Science never gives up searching for truth, since it never claims to have achieved it. It is civilizing because it puts truth ahead of all else, including personal interests. These are grand claims, but so is the enterprise in which scientists share. How do we encourage the civilizing effects of science? First, we have to understand science.

Scientia is knowledge. It is only in the popular mind that it is equated with facts. That is of course flattering, since facts are incontrovertible. But it is also demeaning, since facts are meaningless. They contain no narrative.

Science, by contrast, is story-telling. This is evident in the way we use our primary scientific instrument, the eye. The eye searches for shapes. It searches for a beginning, a middle, and an end.

What we see is as a consequence, culturally conditioned. This is open to misunderstanding. It might be construed to mean that our conclusions are simply a matter of taste, which they are not. Though we explore in a culturally-conditioned way, the reality we sketch is universal. It is this, at its most basic, that makes science a humane pursuit; it acknowledges the commonality of people's experience.

This in turn, implies a commonality of human worth. If we treasure our own experience and regard it as real, we must also treasure other people's experience. Reality is no less precious if it presents itself to someone else. All are discoverers, and if we disenfranchise any, all suffer.

It is important that we reflect upon our craft, since our understanding of science will inform public policy towards it – 'science policy' as it is called. For example, if seeing is a skill, then we should rely on those who have that skill to determine what science we do.

In Canada, we routinely offend against this principle. We have, for example, numerous 'Centres of Excellence' because we recognize that the skill on which discovery depends is possessed by a few. But then we proceed in evaluating such centres, to give only a legislated twenty percent weight to 'excellence'. A preposterous eighty percent is reserved for considerations having to do with 'socio-economic worth'.

Our assessment of socio-economic worth is largely a sham. We scientists should not lend ourselves to it - though we routinely do. We should, instead, insist on applying the criterion of quality. That this criterion is real, is evidenced by the awesome success of science – peer-reviewed science – in this century.

Have we failed, as scientists, to explain science? Seemingly. Have we, too often, kept silent because we thought it expedient? Undoubtedly.

Being a Citizen

Though neglectful of their responsibility to protect science, scientists are increasingly aware of their responsibility to society. But what is this responsibility?

Some dreamers demand that scientists only discover things that can be used for good. That is impossible. Science gives us a powerful vocabulary, and it is impossible to produce a vocabulary with which one can only say nice things.

Others think it the responsibility of scientists to coerce the rest of society, because they have the power that derives from special knowledge. But scientists, like any other group, are not permitted to seize the levers of power. Nor should they be blamed for failing to do so. They must work through democratic channels. Anything else would be incredible arrogance.

What responsibilities remain? Plenty. Scientists are only beginning to come to terms with them.

In the time that I have been a scientist, I have seen huge changes in our perception of these responsibilities. Let me give some examples.

In the late 1950s a major topic under discussion was whether Canada should acquire nuclear weapons. The United States was trying to get Canada to do the decent thing, and arm itself with nukes. The weapons were, after all, for the defense of North America.

Individual scientists like myself – and many more conspicuous – pointed to the dangers of radioactive fallout over Canada if we were to launch nuclear weapons to intercept incoming bombers. On the face of it, this was technical advice. But more truthfully it was a philosophical position. We chose to make our calculations concerning fall-out because we were opposed to the acquisition of nuclear weapons; not the reverse.

I do not mean to discount the technical element. I merely want to stress (as I did in the context of discovery) that what the scientist sees is influenced by what he believes.

Much the same applied to the next public debate, which had to do with nuclear fall-out shelters. Technical arguments were once more advanced (by myself, among others) to illustrate the absurdity of sheltering a nation from a determined nuclear attack. At a deeper level, however, we were objecting to an outlook according to which security was to be found in the life of a troglodyte.

We were appalled by the abandonment of attempts at coexistence in favour of the life of a mole. Better to die in the pursuit of civilized values, we believed, than in a flight underground. We were offering a value system couched in the language of science.

