In this module, issues relating to the rights of minorities in the democratic power sharing process of an authentically democratic society will be discussed, and constructive solutions to present day problems will be proposed. Interested parties are invited to submit brief essays (15 pages or less) for publication here.

Minority Representation: A Set of Proposals by Will Foreman Question: "What do you say when someone puts others down because of their racial, ethnic, or gender identity?" Answer: "I say, 'C'mon, let's enjoy ourselves without putting someone else down.'" Q: "What do you say if somebody complains that they don't feel free to make a joke these days because someone is always calling it 'politically incorrect'." A: "I say, 'Prejudice hurts. Why would you want to be free to hurt someone?' Incidentally, as you probably know, the term 'politically correct' is a condensation that sarcastically and arrogantly dismisses the need to be more aware of the feelings of those who may be different from oneself." Q: "Sometimes they say, 'You're too sensitive. I make jokes about my own people, too.'" A: "You can tell them, 'That's OK, but remember that the meaning of your joke is not only what you mean it to be. More importantly, it is the meaning that is received by others. Therefore, you must be sensitive to context.'" Q: "What if they say, 'Why should you care?'" A: "I say, 'Every act of prejudice hurts both you and me.' And I may add, 'If we disparage someone because of their race, ethnicity, or gender, or if we listen without speaking up, it does damage to the quality of our own minds. And we must be careful. Prejudice is an inferior way of thinking that can creep into any person's thoughts.'" The lack of adequate representation for minorities troubles every democratic society. Resolving this problem is essential for further progress in the evolution of democracy--and for a healthier evolution of humanity. Despite the fact that majority-minority relations are intrinsic to every political process, our expertise in conducting them has not progressed much. As a consequence, they still commonly result not only in injustices to minorities but also in a loss of the rich sources of creativity and intelligence that come from minorities. Ultimately, the waste in majority-minority conflict could only be completely eliminated by achieving a permanent unanimity of opinion in all domains of human thought, something that's not likely to happen soon in any free society. Nevertheless, to the extent that any society excludes its minorities from proportional representation in government or in the outcomes of its decision-making, that society remains undemocratic, less adaptively intelligent, and in need of improvement. [If you are adept at syntropic thinking, (see Creating Democracy In Time Appendix 1) you may already be wondering how this essay applies to the structure and content of cognitive processes inside your own head. Read on! This is written with you in mind...] A successful reduction of problems in minority-majority relations must be related to the cause-effect processes that lead to divisions among us. Thus if we were to focus on differences of opinion over, say, the distribution of wealth, then the content of this essay would lead into the causes of unequal distribution. Due to obvious constraints, however, we can not go deeply here into all the causes of differences among us. We have a great variety of similarities as well as differences, including some that are biologically inherited and many more that are culturally acquired. It is the differences, of course, that produce minority-majority formations almost as quickly as we begin to discuss them. Chief among the reasons for this are: (1) natural differences in perception, (2) a tendency of the human cortex to discriminate, to generalize, and to "group" or "chunk" information, (3) the not uncommon desire to achieve security or "superiority" in relation to others, and (4) a tendency to join with others of like mind for mutual advantage. When we add powerful economic or religious interests to the mix, and stir in ignorance, fear, and a pinch of violence we have a recipe for prolonged conflict between groups. At one level of organization or another, then, most of these groups eventually settle into majority and minority coalitions, or separate blocs of interest. The most serious problems materialize only after we divide ourselves for awhile and cook separately, so we will address methods of integrating political communities that are separate from one another. However, we will focus primarily on the easier problem of majority-minority formations within political communities that espouse democracy. This is not a comprehensive essay on methods of nonviolent conflict resolution, and it is not written for groups of people who choose the more or less fatal course of staying separate forever. Before posing solutions to majority-minority conflict, let's now look at a few other related issues and facts: For some individuals, culturally learned patterns might appear to be easy to shed, but after many years they often become an almost permanent part of one's biological structure. The cultural aspects of language, gender identity, sexual preferences, conceptual understandings of cause-effect relations, educational handicaps, worldviews, and religious beliefs may mingle with biological and social processes to become more or less indelibly stamped into our minds as we mature. Once this has occurred, it is difficult to acquire competing orientations that might better serve to integrate an individual into any multicultural social entity. Understandably, then, for some individuals the "melting pot" concept becomes intolerably oppressive. For others, immigration itself becomes a threat to old and familiar ways of life. For some of those people, a patient process of learning the integrative arts may be helpful. For all of us, however, the mixing and merging of formerly