Democracy - Mono-ocracy, small-group-ocracy and major-ocracy

"Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world. Indeed, its the only thing that ever has."

- Margaret Mead

This quote runs counter to the ideas of democracy defined as the will of the majority which by definition is a large group.

Perhaps Democracy can include both ideas, being a multi-faceted organism consisting of different power groups both large and small.

I have subdivided democracy into three different groups based on size:

Mono-ocracy

This is the power of the individual to influence the political process.

There are three types of power utilised by individuals, some people only use one type while others use a mixture:

• Charisma: Individuals use their personality to persuade people to their way of thinking. This is generally used by the celebrity type, who have no professional influence but popular support.
• Resource: Individuals use resources such as money as a grease to support their way of thinking. This may be by indirect or direct influence. Direct influence includes payments for politicians or funding programmes in keeping with their ideals. Indirect would be supporting trusts, charities or research groups who share the same general ideals.
  
• Professional: Individuals use there professional status to influence the debate as a recognised expert in the field. An example would be judges or police chief constables talking to the media about the criminal justice system.

The power of the individual is not always obvious and influence can easily be hidden from the general public. However, by in large no one individual in the UK has an unfair or unethical influence on the political process. In a sense there is no shadowy Mr Big.

Small-group-ocracy

This is the political influence that Mary Mead talks about, small groups of committed individuals influence the political agenda.

These groups can be the protesters or single issue pressure groups. Whether it is immigration, the local hospital or hunting with hounds these groups push an issue and try to get majority support to force a change.

Interestingly enough the change may not be in accordance with the view of the majority. In single issue pressure groups only one side turns up to the debate, there is no count of the yes and the no votes only of one side only. So what seems like a majority may in fact be a minority.

There are exceptions, in Oxford (UK) the university is building an animal testing lab. At the start there was an anti-lab protest group but then a pro-lab protest group was set up. At times it can be difficult to see who is winning the debate.

Another exception is the hunting with hounds lobbies, the anti-hunting lobby influenced the political process and got a law outlawing hunting with hounds. Now the law is in, the hunting lobby has significant support and there is the possibility of the law being repealed.

In a sense the majority may be changing sides / being indecisive or there are two small groups equally influencing the debate but the side in opposition, being the under dogs, are always winning.

There are other small groups in society, the media barons wield power to influence the political debate. The editors of newspapers or television news shows can swing the vote on general election day my merely changing a headline. One group wielding so much power and so many votes.

Major-ocracy

This is the rest of the population, "the others". The majority are the followers they vote the way the individuals and small groups tell them. Perhaps they are locked in a "group think" situation where they vote as everyone else does or they may be individuals who share society norms and beliefs.

They the majority listen to what the media and individuals lead them to believe. They bring strength of numbers and validation to the political debate and are therefore charmed by both the individuals and small groups.

In some senses the majority are lead by the minority.

Democracy

Democracy is not the will of the majority but the will of the minority which has been adopted by the majority.

This is where democracy has its blemishes:

• Everything would be fine if the minority could be trusted to be altruistic and honest but as humans do, they have their own agenda's which may not be in the best interests of the majority.
• The majority can be persuaded to give its vote to the loudest shouting group or the one with the best PR. This is how cigarette companies managed to persuade us that cigarettes were not really harmful for so long.
• The majority do not always turn up to participate, there is wide spread apathy towards some issues allowing the groups that care about an issue to swing the debate. The best example is a general election. In 2005 ( BBC election results) the voter turnout was 61.3% of which only 35.3% supported the winning party, making only 22% of the total electorate voting for that party. So in reality a significant minority elected the government yet that minority has now set the political agenda for the next five years.
  

All of these examples could lead us to believe that the majority may not exist or is certainly not represented in today's political environment.

Conclusion

Democracy cannot be said to be the simple will of the majority but instead can be defined as the freedom of individuals and small groups to influence the political process.

The majority currently takes no part in democracy. Today's majority view is simply a larger version of the small group.