Around 1970 my scientist friends in the U.S. indoctrinated me in a fresh question of policy. In the war in Vietnam, the United States was using herbicides (Agent Orange) and a tear gas (CS2). This could well be construed as being in contravention of the Geneva Protocol, which for almost half a century had banned the use of chemical weapons. It was, at that date, one of the few instruments of international law regulating the use of weapons, and was correspondingly precious.

I went off to see our Ministers of Defence and of Foreign Affairs, as well as the Prime Minister. God knows how I got into their offices, but I did. They gave me a hard time – as was proper – protesting, "these things are used for killing weeds and for riot control; how can you say they are weapons of war?" The answer was that when employed to prosecute a war, they had become weapons of war. They were being used to expose the enemy, so as to kill him.

One does not need to be a chemist to make that point. But it helps to come from a community with a commitment to objectivity, and a degree of independence from special interests. Under this scientific and moral pressure, the Canadian government conceded publicly that the use of these weapons in Vietnam was, in their view, a contravention of the Geneva Protocol. The government of the United States was not pleased.

What we in the scientific community were seeking, in our idealism, was a world ruled by law. The moral force that we brought to this debate derived from our membership in an international community ruled by law – albeit unwritten law. For without the acceptance and enforcement of standards of probity, there would be no functioning scientific community.

And without steps being taken to widen this realm of rule-based co-operation, beyond the narrow bounds of science and similar professions, there will be anarchy leading ultimately to all-out war. But technology had made such war intolerable. The solution is to be found not in more technology, but in less war.

When in March 1983 President Reagan announced the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), popularly known as Star Wars, this issue was clearly joined. President Reagan was offering a technical fix to the threat of nuclear war. The SDI, he made it clear, was to be the scientist's antidote to the nuclear poison. However, in the process of distributing this illusory antidote, we were to abandon the only genuine defence against nuclear missiles, which lay as it still lies, in institutionalised restraint.

The SDI was an invitation to a new arms race; one in nuclear-shields which would proceed in parallel to the continuing arms race in swords. With missile-defences back in the news today, this is a lesson to remember.

In the course of these political struggles, scientists became increasingly aware of themselves as an international non-governmental organization. This NGO bases itself, I claim, not primarily on its technical expertise but on its moral tenets. In science, we have a group of individuals supporting one another, world-wide, in an endeavour whose success depends upon placing the truth ahead of personal advantage.

Not all succeed in doing this, but all are agreed in its necessity. In science, truth must take precedence not only over individual advantage, but also over 'group advantage' – sectional interests such as nationality, creed or ethnicity.

This assertion of higher purpose has made scientists (and all scholars) supporters of human rights. Our championing of human rights puts to rest the notion that what we are offering is primarily technical expertise. Technical expertise has nothing directly to do with human rights. It is once more the moral force of science – evident in such individuals as Einstein, Russell, Pauling, and Sakharov – that makes it effective.

Our community's voyage of self-discovery is not over. I believe that it will lead us to a more active support of democracy, wherever it is threatened.

That notion would have seemed preposterous when I began my life as a scientist. But no longer. Today, Academies of Science use their influence around the world in support of human rights. They should do the same for democracy, for the death of democracy is the death of free enquiry. The bell tolls for us.

DEEPAVALI or Diwali means "a row of lights". It falls on the last two days of the dark half of Kartik (October-November). For some it is a three-day festival. It commences with the Dhan-Teras, on the 13th day of the dark half of Kartik, followed the next day by the Narak Chaudas, the 14th day, and by Deepavali proper on the 15th day.

There are various alleged origins attributed to this festival. Some hold that they celebrate the marriage of Lakshmi with Lord Vishnu. In Bengal the festival is dedicated to the worship of Kali. It also commemorates that blessed day on which the triumphant Lord Rama returned to Ayodhya after defeating Ravana. On this day also Sri Krishna killed the demon Narakasura.