separate peoples is increasingly a fact of life, and we are better off clarifying how fast we intend to let it happen and then accepting it with the grace and curiosity that would be appropriate to receiving a long lost relative into one's home. Today in the United States, twelve per cent of us (well, all of us really, since our species was born in Africa) are African-American, but only seven per cent of the U.S. Congress are African-American. Hispanic-Americans (not a racial category) make up nine per cent of the people of the United States but only three per cent of the U.S. Congress. Asian-Americans, Native Americans, people of mixed race, and many other minorities are even less well-represented. Almost everywhere, racial minorities and women are underrepresented in government. Women, paradoxically, are the least well represented. They are a majority of the world's population but a minority in almost every power structure. They comprise fifty-two per cent of the people in the U.S., for example, but only eleven per cent of the U.S. Congress and only twenty-two per cent of state legislators. While the percentages for racial, ethnic, and gender representation have improved from those which existed at the founding of modern, representative democracy in the United States in 1789, it is painfully obvious that on these measures we must still consider ourselves a beginner's democracy. With respect to any social process that involves the distribution of power, wealth, or justice, history has made it abundantly clear that people in every part of the world are too often prejudicial in a self-serving way toward those who differ from themselves. This is not to say that people are naturally bigoted or inherently biased toward "the outsider," but rather that our educational and political processes have yet to master the phenomena of individual, group, and intergroup psychology or the problematic distributions of wealth, power, and justice. So what has gone wrong? Why haven't we realized the proposition, to which we have been ostensibly devoted since our Declaration of Independence, that "all men(sic) are created equal?" [Actually, this assumption of political isotropy, however vague in its expression, has been--along with the equally vague notion of freedom--a fundamental principle of democracy since its inception in Athens two and a half millenia ago.] The reasons for this failure lie not in the principles themselves but firstly in the historical phenomena of injustice and inequality that have persisted since prehistoric times of isolation and suspicion--and from all subsequent wars of conquest. Secondarily, they are now perpetuated in subtler guises by market forces, cultural inertia, and by an apparently ideal but actually surreal illusion that has crept into our laws and public discourse. The illusion is that people are, or can become, blind, deaf, and/or mute in response to racial, ethnic, gender, linguistic, and other differences among us. Instead of prolonging this illusion, we ought to begin weaving into the fabric of our society educational and political processes that would teach sensitive awareness of the differences among us. Widespread understanding of the actual nature of our differences and of our similarities, as well as mutual respect and laws that form a basis for genuine political powersharing, would be essential. The premise that "all men and women, and all conceivable sets of men and women, are equal before the law" could then become one of the actually realized principles of a postmodern democracy. When we look behind these issues, we find that we are actually looking at the evolution of functional organization in our brains, with a parallel evolution in social formations and in those rapidly changing patterns of information that we contentedly characterize as "culture." And just as we would wish to free our own minds of dogma, so too the evolution of democracy involves an avoidance of beliefs that "choose," or privilege for all time, any one people over another. With the above as prologue, then, let us examine how we might structure our social and political processes to guarantee the aforementioned equality in matters of the law and in democratic powersharing while still nourishing our better notions of freedom and community. "Integrative Interest Representation" For a variety of reasons mentioned in the "human interest story" [described in Chapter Two of Creating Democracy In Time] people of different races, religions, and cultures will increasingly transport themselves into almost every country with the result that all societies will be more multicultural. Unfortunately, people are usually not psychologically or culturally prepared for living with those who are racially, culturally, and/or linguistically different from themselves. Governments as well as organizations at all levels of society are responsible for providing this preparation. Education in racial and cultural relations, with proper use of the mass media and the dramatic arts, can help create the cultural foundations for further progress--if the violent hate groups among nearly every people can be prevented from seeding fear and hatred. Legitimate governments not only have the task of assuring that each people is protected from such violence but also to see to it that each people is proportionately represented in democratic decision-making. By developing rules for representation that foster integration of all peoples into a truly democratic and multicultural society, a governing system assures itself of the full, rich variety of information that its citizens can contribute. When people know they are respected as equals and are fully represented in the centers of political and economic power, they are much less vulnerable to the appeals of desperate fanatics whose cries of rage and revenge serve to inflame rather than enlighten. A true sharing of power, with equal access and equal opportunity in the fields of education