The Dilemma 0f Democracy

             In our attempt to present this analysis there may be some internal contradictions that do not destroy the cohesiveness of the argument. The more we welcome strangers the more we may resent how they diminish our ability to control our environment.

The world today exhibits a continuing deep gulf between the developed economies and those that are less developed. This arises for various reasons that are not pertinent to this analysis. We can generalize that the developed countries can most-often be characterized as democracies with more or less ordered societies. A feature of these countries is that their economic well-being has been accompanied by falling birth rates. Their economic systems can be described as private enterprise or capitalist. (I would include both China and Russia even though they are not real democracies, and lack other features which are important to the argument being presented.)

These countries can have their economic imperatives described as “growth at any price”. Consequently they often have immigration policies which are generous. They seek the economic stimulus that comes with such policies whether they are explicit or not. Then it becomes a question of how much do you change them and how much do they change you?

We can identify exceptions such as Japan which has chosen economic stasis and a strict anti-immigrant policy. The U.K. has chosen to exert more internal control by opting for Brexit, denying the E.U. internal open immigration stance. Israel is trying to square the circle by welcoming immigrants but limiting citizenship and the vote only to those of Jewish extraction. China and Russia face both natural population declines and a flight of residents. Russia is seeking population addendums through war. Thousands of children have been kidnapped from the Ukraine. Russia was hoping to absorb the Ukraine into the Russian Federation. Does China seek the same by annexing Taiwan?

Most countries in the developed world facing a flood of refugees face the dilemma inherent in democracy. The flood of immigrants in such numbers calls into question the integration of these new populations as has been an earlier norm. The right to vote as citizens for these new arrivals can threaten the political dominance of the indigenous. The fear of this is being manifested by changes in the body politic of some of these countries, France, the U.S., and even Italy and Scandinavia, come to mind. Efforts are and will be directed at causing division among us to achieve a weakening of democratic practices.

The situation in the U.S. is drawing much attention. The Republican Party in that country, in particular, is exhibiting   efforts to limit the electoral expression of populations which might be inclined to favor the other political party in the country. These fly in the face of the basic principles inherent in democracy. A flood of asylum seekers, and others already in the country, now numbering millions, face years of illegal status without the right to vote. Policies, being put in place by Republicans at the federal and state level, aim at making the achievement of citizenship at the federal level more complicated, and the voting process for citizens at the state level more difficult, especially for those most unlikely to vote Republican.

Democracies are confronting the implications of the one man, one vote principle inherent in democracy. In this era of massive population flows between the less-developed countries (experiencing substantial population growth and economic distress and/or instability,) and the developed countries,( with aging populations and falling birth rates, prioritizing economic growth,) potential political upheaval can be the price. Indigenous populations in these countries begin to have second thoughts about the virtues of democracy without appreciating how allowing an alteration of the basic principle underlying democracy, freedom of voter choice, could change the lives all citizens for the worse. Some countries are facing a citizen backlash which is being fanned for narrow political advantage.

It remains for us and for the newcomers, in spite of the challenges they face, and a natural tendency to focus only on  the ties within their own communities. The must be made aware of the threats arising to their full enjoyment of democratic rights. Those newcomers may not have had them where they came from. Those of us who care about the vibrancy of our own democracy will bear some responsibility, for our own sakes, to do what we can to mobilize ourselves and the newcomers to protect voting rights. Or, on the other hand, do we want to?

Most of us work to protect our rights and newcomers’ rights as well. We must recognize that some of our fellow citizens fear a loss of political control as a byproduct of heavy immigration levels. Alertness will matter, education will matter, and numbers will matter. Most of all, caring will matter.

We will have to ask ourselves, each one of us, do I care? Personally, I welcome the immigrants but I don’t want them to change the rules of the game in our society.