Johanna Goering - What are the No-Nonsense Guides and why are they important?

Richard Swift - The No-nonsense Guides came out of the editorial group of the magazine New Internationalist. As popular educators we sought to produce a series of books that took an important issue and addressed it in fairly simple language to sell at a relatively low price. We have published eight books so far covering quite a range of topics including World History, Globalization, and Sexual Diversity.

JG - How are the No-Nonsense Guides different from the Dummies series of books?

RS - The No-Nonsense Guides are written from a more consistent political perspective. They are not "how to" guides but are part of a political project with an edgier point of view supporting an agenda of independent radical thinking from an international perspective.

JG - Why did you choose to write a book about Democracy?

RS - I wanted to do something that I had to struggle with, something that would require a theoretical working through of a political position. To write this book I had to look back at the different strains within the history of democracy, what the limitations on present democracy are and the theory that underpins those limitations, and the theories that liberate democracy and make it more robust.

JG - In the introduction to your book C. Douglas Lummis describes you as a "radical democrat." What does he mean by that?

RS - I write about fostering a direct democracy rather than focusing on democracy solely from an ideological viewpoint. There is a lot more to democracy than being able to cast a ballot for a politician every four years. I am interested in a democracy that reaches all levels of society and roots itself in everyday lives of fishers in India, traders in Kampala, and workers in the Basque region of Spain.

JG - Since the end of the Cold War, democracy has become the dominant political ideology. Do you feel that the proliferations of democratic political systems are simply illusions of democracy rather than the real thing?

RS - It depends on what you mean by real democracy. Many countries have implemented a strong market/weak democracy model of government, which is driven by wealth and economic concerns above all other considerations. This leaves no room for the voice of the common citizenry on any political agenda. If you look at the huge decline in voter turnouts around the world it is easy to see a certain global dissatisfaction with the spread of this kind of democracy.

JG - You write about the importance of "democratic outbreaks" as a means of keeping democratic practice and ideals on the political agenda. Do you see the protests of Seattle and Quebec as effective "outbreaks"?

RS - Yes, absolutely. I was in Quebec in 2001 and it really brought home to me the need to examine what exactly democracy means within our society. The Canadian government slapped up a 40 kilometer fence to protect the politicians who were there to discuss a Free Trade Zone of the Americas and keep away the "unruly public" who were concerned about governments trading away their environmental and social rights. When the demonstrators in Quebec breached the security fence I saw that as a victory for democracy but those in power saw it as a violation of democratic law-and-order.

What the anti-globalization movement needs, however, is a more coherent platform that does not just materialize in reaction to G8 conferences and WTO meetings. To demonstrate in this fashion means that the politicians are always controlling the agenda and the citizenry can only react to what is already being discussed.

JG - Has increasing globalization affected the growth of democracy?

RS - There has been a greater push to implement a strong market/weak democracy model since it is in the best interests of those who are politically active in the world trade arena. But on the positive side, people that would normally be isolated have seen that some notions of democracy are wanting, this global perspective has encouraged places, especially on a grass roots level, to try and create their own versions of democracy that are truly representational.

JG - One of the great things about the No-Nonsense Guides is their international perspective. Is it possible to implement democratic principles on a global level?

RS - The main problem with implementing democracy is that those who hold power do not want to give it up after they get it, but you can't have a global democracy that doesn't exist at a grassroots level. Externally imposing a democratic political structure into a country allows for a lot of corruption and a very weak level of democracy. In order for democracy to thrive it needs to exist for everyone in a society and not just for those who are in power.

JG - How do you respond to criticism that notions of direct democracy are simply idealistic and utopian?

RS - First off, I would say that it does work in places. Secondly democracy doesn't just arise out of the here and now. It needs to be fostered, people need to see that there is a potential for it and then we can work towards it.

JG - How would you diagnose the state of Canada's democratic health? What would you prescribe as a means of strengthening it?

RS - While Canada's democratic health is not in the worst shape, there are several things that could be done to strengthen it. Canada needs to decentralize to a much greater degree. The tensions that exist between the Provincial and the Federal politics are problematic and issues of accountability are shuffled between the two levels of government while the political power and voice at a local level remains negligible. Right now municipalities have no constitution, no rights to taxation; they are creatures formed at the behest of a province and can be changed by the same power. One can see this in Toronto and the creation of the mega city, where the Provincial government amalgamated municipalities even though 70 percent of the electorate voted against such an amalgamation.

Another way forward would be to change the electoral system from a "First-Past-The-Post" system to one that allowed for more proportional representation. This change in the electoral system would make it possible for Canada to support other political parties like the Green Party, a socialist party, or even a right wing party in order to break down the sterile consensus in the middle of Canadian politics. We need a wider range of political choice in Canada to introduce new ideas into a political culture which has grown very stale.

We also need to find a way to democratize the economy. Canada's economy is fairly oligopolistic with its transnational companies, banks, and natural resource industries. This wealthy minority are able to translate their economic power into political power by controlling the policy process, hiring public relation firms to spin their interests, and bankrolling political parties. A democratization of the economy would allow a much broader range of actors to speak for the economy rather than just letting the Council on Business Issues in Ottawa have the only voice.

JG - Some might say that after September 11th society needs to be more concerned with strengthening security even if it means temporarily weakening democratic rights. What do you think about such opinions?

RS - There are some things that you need to do, commonsense things like tightening airport security that are reasonable. The real security of a society, however, lies in its democratic health, and a citizenry that believes in the integrity of their society. People need to rethink what they mean by security, to move away from a purely militarized notion of security (though at times that might be necessary) and see the need for security of democratic freedoms, and economic rights as important as well, a security where there is not the child poverty that exists now. Where strong market/weak democracy models prevail, people lose the belief that society is working for them, which is reflected in declining voter turn out and lack of interest in main-stream political life. We need to have a vision of security that is based on the notion of extending democratic rights rather than curtailing them.

JG - What do you want people to walk away with after reading your book?

RS - I want them to walk away with a sense of possibility. Not that they should take what I say as holy writ but if I could provoke them into thinking about how to organize democracy, how to have it as an underlying principle of society I would be happy.

It disturbs me when people say democracy is a sham rather than saying we have a limited amount of democracy and we need more. We must look at the limited democracy that we have and find a way to expand and strengthen it.

Richard Swift is a co-editor of the New Internationalist magazine, and is based in Toronto. He has worked in radio journalism and alternative publishing for many years and has a long-term interest in questions of ecology and democracy.