In South India people take an oil bath in the morning and wear new clothes. They partake of sweetmeats. They light fireworks which are regarded as the effigies of Narakasura who was killed on this day. They greet one another, asking, "Have you had your Ganges bath?" which actually refers to the oil bath that morning as it is regarded as purifying as a bath in the holy Ganges.

Everyone forgets and forgives the wrongs done by others. There is an air of freedom, festivity and friendliness everywhere. This festival brings about unity. It instils charity in the hearts of people. Everyone buys new clothes for the family. Employers, too, purchase new clothes for their employees.

Waking up during the Brahmamuhurta (at 4a.m.) is a great blessing from the standpoint of health, ethical discipline, efficiency in work and spiritual advancement. It is on Deepavali that everyone wakes up early in the morning. The sages who instituted this custom must have cherished the hope that their descendents would realise its benefits and make it a regular habit in their lives.

In a happy mood of great rejoicing village folk move about freely, mixing with one another without any reserve, all enmity being forgotten. People embrace one another with love. Deepavali is a great unifying force. Those with keen inner spiritual ears will clearly hear the voice of the sages, "O Children of God! unite, and love all". The vibrations produced by the greetings of love which fill the atmosphere are powerful enough to bring about a change of heart in every man and woman in the world. Alas! That heart has considerably hardened, and only a continuous celebration of Deepavali in our homes can rekindle in us the urgent need of turning away from the ruinous path of hatred.

On this day Hindu merchants in North India open their new account books and pray for success and prosperity during the coming year. The homes are cleaned and decorated by day and illuminated by night with earthern oil-lamps. The best and finest illuminations are to be seen in Bombay and Amritsar. The famous Golden Temple at Amritsar is lit in the evening with thousands of lamps placed all over the steps of the big tank. Vaishnavites celebrate the Govardhan Puja and feed the poor on a large scale.

O Ram! The light of lights, the self-luminous inner light of the Self is ever shining steadily in the chamber of your heart. Sit quietly. Close your eyes. Withdraw the senses. Fix the mind on this supreme light and enjoy the real Deepavali, by attaining illumination of the soul.

He who Himself sees all but whom no one beholds, who illumines the intellect, the sun, the moon and the stars and the whole universe but whom they cannot illumine, He indeed is Brahman, He is the inner Self. Celebrate the real Deepavali by living in Brahman, and enjoy the eternal bliss of the soul.

The sun does not shine there, nor do the moon and the stars, nor do lightnings shine and much less fire. All the lights of the world cannot be compared even to a ray of the inner light of the Self. Merge yourself in this light of lights and enjoy the supreme Deepavali.

Many Deepavali festivals have come and gone. Yet the hearts of the vast majority are as dark as the night of the new moon. The house is lit with lamps, but the heart is full of the darkness of ignorance. O man! wake up from the slumber of ignorance. Realise the constant and eternal light of the Soul which neither rises nor sets, through meditation and deep enquiry.

May you all attain full inner illumination! May the supreme light of lights enlighten your understanding! May you all attain the inexhaustible spiritual wealth of the Self! May you all prosper gloriously on the material as well as spiritual planes!

All democracies (and every other form of government) have certain structural defects, which are related to the nature of democracy. Although all forms of government have defects, supporters of democracy are often reluctant to concede that it is less than perfect, which in turn may hinder its reform. Two prominent defects are related to the territory and membership of the demos itself.

Inappropriate borders

The demos is a fixed unit - in practice a nation-state - and it may not be an appropriate unit for decision. It may not correspond territorially with the appropriate reach of the decision. For instance, the Rhine and Danube basins have an international authority, but it there is no 'demos' corresponding to a river basin. Some versions of bioregionalism propose to create them, to take natural units rather than nations as the basis for units of government. The nation-state as demos is often too large for internal regional issues, but that can be resolved by devolution of powers. It may be too small for global issues, and as yet there is no simple resolution to that issue. Democracy rejects by definition political participation by non-members of the demos. No international organisation has a directly elected administration, or a multi-party system, or anything comparable to the features of liberal democracy. To supporters of democratic world government that is a failure of democracy, and they have made proposals for direct elections of the United Nations Security Council, and the U. N. Secretary-General. However, they remain a minority: most supporters of democracy identify the demos, without question, as the nation. Subjecting it to decisions taken by supranational electorates would in their eyes destroy democracy, not enhance it.

