Self-rule seldom simple

Last week's columns on basic political systems outlined elite governments, based on the rule of one or few - generally non-democratic systems. Today's ends the series with the more popular and modern rule by many.

Generally this means a form of democracy (direct or indirect/representative), republic, or communism. Applied socialism is too varied to put in one category, generally functioning as elements of another system, and generally within democracies, such as education and law enforcement in the U.S. and most other nations.

Many still consider the U.S. a republic, a broad term defined simply as a government subject to the people and which can be recalled by them (generally by vote). Just how "subject" is a matter of debate. Neighboring Canada is a constitutional monarchy in name (subject to the British queen), but as it's governed according to laws made by a popularly elected Canadian parliament, scholars label it a republic.

What's in a name? Some political scientists say the U.S. more accurately is indirect democracy, in which leaders are elected to represent citizens. Those representatives, not the common people, make the laws in such a system. Recall too the layer of electoral college between popular vote and actual choice of executive. The college tends to follow the popular vote, but technically don't necessarily need to.

The oft-misapplied term "democracy" simply means a state in which the people rule themselves, i.e. most of Europe. Other nations, especially those in flux in the Far, Middle, and Near East over the last century, struggle to form democracies, perhaps by simply establishing popular vote.

They're finding that isn't enough.

Any election does not make a nation democratic. Modern Iran and Cuba hold elections, but voters may select only from party- or cleric-approved lists, which tend to whittle out moderates and opposing viewpoints. Although it has a president of limited authority, Iran is more often called a theocracy, like the Vatican and Saudi Arabia (because the sovereign's authority is said derived directly from God). Notice how the same country can be dual-categorized? True of so many governments.

In a pure or direct democracy, each citizen (the question begs, what makes a "citizen") has an equal say in everything, directly participating in all government process. So far those experiments have failed. Ancient Greece tried direct democracy, as did some New England townships (which soon evolved to representation as population growth made direct participation impractical).

Other types of democracies include deliberative democracies and democratic socialism. Denmark has a deliberative democracy, in which citizens formally consider multiple viewpoints and solutions in open debate, meetings, and consensus surveys with the guided input of multiple, issue-based parties.

An example of democratic socialism is France. The citizens vote directly in this system, but choose some cooperatives and group-controlled functions or industries in areas of basic human needs - a blend of capitalist and socialist theories. The underlying principle is that all people are equal by natural right, and therefore participate equally in society. Democratic socialists distinguish themselves vehemently from the misused political label "socialist;" they also reject the one-party society envisioned by communism.

Socialists are not communists; in fact, socialism is somewhat opposed to communism. Think of socialism as limited to the economic, and only to some extent; communism adds the political layer. The common element is production - more citizen control over and common work efforts in cooperative industries (e.g., health, education, natural resources), but in socialism citizens may have private property, direct control, and government participation. In communism one may not (unless high up in the party).

In socialist systems one may vote directly; different political viewpoints and parties exist. In pure communist systems they do not. Socialism relates reward and earnings with work product: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds." Communism is about distribution: "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."

Of course great varieties exist by nation, era, and application, and evolve over time. The "Arab spring" sweeps across a broad blend of government systems is a fascinating study of societal transformation, with dreadful growing pains to continue over the next century. Who knows where and when they will end, and what form that end may take?

Societal evolution takes time, trial, and error. No extreme - from pure democracy to dictatorship - is ideal. Perhaps there is no ideal; perhaps it is the continual, creative pursuit which is man's best hope.

Sholeh Patrick is a columnist for the Hagadone News Network with degrees in international studies and law. Contact her at sholeh@cdapress.com.