Max Tallberg<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Liberal democracy has been proposed as the final form of politics in history\u2014a model that could be globally adopted, thus putting an end to the confrontation and comparison between different forms of society. Although this has not occurred in practice, this societal model has proven effective, primarily because it offers citizens genuine freedom to act and to shape their own lives in a better and more authentic way. Today, liberal democracy is the most prominent and widely supported form of democracy<\/strong>. It highlights individual freedoms and rights, including freedom of opinion and the rights of minorities. At the same time, its core idea is to more broadly defend the equal dignity and equality of all people. The will of the people is also expressed in free and regular elections and in equal voting rights. However, balance must be found here: the will of the people cannot unlimitedly infringe upon individual freedom, and individual rights cannot obstruct the common good. Legitimacy and efficiency form another tension. Decisions must be based on the will of the people, yet they must not be irrational or in conflict with the interests of the state. I particularly emphasize this issue in this and my following text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite these tensions, liberal democracy can still be considered the correct and desirable societal model in today’s world. The success of democracies and the well-being they enable for citizens sends a strong message in this regard. Democracy also more effectively defends economic and other rights of citizens compared to other societal models. Democratic countries are, on average, the wealthiest. The best countries to live in from an individual perspective are also relatively democratic<\/strong>. Likewise, the nearly universal desire for democracy among the world\u2019s citizens supports the view that it is a societal model worth striving for.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Despite all these apparent advantages, democracy is not currently thriving or gaining ground globally. One could also argue that it has failed to respond to today\u2019s major challenges\u2014such as the threats of climate change and populism, as well as present-day armed conflicts and the problems caused by capitalism. Therefore, it is appropriate to suggest that democracy could still be improved in today\u2019s world. It should, above all, be strengthened and defended, but changes could also be made to make it more functional in our current reality. In this and my next text, I focus particularly on these proposals for change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n When considering the development of democracy, it is also appropriate to first raise the question of whether democracy is valuable in itself or merely a means to create well-being and a functioning society. My view is that democracy contains many elements that are inherently valuable and must never be abandoned under any circumstances. But when examining democracy as a whole, one can argue that it is also a means to build a better world\u2014at least in certain respects. The central question in this context is whether democracy truly creates the conditions for good or optimal decision-making<\/strong>. Related to this, I propose that democracy must be defended, but that it can and should be improved and developed in certain ways. This is especially true when looking specifically at political decision-making. One can argue that by improving democracy, it can be made into a tool that leads to better and more desirable outcomes than what we currently see.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Another key background question related to democracy is the observation that it is, at least in part, an amoral system. This means that the support of a majority may often suffice to legitimize a decision, without considering the values underlying it. In today’s world, this should change. Attention should be paid to\u2014and it should be demanded\u2014that all decisions made in democracies are morally sustainable. Respect for human rights could provide a solution to the current amorality of democratic politics. Democratic decisions should always respect human rights. At the same time, human rights could serve as a kind of foundation for democratic decision-making. For example, from the perspective of human rights values, the death penalty is a political decision that should be banned in all countries in the future. Instead of democracy\u2019s amorality, we should associate it with fundamental, universal values\u2014as is already customary in the case of human rights. The values tied to democracy\u2014especially those linked to universal human rights\u2014and its broader societal model, as I\u2019ve highlighted in my previous texts, are, in my view, the core aspects that are inherently valuable in democracy. These also fundamentally make democracy a desirable form of society, even from the perspective of the ordinary citizen.<\/p>\n\n\n\n At the same time, another major challenge related to democracies more broadly concerns what kinds of decisions are made and on what basis. I have previously argued that the root cause of challenges in this area lies in citizens’ voting decisions\u2014especially when their societal knowledge is not at a sufficient level. Therefore, when considering proposals for improving democracy, we should particularly focus on the position of citizens in decision-making. The values of democracy and its related societal functions, actors, and freedom-emphasizing systems are obviously worth defending, but otherwise, we can ask whether democracy could be refined, developed, and strengthened.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In this regard, an important observation is that one of democracy’s most central questions is its relationship with power<\/strong>. In modern democracies, power ultimately rests with the citizens. A key historical lesson related to power is that its excessive concentration always leads to significant risks and often to undesirable developments. For this reason, it should always be avoided. Popular sovereignty and the separation of powers are key solutions to this issue, which I have already described in previous texts.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Although the decentralization of power is absolutely vital to prevent abuse, given today\u2019s global situation, one could also argue that certain issues require stronger exercise of power\u2014or at least more decisive political actions. These issues primarily concern responding to global threats such as climate change, biodiversity loss, and the unsustainable use of natural resources, as well as global opportunities like the development and regulation of artificial intelligence, or reforms akin to universal politics that would guarantee global well-being and cooperation for all the world’s citizens.