Immigrants and 'the people'

Many democratic constitutions explicitly state (or imply) that power belongs to, or derives from, the people. One example is article 20 of the German Constitution: Alle Staatsgewalt geht vom Volke aus - All state power derives from the people. The German example illustrates a recurrent problem with this ideal, because in German, as in English, the word people has a double meaning. It can refer to the population as an inclusive unit, or it can refer to an ethnic group - which by definition excludes non-members. If 'the people' are the German people, should immigrants be allowed to vote? The issue remains controversial in Germany, and in other countries where naturalisation of immigrants and their children is a disputed issue.

The European Union requires that resident EU migrants are given the vote, at least in European Parliament elections. In some member states, they are allowed to vote in local and regional elections. However, the idea of 'foreigners' voting in national elections is unacceptable to many nationalist parties in the EU, and politically contentious. In most cases they remain excluded from suffrage. Democracy is the only form of government which specifically excludes immigrants from political decision-making.

Ethnic and religious conflicts

Democracy, and especially liberal democracy, necessarily assumes a sense of shared values in the demos (otherwise political legitimacy will fail). In other words, it assumes that the demos is in fact a unit. For historical reasons, many states lack the cultural and ethnic unity of the ideal nation-state. There may be sharp ethnic, linguistic, religious and cultural divisions. In fact, some groups may be actively hostile to each other. A democracy, which by definition allows mass participation in decision-making, by definition, also allows the use of the political process against the 'enemy'. That is especially visible during democratisation, if a previous non-democratic government suppressed internal rivalry. However, it is also visible in established democracies, in the form of anti-immigrant populism.

The collapse of the Soviet Union and the democratisation of Soviet bloc states led to wars and civil war in the former Yugoslavia, in the Caucasus, and in Moldova. Nevertheless, some supporters of democracy claim that statistical research shows that the fall of Communism and the increase in the number of democratic states were accompanied by a sudden and dramatic decline in total warfare, interstate wars, ethnic wars, revolutionary wars, and the number of refugees and displaced persons.

Bureaucracy

A persistent libertarian and monarchist critique of democracy is the claim that it encourages the elected representatives to change the law without necessity, and in particular to pour forth a flood of new laws. This is seen as pernicious in several ways. New laws constrict the scope of what were previously private liberties. Changing laws make it impossible for a willing non-specialist to remain law-abiding. A legal system where any ordinary citizen can expect to be breaking some law in ignorance most of the time is an invitation for law-enforcement to misuse power. This continual complication of the law is also seen by some as contrary to the simple and eternal natural law - bringing the whole legal system into disrepute. Democracies have also been criticised for slowness and complexity in their decision-making.

Short-term focus

Modern liberal democracies, by definition? allow for regular changes of government. That has led to a common criticism of their short-term focus. In four or five years the government will face a new election, and it must think of how it will win that election. That would encourage a preference for policies that will bring short term benefits to the electorate (or to self-interested politicians) before the next election, rather than unpopular policy with longer term benefits. This criticism assumes that it is possible to make term long predictions for a society, something Karl Popper has criticized as historicism.

Public choice theory

Public choice theory is a branch of economics that studies the decision-making behavior of voters, politicians and government officials from the perspective of economic theory. One studied problem is that each voter has little influence and may therefore have a rational ignorance regarding political issues. This may allow special interest groups to gain subsidies and regulations beneficial to them but harmful to society.

