As humanity heads into the twenty-first century, the most significant global movement, both forced and unforced, in my opinion, is the spread of Liberal Democracy. This movement emanates from large western corporations, which in my opinion view Liberal Democracy as the best political system for the furtherance of their corporate interests. For instance, the Citigroup states in its Shared Responsibilities that “… we’re obligated to deliver profits and growth to our shareholders”, ExxonMobil “believes that registering and voting… campaigning and office-holding at local, state, and national levels are important rights and responsibilities of the citizens of a democracy,” Cisco Systems is a declared “supporter” of the U.N. Universal Declaration of Human Rights including Article 21 on Liberal Democracy, and Microsoft “encourages its employees to participate in the political process and provides opportunities for them to learn about important issues. As part of that effort, Microsoft Political Action Committee conducts voter registration drives in Microsoft’s larger U.S. facilities….”
I ask the reader to keep these statements in mind as he/she reads this book.
The movement of Liberal Democracy is further supported by the constitutions and laws of western countries which support Liberal Democracy as both a fundamental human right and law, and by the United Nations which views Liberal Democracy as a universal human right. Further still, the World Bank makes 20-25% of its loans to developing countries based on ‘Development Policy Lending’, which partly entails social policy and good governance or civil service reform of the countries. In other words, the purpose of this lending is to loan money which will be used, socially and politically, to change a country. From the World Bank’s journal, Development Outreach, (Summer 1999) Amartya Sen makes clear in my opinion the World Bank’s development bias to Liberal Democracy:
“a country does not have to be judged to be fit for [liberal] democracy, rather it has to become fit through [liberal] democracy.”Also, Åslund Anders states in the Development Outreach (Winter 2000) that
“[liberal] democracy is the key factor [for development]. An important observation is that [liberal] democracy and market reform have gone hand in hand.”
In Canada, the Canadian government has “helped establish a variety of multilateral and bilateral programs offering professional support and technical assistance to countries developing [liberal] democratic institutions. Since 1980, Elections Canada, [a governmental organization], has organized some 400 international [liberal] democratic development missions in 100 countries around the world.” (Elections Canada, 2006) Part of this Canadian movement is led by FOCAL (Canadian Foundation for the Americas), a supposedly independent organization with ties to the (U.S.) Endowment for Democracy and focused on promoting Liberal Democracy in Central and South America. In 2004, for example, FOCAL received 142,285 CAN$ from the Ford Foundation, 15,157 CAN$ from the Carter Institute, and 364,673 CAN$ from Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade. (2004 FOCAL Annual Report) In a summary of its work in “Governance and [Liberal] Democracy” (online), FOCAL states that “promoting [Liberal] Democracy is a cornerstone of the 2001 Summit of the Americas Plan of Action and the United Nations Millennium Development Goals.”
In the United States, the U.S. Congress funds organizations like the Bureau of Democracy, the Human Rights and Labour Regional Democracy Fund, the Democracy Fund, the National Endowment for Democracy, and the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) Democracy Centre, whose primary purpose is to promote the globalization of Liberal Democracy.
According to the USAID budgetary summaries, USAID has accounted for the following funds:
Under ‘[Liberal] Democracy and Local Governance’)
2003—1.313 billion US$ (Actual)
2004—1.194 billion US$ (Actual)
2005—1.492 billion US$ (Actual)
Under ‘[Liberal] Democracy and Conflict Management’ (No budgetary listing for ‘[Liberal]Democracy and Local Governance’):
2006—2.388 billion US$ (Estimate)
2007—2.088 billion US$ (Request)
Under USAID ‘transition initiatives’ (or programs to create basic conditions for Liberal Democracy in Sudan, Ethiopia, Haiti, and other countries)
2004—54.676 million US$ (Actual)
2005—48.608 million US$ (Actual)
2006—39.6 million US$ (Estimate)
2007—50 million US$ (Request)
And according to the US Department of State, the National Endowment for Democracy has received the following funds:
2003—41.727 million US$ (Actual)
2004—39.579 million US$ (Estimate)
2005—59.199 million US$ (Actual)
2006—74.042 million US$ (Estimate)
2007—80 million US$ (Request)
These organizations directly and indirectly operate in countries like Cambodia, Bosnia, former Yugoslavia, Congo, Nigeria, Mexico, China, Cuba, Uganda, and the Russian Federation, and in regions like East Asia, Latin America, Caribbean, Central and Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. Alongside these organizations journals like the Journal of Democracy, and non-governmental organizations like International IDEA, the National Democratic Institute, Asia Network for Free Elections, the International Republican Institute, the Alliance for Reform and Democracy in Asia, and the Democratic National Grouping in Syria, operate solely to promote, directly and indirectly, the global spread of Liberal Democracy.
The goal of this movement, in all its forms, is to make the entire world liberal democratic.
Now the reader may think, ‘great, a liberal democratic world will be a freer, more prosperous, and a less conflictual place.’ I disagree. I will show that Liberal Democracy, in terms of democracy, is an inherently flawed system, which undemocratically favors financially and politically powerful individuals and large corporations. The political power allows them greater ability to exploit human resources and the finite natural resources of Earth. If the liberal democratic movement is allowed to run its global course, I think and believe we will end up with a world defined by superficiality, exploitation, and the few ruling over the many.
What alternative is there to Liberal Democracy? And why should people care when most of us are focused on our families and everyday survival?
This book is about the direction of humanity. It is about the quality of life not only of present generations, but, most importantly, of future generations. I think we must take an active interest in this global issue. It is right now affecting us directly, and will affect our children, grandchildren, great grandchildren, great-great grandchildren…. As parents or future parents, or simply as human beings, I believe we have a responsibility to consider and participate in the world being created for future generations.
Regarding an alternative system to Liberal Democracy, I think and believe there is a viable, more democratic system. It is called Evaluative Democracy. This system is centered on the evaluation of publicly submitted ideas for the sole purpose of progressing the collective well-being of all societies.
I believe Evaluative Democracy is the better way forward for humanity than Liberal Democracy, because Evaluative Democracy puts the collective interest first.
Stephen Garvey
British Columbia, Canada
March 18, 2006