<\/p>\n\n\n\n While these necessary decisions should be made, it must also be noted that the present world may not yet provide the conditions for doing so. A key problem, as I have raised in previous texts, is that many ordinary citizens living in democracies do not possess sufficient knowledge to make correct decisions. At the same time, populist political actors lead many to focus on the wrong issues or on information that is not evidence-based or consists of gross oversimplifications. Perhaps we should now focus more on creating models that enable political decisions made rationally, based on truthful information, and that are ethically sustainable\u2014or at least prevent the making of wrong decisions or the rise of unfit leaders to positions of power.<\/p>\n\n\n\n We should enable structures and mechanisms that support correct decisions without allowing associated power positions to be misused. This is a core challenge of contemporary societies. It has, however, already been contemplated in history\u2014for example, by Rousseau. The key challenge is precisely to enable the right decisions without slipping into autocracy. The Economist<\/em> has suggested that it is essential to ensure the freedom to make mistakes, but also to learn from them afterward. I agree that this idea must not be dismissed\u2014it is not desirable for decisions to be dictated externally, but instead, solutions should be considered openly and collectively. However, I would add to this idea the requirement that decisions which are clearly wrong or made by clearly unqualified individuals should be preventable. I will return to this thought in my next text.<\/p>\n\n\n\n The abuse of concentrated power poses such a significant threat that many would argue power should never be overly centralized, and that development should always move in the opposite direction. At the same time, today\u2019s world should more easily allow decisions to be made when they relate to well-researched knowledge or values\u2014such as human rights or the fight against climate change.<\/p>\n\n\n\n One of democracy\u2019s greatest challenges is indeed how to grant more power to good decision-makers while reducing or preventing harmful power use<\/strong>. The challenge, once again, is how to make this distinction: how can we know whether a decision is right or whether someone is suitable to be a leader? In world history, the most influential factor has likely been that the wrong people have too often sought and attained power. This must be addressed and prevented today. Another historical and current issue is that power often changes a person. Therefore, those who reluctantly seek leadership often become the best leaders, as power does not corrupt them in the same way as those who seek it for its own sake.<\/p>\n\n\n\n There are, in any case, already tried and tested ways to prevent the abuse of power. The separation of powers is one such obvious means. The problem of power abuse in democracies could in the future be addressed by requiring the approval of several independent actors for certain political decisions\u2014possibly more than is currently the case. At the same time, these independent actors could also hold greater authority. The judiciary\u2019s role could be emphasized in this context, as could each country\u2019s constitution. Again, thinking based on universal human rights should serve as the central foundation and frame of reference. We could also envision that, in the future, stronger powers would be combined with stronger checks and balances. This would prevent the misuse of power but also enable stronger decisions in cases where they are clearly desirable and necessary.<\/p>\n\n\n\n A public discourse based on truthful information is also vital for the functioning of democracy. Without it, it is impossible to create the conditions for effective democratic decision-making, so more attention must be paid to this. If a politician makes claims not based on truth, they must be confronted and refuted\u2014more forcefully than is currently the case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Other innovations, such as citizens’ assemblies and deliberative democracy, could also play a role in future decision-making. The solutions raised in such forums need not bind decision-makers, but they can indicate direction and provide strong signals on necessary decisions. In addition, they would in themselves promote greater societal harmony, a sense of community, and citizen participation. For all these reasons, these innovations should be promoted when considering how to improve, strengthen, and develop democracy. If all these actors support a particular solution\u2014even a radical one\u2014then a democratic society and its leaders should be able to advance it. It has also been suggested that excessive transparency can weaken decision-making. I, however, do not agree with this. Transparency can also be seen as a mechanism for restraining power. That said, the media’s role can pose difficulties if politicians are forced to comment on complex issues in an overly simplified manner. Nevertheless, transparency remains a key element of democratic decision-making\u2014especially in ensuring rationality and legitimacy.<\/p>\n\n\n\n It is also essential to ensure that all members of society are heard when decisions are made\u2014or at least that everyone has the opportunity to defend their own rights<\/strong>. When this is achieved, it can be said that decisions are compromises and cannot result in wholly undesirable outcomes\u2014or at least not in ones where a particular group benefits excessively at the expense of another.<\/p>\n\n\n\n In summary, all of the above points support the notion that one of the greatest global challenges is knowing and assessing when a person\u2014or group\u2014is truly justified in their opinions. Many might argue that such certainty is impossible. My counterargument is that some solutions can indeed be better justified than others. This applies to the evaluation and selection of suitable decision-makers. The solution could lie in a shared, fact-based, and neutral discussion, the outcomes of which should still adhere to shared norms\u2014supervised by multiple independent actors<\/strong>. These shared norms could be truthful knowledge, human rights, democratic values, a welfare-state social approach, and stronger power separation. One of the core missions of our organization is to serve as a platform for precisely this kind of discussion, and we aim to continue promoting it and its related opportunities.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Max Tallberg Liberal Democracy Liberal democracy has been proposed as the final form of politics in history\u2014a model that could be globally adopted, thus putting an end to the confrontation and comparison between different forms of society. Although this has not occurred in practice, this societal model has proven effective, primarily because it offers citizens […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[],"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4594"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4594"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4594\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":4595,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4594\/revisions\/4595"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.globalvisions.fi\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}Reforming Democracy<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
Democracy and Concentrated Power<\/h2>\n\n\n\n
\n\n\n\nSummary<\/h2>\n\n\n\n