Plutocracy

The cost of political campaigning in representative democracies may mean that the system favours the rich, who are only a very small minority of the voters. It may encourage candidates to make deals with wealthy supporters, offering favorable legislation if the candidate is elected. However, American economist Steven Levitt claims in his book Freakonomics, that campaign spending is no guarantee of electoral success. He compared electoral success of the same pair of candidates running against one another repeatedly for the same job (as often happens in US Congressional elections), where spending levels varied. He concludes:



Private ownership of the media may lead to more specific distortion of the electoral process, since the media are themselves a vital element of that process. Some critics argue that criticism of capitalism tends to be suppressed by such companies, to protect their own self-interests. Proponents respond that constitutionally protected freedom of speech makes it possible for both for-profit and non-profit organizations to debate capitalism. They argue that media coverage in democracies simply reflects public preferences, and not censorship.

Tyranny of the majority

Probably the most quoted criticism of democracy is the fear that it will become a "tyranny of the majority." The expression was coined by John Stuart Mill in the 19th century - not then referring to democratic government, but to social conformity. The issue of majority dominance was however known during the ancient Greek democracies. It is independent of universal suffrage, but it implies a broad franchise (otherwise there would be conflicting minorities). It can apply in both direct democracy or representative democracy. 'Tyranny of the majority' implies that a government reflecting the majority view can take action that oppresses a particular minority. It might decide that a certain minority (religion, political belief, etc.) should be criminalised (either directly or indirectly). This undermines the idea of democracy as an empowerment of the electorate as a whole.


Possible examples include:

1. Several European countries have introduced bans on personal religious symbols, aimed at those considered symbolic of Islamism - the hijab or 'Islamic headscarf', the burqa, the niqaab. In France, they are banned under the law on secularity and conspicuous religious symbols. Opponents see this as a violation of rights to freedom of religion.

2. Prohibition of pornography is typically determined by what the majority is prepared to accept. In the United States distribution of pornography is declared illegal if the material violates "community standards" of decency.

3. The law on abortion is typically determined by the religious attitude of the majority. For "pro-life" (anti-abortion) activists, unborn children are an oppressed, helpless and disenfranchised minority, and a ban on abortion is a proper use of state power: their opponents disagree.

4. Recreational drug use is also typically legalised (or at least tolerated) to the degree that the majority finds acceptable. Users may see themselves as an oppressed minority, victims of unjustifiable criminalisation. In many countries, those convicted of drug use also lose the right to vote.

5. Society's treatment of homosexuals is also cited in this context. Homosexual acts were widely criminalised in democracies until several decades ago, in some democracies they still are, reflecting the religious views of the majority.

6. Slavery of a particular race or ethnicity can occur as a result of majority rule if the majority is of a unified race.

7. In the United States, the draft early in the Vietnam War was criticised as oppression of a disenfranchised minority, 18 to 21 year olds. In response to this, the draft age was raised to 19 and the voting age was lowered nationwide (along with the drinking age in many states). While no longer disenfranchised, those subject to the draft remained significantly outnumbered.

8. The majority often taxes the minority who are wealthy at progressively higher rates, with the intention that the wealthy will incur a larger tax burden for social purposes. However, this is generally offset to some degree, by their better access to relevant expert advice (tax consultants and lawyers).

9. In prosperous western democracies, the poor form a minority of the population, and may be disadvantaged by a majority who resent transfer taxation. Especially when they form a distinct underclass, the majority may use the democratic process to, in effect, withdraw the protection of the state. The initial abandonment of poor, ethnic-minority, residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina illustrated the degree to which a minority underclass can be isolated in a democracy.

10. Classical Athenian democracy executed Socrates for impiety, i.e., for dissent, although the relevance of this example to contemporary democracy is itself a matter of dispute.

11. An often quoted example of the 'tyranny of the majority' is that Adolf Hitler came to power by legitimate democratic procedures. The Nazi party gained the largest share of votes in the democratic Weimar republic in 1933. Some might consider this an example of "tyranny of a minority" since he never gained a majority vote, but it is common for a plurality to exercise power in democracies, so the rise of Hitler can not be considered irrelevant. However, his regime's large-scale human rights violations took place after the democratic system had been abolished. Also, the Weimar constitution in an "emergency" allowed dictatorial powers and suspension of the essentials of the constitution itself without any vote or election, something not possible in most liberal democracies.

