From the Editor's Desk

Global Regimes by Type- Graph

"Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man (sic)?"

- Henry David Thoreau, Civil Disobedience, 1849

We live in an era of political democratization but economic royalism. People worldwide are increasingly attempting to practice democracy. As historian John Markoff points out, in 1910, Australia and New Zealand were the world's only two countries boasting universal suffrage for adult men and women [editor's note for web version: I've since learned, from Markoff, that Australia did not have universal adult suffrage in 1910. Australian aborigines could not vote]. According to the report Peace and Conflict 2008, in 2006, 77 countries were rated as democracies. I might argue with the researchers' criteria, but the historical trend is clear.

Defying this democratic wave, Musharraf's coup against himself has set back democratization in nuclear-armed Pakistan. Yet as both Zia Mian and Abira Ashfaq describe in these pages, Musharraf underestimated the thirst for political democracy among Pakistan's citizenry. Already, in an attempt to mollify both his international and domestic critics, Musharraf has formally resigned his Army post, though at press time the state of emergency continues.

Turkey, by contrast, claims to be a political democracy, yet conscripts hundreds of thousands of soldiers and jails conscientious objectors who dissent.

Meanwhile, is anyone attempting to rate countries on a scale of economic democracy*? Such a scale might rate the extent to which people working in enterprises, and their customers, clients, and communities, democratically choose organizational policies. Venezuelan society is debating these questions. In much of the US coverage of Venezuela, those who care most about political democracy (mostly Chávez critics) and those who care most about economic democracy (mostly Chávez supporters, with the notable exception of Venezuelan anarchists), talk past each other. At Peacework, we attempt to publish voices who care about both kinds of democracy. Given last week's defeat of the Venezuelan referendum on constitutional reforms, it appears that a majority of Venezuelans value both, too. I believe that although a majority of Venezuelans supported the socio-economic reforms, they voted against the constitutional changes because of the risk of dictatorship.

As Thoreau pointed out, we need to continually work to extend democracy. The Bush administration's assertion of dictatorial powers (wiretaps without warrants, torture with impunity, shredding habeas corpus) has made many of us in the US increasingly aware of how fragile bedrock liberties are in this country. Yet grassroots groups continue to expand our definitions of democracy and our definitions of rights. Ivelisse Sanchez's article describes efforts to enhance the privacy and employment rights of ex-convicts. Donna Rose describes the need to cover sexual identity in general, and transgendered people specifically, under non-discrimination laws. The Coalition of Immokalee Workers pressures giant corporations to pay farm workers something closer to a living wage. And Ruth Benn (along with Thoreau) urges us to assert our right of conscientious objection to the conscription of money in the form of war taxes.

Democracy isn't static, something to be achieved. Democracy is an unfolding process, a challenging practice, the outcry of dissenting voices, the dynamism of demonstrations, the passionate dialogue of principled opponents, the reconciling tones of consensus building. Practicing democracy well involves risk, energy, time, painful honesty, careful listening, and oh, did I mention meetings? Peacework wishes you a more peaceful New Year in 2008. May all our organizations, and all our meetings, be more joyous, and more democratic, in the coming year.

* Editor's note to web version: The Heritage Foundation publishes an Index of Economic Liberty (sic), and the Fraser Institute publishes a report on what they call the Economic Freedom of the World, but these measure the degree to which a country adopts laissez faire capitalist policies. As such, it really only measures the "freedom" of the wealthiest to accumulate more lucre, almost the opposite of what I'm proposing here.