Democratic Principles

First, principles relating to the initial conditions of democratic systems:

Self-determination (or Autonomy)

This principle suggests the freedom of an individual (or group of individuals) to define themselves and determine their own course of action, without compulsion. People of various religious viewpoints might argue with the fact of this principle as it relates to a divine plan or power, but in democratic institutions where there is a separation of church and state, it is accepted as a matter of political practice.

Fundamental equality of individuals

Although there are distressingly frequent “exceptions” made to this principle in the historical record, it is generally recognized as foundational to a healthy and principled democracy. A democratic system should not create an intrinsic advantage for one set of citizens over any others. Democracies are supposed to be “peer-to-peer” systems at their core.

Second, principles relating to the formation of the parts of democratic systems, as well as the system as a whole:

Voluntary agreement among participants

Most clearly seen in the formation of unprecedented democratic institutions, such as the European Union or the United States, the potential participants come together, negotiate, and eventual bind themselves to a common agreement or constitution. And, abiding by the autonomy principle above, no one should be coerced into participating. However, if they don’t choose to participate under the common agreement, then they have no claim on the benefits resulting from that agreement. The source of authority of a democratic system is the agreement among those who have inherent authority, and who use it to create something new.

Self-organization

A corollary to the principles of voluntary agreement and self-determination is that democratic institutions set their own boundaries, no matter how arbitrary they may seem from the outside. Canada does not have a “right” to join the US; India does not have a “right” to join the EU, and so on. People and entities work with whom and how they want when the form democratic institutions. There is also the question of who or what are the “selves” that do the forming. In the EU, it was nation-states; in the US, it was citizens and their respective states.

Granting of sufficient and necessary authority

The formation of a democratic institution is meaningless unless it is entrusted with sufficient authority to undertake actions on behalf of the participants or enforce the agreement(s) that created the institution in the first place. No one trusts a system that can’t enforce its own rules. On the other hand, no more authority than is necessary should be granted. The “and” in this principle is that an authority should be both sufficient and necessary before it is granted by participants.

Solidarity

Solidarity refers to the union of interests, purposes or sympathies among members of a group. Unlike most of the other democratic principles, the precise notion of solidarity can differ greatly, depending on the interests, purposes, etc., that bring a group together. For example, the purpose of forming the United States included it being a sovereign state, an equal actor among the other nations of the world. This required the highest level of solidarity -- it takes an act of the whole community to create it, and that it takes an act of the whole community to dissolve it. The US civil war was fought over whether the latter half of this principle was strongly enough present in the US Constitution. Other entities allow very easy entry and exit, where solidarity is a choice that is renewed at every step along the way.

(Note: In the Pope's most recent encyclical, he uses the term "solidarity" to refer to the religious principle that each person in a community (or world) is responsible for the well being of every person in that community. I refer to this principle as “mutual responsibility”, below.)

Mutual responsibility

A close cousin to solidarity, this principle defines the degree to which participants are responsible for or accountable to each other within the system, and for what. Tight knit communities have a high degree of mutual responsibility at many levels. Computers on the Internet only have high mutual responsibility for operating consistently with the Internet protocol. Users on the Internet have no explicit mutual responsibility (and the system may have suffered because of that lack).

Third, principles regarding the way in which democratic systems operate internally:

Subsidiarity

This political principle suggests that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority. It’s intent is to limit the circumstances in which it is appropriate for a more centralized or more complex body to interfere with decisions that can reasonably be made more locally. It is one of the key principles adopted by the European Union, and is present in the US Constitution and Bill of Rights, most expressly in the 10th Amendment.

Protecting freedoms

A political principle for those circumstances in which a more central body feels compelled to act. As it considers various forms of intervention available to it, it should, if the effect is the same, opt for the approach that leaves the greatest freedom to more local bodies or individuals. Again, both the EU and US constitutions embody this principle.

(Note: In some EU documents, this principle is described as “proportionality.” But since I use that term for another principle, I chose to not use it here.)

Fourth, principles about decision-making that mostly can be derived from the above principles, but often are useful to have stated explicitly:

Non-domination

No participant, or group of participants should be able to dominate discussions or control decisions. This doesn’t mean that all decisions need to be made by consensus or that everyone will be happy with the decisions that are made, it merely suggests that the process should be fair and unbiased.

Among relevant and affected parties

Not everyone needs to be involved in all decision, that is, there is no requirement for “death by democracy.” Individuals who are bound by a decision are definitely both relevant and affected. But beyond that, it is a matter of judgment. My personal inclination is to interpret this principle quite narrowly. Other people prefer to interpret it very broadly. Be careful…

Initial Conditions

• Self-determination
• Fundamental equality

Formation of Parts

• Voluntary agreement
• Self-organization
• Sufficient authority
• Solidarity
• Mutual responsibility

Operation

• Subsidiarity
• Protecting freedoms

Decision-making

• Non-domination
• Relevant parties