Proponents of democracy make a number of defences concerning 'tyranny of the majority'. One is to argue that the presence of a constitution in many democratic countries acts as a safeguard. Generally, changes in these constitutions require the agreement of a supermajority of the elected representatives, or require a judge and jury to agree that evidentiary and procedural standards have been fulfilled by the state, or two different votes by the representatives separated by an election, or, sometimes, a referendum. These requirements are often combined. The separation of powers into legislative branch, executive branch, judicial branch also makes it more difficult for a small majority to impose their will. This means a majority can still legitimately coerce a minority (which is still ethically questionable), but such a minority would be very small and, as a practical matter, it is harder to get a larger proportion of the people to agree to such actions.

Another argument is that majorities and minorities can take a markedly different shape on different issues. People often agree with the majority view on some issues and agree with a minority view on other issues. One's view may also change. Thus, the members of a majority may limit oppression of a minority since they may well in the future themselves be in a minority.

A third common argument is that, despite the risks, majority rule is preferable to other systems, and the tyranny of the majority is in any case an improvement on a tyranny of a minority. Proponents of democracy argue that empirical statistical evidence strongly shows that more democracy leads to less internal violence and democide. This is sometimes formulated as Rummel's Law, which states that the less democratic freedom a people have, the more likely their rulers are to murder them.

Political stability

One argument for democracy is that by creating a system where the public can remove administrations, without changing the legal basis for government, democracy aims at reducing political uncertainty and instability, and assuring citizens that however much they may disagree with present policies, they will be given a regular chance to change those who are in power, or change policies with which they disagree. This is preferable to a system where political change takes place through violence.

Political stability may be considered as excessive when the group in power remains the same for an extended period of time. This can take the form of Bipartidism, where power is shared only by two parties, alternating the roles of governing and opposition.. This is common in democracies where the electoral system favours two-party systems.

Effective response in wartime

A pluralist democracy, by definition, implies that power is not concentrated. One criticism is that this could be a disadvantage for a state in wartime, when a fast and unified response is necessary. The legislature usually must pass a declaration of war before hostilities can be commenced, although sometimes the executive has that power (subject to informing the legislature). If conscription is instituted, a democracy would allow protest against it. Monarchies and dictatorships can (in theory) act immediately and forcefully. However, not everyone sees this as a disadvantage. The 'pacifist democracy' thesis, which is part of Democratic Peace Theory, sees it as an advantage of democracy, that these factors might prevent a war. In practice, all types of states have gone to war, and historic monarchies also had procedures for declaring war. Historically, most democratic states succeeded in maintaining their security.

Some research indicates that democracies perform ?better? in wartime than non-democracies, i.e. they are more likely to win wars than non-democracies. This attributes primarily to ?the transparency of the polities, and the stability of their preferences, once determined? by which ?democracies are better able to cooperate with their partners in the conduct of wars?. Other research attributes this to superior mobilisation of resources, or selection of wars with a high chance of winning.

Corruption

Research by the World Bank suggests that political institutions are extremely important in determining the prevalence of corruption: democracy, parliamentary systems, political stability, and freedom of the press are all associated with lower corruption. Nevertheless, there are numerous examples of corruption in established democracies.

Poverty and famine

There is overwhelming statistical evidence for the presence of poverty in democracies, primarily from census data, tax data, household income surveys and specific research on poverty. In addition, there is overwhelming statistical evidence that the democratic states have failed to relieve massive and acute poverty in non-democratic states, despite their (democracies) generally higher GDP per capita. Poverty and democracy is an emotional and highly politicised issue. Logically, a democracy inhibits redistribution of majority wealth, and redistribution between states: voters prefer to keep their money. However, many supporters of democracy see this as an advantage of democracy. If, for instance, democracies are rich and autocracies are poor, that is (in their eyes) proof of the superiority of democracy, rather than proof that democracies are selfish. Supporters of democracy often quote the prominent economist, Amartya Sen, who notes that no functioning democracy has ever allowed a large scale famine to affect its citizens. The fate of citizens of other states is not considered relevant for this argument.