and commerce, is the only way to prevent the debilitating ethnic and racial conflicts that destroy lives and economies and create impediments to integration with the peoples of other nations. Even under conditions of racial and cultural homogeneity, where a majoritarian, i.e., English or U.S., electoral style may be practiced more easily, there will be some division of society along the lines of ideas, values, and opinions. Every population would be better served, therefore, by a system based on proportional representation. "Proportional Representation (PR) is the principle behind the systems used by most of the world's democracies. It elects parties and candidates in proportion to their share of the popular vote. If a party wins 10% of the vote, they win 10% of the seats. PR gives voters real choice. It means that voters no longer have to choose between the lesser of two evils." Center for Voting and Democracy Matthew Cossolotto suggested a number of years ago that election to the U.S. House of Representatives be based on proportional representation. At least one branch of every bicameral state legislature could utilize proportional representation. No amendment to the federal constitution would be required. A growing number of political scientists support the idea of implementing the proportional representation method of voting in the United States. Bob Richie, National Director of the Center for Voting and Democracy makes the following convincing argument: "One way to measure representativeness is to determine the percentage of eligible voters who help elect candidates of choice. In the 1994 elections to the House of Representatives, barely 22% of eligible voters helped elect candidates. In contrast, over 75% of Germany's eligible voters in their 1994 national elections with a PR system helped elect candidates. At the same time, these German voters had a far wider range of choice than the (at best) two choices provided to American voters for House elections." Proportional representation is necessary but, unfortunately, not sufficient. Lani Guinier, law professor and former Clinton nominee, has pointed out that if a prejudiced majority is simply transferred from the population to the level of legislative representation, then little progress has been made. The cynical "Law of Racial Thermodynamics," according to which "racism is never created nor destroyed but merely has different guises," is by such means supported. Again, the demands of those who suffer from the devastating effects of racial, ethnic, or gender prejudice can only be answered with an authentic sharing of power. We need, in Guinier's terms, "proportionate interest representation" in both legislative and regulatory outcome. "The term 'interest' refers to self-identified interests, meaning those high salience needs, wants, and demands articulated by any politically cohesive group of voters." [Guinier, 1991] Guinier's claim "is that disproportionate majority power is, in itself, so wrong that it de-legitimates majority rule. As Alexis de Tocqueville recognized, 'The power to do everything, which I should refuse to one of my equals, I will never grant to any number of them.'" [Guinier, 1991--see Bibliography, Creating Democracy In Time] The interests of each people in a multicultural democracy can be more fully integrated at each higher level of representation by careful attention to a variety of rules for decision-making that prevent a prejudiced group, including a majority prejudiced group, from absolute domination over any legislative, judicial, or executive processes. Among the rules and strategies that could be helpful in preventing autocratic majoritarian rule are the following: [See Creating Democracy In Time, Chapter Six, for further explanation of the following seven strategies] Supermajorities (some number more than 50% required for a decision) Concurrent majorities (majorities required in each subgroup of legislators) Cumulative voting [favored by Guinier] (wherein each voter has as many votes to cast as there are candidates for a position)[most useful at the level of citizen voting] Preference list voting (whereby ordered lists of preferences are counted)[most useful at level of citizen voting] Minority veto (giving minority groups veto power encourages majorities to consult carefully with minorities before voting) Federated districts that are based on the concepts of "consociational democracy." (based on autonomous subdivisions with rotating presidents and minority veto power)[most useful where populations are concentrated in separate districts and in more or less permanent disagreement] Other integrative interest procedures (the term "integrative interest" refers to the structuring of a process so that incentives are created for each individual or group to act in ways that will benefit both themselves and the larger community. See also the definition of "syntropy" below and in Creating Democracy In Time) Procedures could be established so that one or more of the above strategies could be invoked whenever a minority decides--and an independent court concurs--that a legislature, a judiciary, or a people has settled into rigid patterns of prejudice against a minority. The choices that we make among these and other strategies for guaranteeing a democratic sharing of power among disparate peoples must be decided in relation to the historical and existential conditions of each democratic system. Nevertheless, the basic strategy of "integrative interest representation," as utilized in The Universal Model, is a universal principle of organization toward which many societies may evolve in the future in order to achieve more adaptively intelligent self-government. Creating a common set of values, goals, and beliefs promotes an integration of peoples. The most important strategies for achieving integrative interest representation, which overlaps with--but is not the same as--proportional interest representation, will undoubtedly