Why do we give such a praise to elections? My guess is that it is because elections are at the end of the process of democracy, it is sort of the trophy. But that is exactly the cause for the failing of the work of missionaries of democracy: they begin at the end and try to work their way back to the fundamental principals. A reason could well be the impatience of Western people, or maybe it is due to an overdose of ambition, might as well be a miss interpretation or lack of understanding of the concept of democracy. What ever reason there may be, to me it is clear that there is missing a reflection on the process which makes democratic elections possible.
FROM STATE OF NATURE TO DEMOCRACY
Christiano bases his theory on the idea of Kant how to deal with the state of nature. The state of nature is, as Hobbes describes it, the situation in which every man is on his own and has a natural right to everything. As we imagine this state and its human interaction we understand there is a continuous war about resources, as everyone is able to claim everything. My possesions become yours the moment you claim them and the only way for us to solve our conflict is to fight. Kant rightly states as the only and most appropriate way to end this situation violence and chaos is to have a coordinative authority. Jeremy Waldron has pointed out we have a moral obligation to obey this authority, since we have a moral obligation to avoid violance and chaos.
Christiano follows the reasoning of Waldron, but goes beyond it. He makes it clear that a principal of justice, which solves the conflict situation among citizens, requires not only an authoritative power to coordinate between people, but also equality of all citizens and their equal share of representation in the authority. This means that the moral judgement of every citizen is taken into account on an equal level when formulating the general principal of justice of the state. For Christiano this means that we have to distribute the resources for participating in collective decision making.
THE DEMOCRATIC PROCESS
So far we understand the emphasis on democratic elections promoted by the West in places where chaos and violence have been the dominant circumstances. But the democratic process is to Christiano not only voting. For Christiano the process of democracy is consistent of discussion, negotiation and voting. He also clearly states that these other two elements are preceding the voting. It is the public debate and negotiation (publicity is essential for Christiano both to constitute and ensure equality) that forms the fundament on which we base our voting behaviour. This part of the process makes us understand and accept the voting and its outcome. To be part of a democratic society asks for an effort to take part in this discussion and negotiation.
So when a country is heavily divided on moral, social and cultural issues, will then free elections bring people closer to each other? Will people accept the authority of a state just because it is chosen in elections? To me it seems quite obvious that people that have refused to speak to each other and instead use guns to communicate will not suddenly renounce their aggression because their is a democratic elected authority. I think it is essential that the process of democratization starts with discussion and negotiation in a public debate in order to give participants/citizens the (justified) feeling of equality by being equally able to participate in this process and have an equal share in the formulation of the general perception of justice. This is why publicity is so important as it gives transparency to position of the individual within the democratic process and thereby also justifies the legitimacy of elections.
This discussion and negotiation is not done from out of the raw situation of the state of nature. Primary to the whole process of democracy is a shared view on civil rights. This involves the freedom of speech, freedom of press and so on. Christiano sees these rights fundamental and preconditional to the process of democracy. They ensure the possiblity of discussion and negotiation on the basis of equality. Without these standard rights, the right to be human as we may say, the democratic process is impossible. This is I think the most essential point to begin with if a country wants to become democratic. Every citizen first must agree on all other citizens to be human, to see them as equals. I don’t think this is impossible, in fact according to Hobbes, Kant and all other great thinkers humans don’t have any other option when considering their own position or nature, but it asks for reflection. But then, why start with elections?