Similarly, internal inequalities are often discounted in assessing the standard of living in democracies. In some democratic states, a high national score on the human development index (HDI) is accompanied by differentials in health, education, and income among ethnic groups. In the United States, in every state, infant mortality is higher for African-Americans then for whites.

The long-term downward trend in US infant mortality has not benefited Blacks and Whites equally. The Black/White disparity in infant mortality has not only persisted but increased over time and is not expected to diminish in the near future. Educational inequalities have also widened, and racial disparities have generally increased across all educational levels.

Supporters of democracy emphasise the high average scores of democracies, although the strong inequalities in the United States depress its average scores on health and social indicators, compared to other developed democracies. Again, it is logically consistent with majority rule, that the majority can allocate itself better access to social infrastructure such as education and health care. Whether that is an advantage or a disadvantage of democracy is a value preference.

The politicised dispute on democracy and poverty is further complicated by the parallel development of liberal democracy and historic capitalism, during and after the industrial revolution. It is therefore difficult to distinguish cause and effect. Some American pro-capitalism groups support the theory that more capitalism increases economic growth and that this in turn increases general prosperity, reduces poverty, and causes democratisation. In such theories, democracy will not bring prosperity, but results from prosperity. Political supporters of democracy tend to argue that it is itself causal. The issue has been further complicated by the economic success of China and other non-democratic states in Asia.

In a 2005 Foreign Affairs article Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and George W. Downs conclude:

Until quite recently, conventional wisdom has held that economic development, wherever it occurs, will lead inevitably - and fairly quickly - to democracy... The fact that almost all of the richest countries in the world are democratic was long taken as iron-clad evidence of this progression. Recent history, however, has complicated matters. As events now suggest, the link between economic development and what is generally called liberal democracy is actually quite weak and may even be getting weaker... the growing number of affluent authoritarian states suggests that greater wealth alone does not automatically lead to greater political freedom.

Democratic war or democratic peace?

The democratic peace theory - DPT for short - is often quoted as evidence of the advantages of democracy, and its superiority to other forms of government. Among others, Margaret Thatcher and George W. Bush have quoted it in support of military action (in the Falklands War and the 2003 invasion of Iraq). As that apparently paradoxical use indicates, DPT is not so much a peace theory as a war theory. In its original form it is a political science theory, which statistically analysed pairs (dyads) of warring states, and concluded that democracies - specifically, liberal democracies - rarely go to war with one another. Democracies do go to war, and if not with other democracies, then logically with non-democracies. The subsequent development of dyadic DPT has also concerned itself with cases of democracies at war, and democracy-initiated wars.

However, from the start, the dyadic research findings were to used to suggest that democracies are objectively better than non-democracies. That cannot be inferred from a finding that democracies do not go to war with each other: external policy does not legitimise internal regime. DPT was used to imply western cultural superiority, and to justify democratisation, even by force. As a result, it acquired connotations of a pro-western, pro-American, pro-democracy theory, and became associated with historicist ideas about the inevitable global triumph of western democracy. Some researchers developed what are now called monadist versions of the theory, with more emphasis on political philosophy, and they do emphasise the internally peaceful nature of democracies. More general theories developed from the monadic version, including the theory of democide, claim less systematic violence of all kinds, including civil war, within democracies.

Dyadic-oriented research continues to show that democracies preferentially fight non-democracies. This is even evident in well-publicised studies by R. J. Rummel, a libertarian DPT theorist noted for his hostility to autocracy. He examined 353 wars from 1816 to 1991, where war was defined as any military action with more than 1000 killed in battle. 155 wars (44%) were fought by a democracy - defined as voting rights for at least 2/3 of all adult males - against a non-democracy. The study found no wars at all between democracies, and the rest were between non-democracies. As a theoretical explanation for this observed pattern, some dyadic theorists posit the existence of 'militant democracy', as a specific ideological orientation of states. Harald Müller and Jonas Wolff describe in a 2004 paper "two ideal type orientations of democracies in order to account for the vast variation in their behaviour towards non-democracies". One is the 'militant orientation' which "adopts the policy of violent regime change to bring liberation, law and rights to suppressed fellow human being".