include education along the following lines: (1) special emphasis on integrative models of democracy, (2) integrative control of the mass media, (3) integrative control of the decision-making in every political party and every political or governmental process--especially the electoral process, and (4) the creation in every political organization of a minimal set of universal values and syntropic goals. [see Chapter Three, Creating Democracy In Time]["syntropy" means "disparate elements, including those in sharp contradiction with one another, moving toward the same goals and values"] The method of creating integrative interest representation in the electoral process, as employed in The Universal Model, is this: "Each candidate for [a legislative body] or the Judiciary may petition the Electoral Council for election funds only after obtaining votes in a [community-wide] primary election, to be held two months before the final election. The petition must contain signatures approving the candidacy from at least five per cent of each approved identity group and political party within the whole electorate. In other words, each candidate must be acceptable to at least 5% of each and every competing identity group or political party that has itself achieved 5% of the whole electorate's support. No electoral funds shall be distributed, and no campaign expenditures shall be allowed, for primary campaigns... " "The Media Council shall provide media time and space in equal amounts for each primary candidate and to each approved candidate in each election.... " The above rules for elections assume a host of other provisions that are found in The Universal Model including, of course, that the principles of integrative interest representation also apply in elections to the proposed Electoral and Media Councils themselves. These rules provide incentives to the candidates for leadership in each group to campaign on the basis of values and principles that are beneficial to all groups--and are thus integrative for the whole community. Integrative Government To increase their legitimacy and decision-making effectiveness, early 21st century governments may consciously or unconsciously evolve toward a more integrative model of democracy. The term "integrative model" means: (1) the establishment of suprasystemic, or supranational, commissions, councils, and parliaments; and (2) the intersystemic inclusion in each democratic government of observers, advisors, and some voting participants who come from outside a particular system's jurisdictional boundaries. Both suprasystemic and intersystemic development would have the effect of formally recognizing the need for new approaches to problems which cannot easily be solved under the old system of sovereign nation-states existing in anarchic relationship with one another. It would also reduce the likelihood of rigidly conflicted majority-minority formations in global politics. Suprasystemic bodies, for example an Asian or a North American Council composed of representatives elected from each sovereign nation in the regions of Asia or North America, would examine and decide issues that affect citizens from more than one nation--or delegate the decision to a smaller, transnational council representing just those citizens who are affected by an issue that crosses national borders. Intersystemic inclusions would bring new perspectives, increased popular trust, improved decision-making intelligence, and a new transparency or openness to government. Most importantly, they would create a more global orientation in those governments which are less than global. Rather like the "open skies" policy between competing military powers that wish to show to one another's spy planes that no aggressive actions are being planned, each government would further open up their decision-making processes to other peoples. Doing so would demonstrate an honest intent to promote mutually beneficial understanding and nonviolent conflict resolution. Trained international election observers, legislative observers, nuclear energy inspectors, and military observers who have the right to investigate suspected irregularities in each others' systems already substantially improve the trust that some people have in their own systems. If each national legislature would grant limited voting privileges to a few elected participants from other nations or regions, the integrative process could rapidly progress on a global scale. Naturally, and most importantly, such policies increase each people's trust and confidence in those other governing systems around the world which might otherwise be objects of fear or resentment. Historical injustice and conflicts over scarce resources, as well as local, regional, and national chauvinism, vary considerably from one area to the next. Therefore, the movement toward integrative structures for democracy will undoubtedly continue for some years to be slow and irregular. Locally prejudiced and nationalistic arguments against anything approaching a single, universal model of democratic or integrative government will tend, at times, to be quite virulent. A patient, consistent, and determined approach by any well-organized, sustainable and nonviolent organization will find, however, that time and the changes in consciousness that lie ahead are likely to be on the side of further democratization. And as de Tocqueville once noted, "...the further that electoral rights are extended, the greater is the need of extending them; for after each concession the strength of democracy increases, and its demands increase with its strength." Nevertheless, if democracy is to persist as an "heroic" idea in the minds of most of the peoples of the Earth, that is, if democracy is to become what it has long promised--the best guarantor of freedom, equality, and peaceful community--then it must act with heroic strength and compassion. In short, it must begin to effectively protect the poor and the few.