, region, province/state or national level.  If the votes are fair and no one is banned from voting,  (there is total suffrage),  if the system is fair (probably a system of proportional representation) and if votes cannot be purchased either directly or through media buys, there is a level of human rights, and no oppression of minorities,  then one has a democracy, I think.   But if, as in the U.S., there is no control over who can fund, or how much one can fund a political campaign, and no regulation of what you can say once you buy the time to broadcast or deliver in print, then it becomes, in my analysis, less democratic.

Now, what about the so-called "free press" - what makes it free?  Is it access for all?  Is it a fair distribution of paper and the airways?   No - it is a so-called "free press" when it can be purchased and when you can say anything that you like with that purchased access to an audience.   Is it really a "free press" when it is only available to those with the money to purchase national media?  Again, my analysis would suggest that this is not in fact a "free press".  This is a press available to the highest bidder, or the one with cronies in the business, or who controls a large corporation that can make a media buy like the recent purchase of CTV by BCE Inc.

I simply cannot understand why universally, people are not constantly asking questions about this democracy, free press, free market set of false notions.   No one (well not on the TV news, or in the national/mainstream press) calls Saudi Arabia a dictatorship, or an authoritarian regime, or worries that it is undemocratic, no one sends me petitions to sign about the position of women in Saudi, no one talks about press censorship in Saudi or any of the related Arab states. . . (OK occasionally there is news that a Canadian or U.S. national is going to be "put to death" or "flogged' for some  - by our standards - insignificant crime, but this tends to be short lived) Why?  Because although they are extreme and undemocratic - they have "free markets", and a press friendly to a capitalist economic system, unfettered markets and foreign investment.   In Saudi Arabia, only males over 21 may vote, there are few ballots, and, according to The Economist's Democracy Index, the Saudi government is the seventh most authoritarian regime from among the 167 countries rated.  It is also according to the World Bank - the 13th easiest country in the world in which to do business. . . and really,  they seem to ask - what could be more important?  I am having a "go" at Saudi because they are not democratic, bad on Human Rights and yet they are considered a good, easy place to do business and so we seldom see them maligned in the "free press".   Iran on the other hand - also with Sharia law, with actually more freedom for women, and which ranks higher on the democracy scale (for authoritarian regimes mind you) is constantly maligned in the press (not that I am suggesting that it should not be) and although higher on the democracy scale than Saudi, is 137th in ease of doing business, compared to Saudi's 13th. Also, Saudi Arabia is the world's leading country in the case of torture-by-flogging , public beheadings and publically crucifying condemned prisoners.  But Iran as we know, is far more vilified.

Again, according to the Economist Democracy Index -

The principle of the protection of basic human rights is widely accepted.
It is embodied in constitutions throughout the world as well as in the UN Charter and international agreements such as the Helsinki Final Act. Basic human rights include
freedom of speech, expression and the press; freedom of religion; freedom of assembly and association;  and the right to due judicial process. All democracies are systems in which citizens freely make political decisions by majority rule. But rule by the majority is not necessarily democratic. In a democracy majority rule must be combined with guarantees of individual human rights and the rights of minorities.

Sept. 12, 2010 - this morning there is also this story at Rabble -

As a hunger strike by over 30 Mapuche political prisoners in Chile reaches a critical stage, international media attention is growing for their demands for an end to the anti-terrorist laws under which they were tried and convicted. These regressive laws remain on the books from the era of the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, and have been routinely used against leaders of the Mapuche's struggle to defend their land and autonomy.
The hunger strike began on July 12, and many of the prisoners are now in very precarious health, having lost up to 18 kg.
The Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada website does not include a word about the Mapuche hunger strike. In contrast, over the past two months the Canadian government has issued five press releases concerning human rights in Iran.[my bolding]

So why don't our "democratic" countries speak out for the rights of others,  in these countries, even the ones that are "easy to do business in".  We would not allow someone to procure children for sexual slavery or trafficking of their labour in our own country,  but we do not condemn it or allow charges against those of our own citizens who do this in other countries,  and,  although there is at least some outcry about individual child sexual abusers (even if it happens in Thailand) there is no outcry when corporations with a "head office", or  with substantial interests here, in Canada, use child labour in other countries.   There is no demand that there be open disclosure from corporations about where and how they source their products and the conditions of work and the workers who make,  or pick,  or sew the products in question.   Why not?  If there is democracy here, and we consider it of value, why shouldn't there be democracy everywhere and why should we not demand it/insist on it -  at least with our purchasing power,  and of those corporations who want to have the right of a citizen here - then have the responsibility of a citizen of a democracy -  everywhere. 

In the meantime, how do you define democracy?  Is the Economist Index helpful, does it measure the right things?  Are capitalism and so-called "free markets" related to democracy or does democracy mean something different to you?  What would democracy at work, look like?

For me,  democracy should mean that everyone has access to citizen participation tools and organizations that can improve economic justice, the environment, relative poverty and improved distribution of income, everyone has equal access to the opportunities in the society, and no class or gender or race or religion, or ability or lack of it,  holds you back from participating in making things better for yourself, your family, your community and the world.