Unlike other causal explanations in DPT, this can be directly related to explicit ideological positions, and stated government policy, in some democracies. There was an explicit neoconservative lobby for an American war of regime change against Iraq, for instance, which exactly corresponds to the posited militant orientation. If the inhabitants of a democracy believe theirs is the only good form of government, and that people always suffer by living in a non-democracy, then a historical basis for 'wars of democratic liberation' is present. Although that is not the only reason why a democracy would fight a non-democracy - they might simply have a border dispute - their observed preference for wars against non-democracies supports an ideological explanation. That may itself reflect an evolution of democracies. The 'militant democracy' thesis therefore reverses the expectations of early DPT, that democracies are more peaceful than non-democracies, and makes clear that the theory is not an undisputed argument for democracy, and can equally serve as an argument against it.

Corruption is now recognized to be one of the world's greatest challenges. It is a major hindrance to sustainable development, with a disproportionate impact on poor communities and is corrosive on the very fabric of society. The impact on the private sector is also considerable - it impedes economic growth, distorts competition and represents serious legal and reputational risks. Corruption is also very costly for business, with the extra financial burden estimated to add 10% or more to the costs of doing business in many parts of the world. The World Bank has stated that "bribery has become a $1 trillion industry."

The rapid development of rules of corporate governance around the world is also prompting companies to focus on anti-corruption measures as part of their mechanisms to protect their reputations and the interests of their shareholders. Their internal controls are increasingly being extended to a range of ethics and integrity issues and a growing number of investment managers are looking to these controls as evidence that the companies undertake good business practice and are well managed.

The international legal fight against corruption has gained momentum in more recent times through the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions and through the entering into force of the first globally agreed instrument, the United Nations Convention against Corruption (UNCAC) in December 2005.

There are a number of very different reasons for why businesses should combat corruption in all its forms.

The ethical case

Corruption is inherently wrong. It is a misuse of power and position and has a disproportionate impact on the poor and disadvantaged. It undermines the integrity of all involved and damages the fabric of the organizations to which they belong. The reality that laws making corrupt practices criminal may not always be enforced is no justification for accepting corrupt practices. To fight corruption in all its forms is simply the right thing to do.

The business case

There are many reasons why it is in any company's business interest to ensure that it does not engage in corrupt practices. All companies, large and small, are vulnerable and the potential for damage to them is considerable. The following are some of the key reasons for avoiding involvement in corrupt practices:

Legal risks
Regardless of what form a corrupt transaction may take, there are obvious legal risks involved. Not only are most forms of corruption illegal where it occurs, but also it is increasingly becoming illegal in a company's home country to engage in corrupt practices in another country. The principle that it is illegal to bribe foreign officials was first established in the US Foreign and Corrupt Practices Act of 1977 and since then, this principle has gained legal standing within the whole of the OECD and in a number of other countries. It is a principle that was universally recognized in 2003, through the adoption of the UN Convention against Corruption.

The enforcement of anti-corruption legislation internationally has hitherto been relatively poor, but this is slowly changing. In developing countries and emerging markets, where the opportunity for corruption has been rife because of weak law and regulation, corruption has become an issue of significant political importance and there is growing determination to act and to take those accused of corrupt practices to court. There is also a growing number of examples where developing countries with limited capacity to handle such cases have obtained outside legal assistance. To this end the OECD is playing a critical role in ensuring that its member states are developing judicial capacity to enforce the prohibition against any involvement in bribing foreign officials.

This changing environment of law, regulation and enforcement makes it harder for business managers to assess and quantify the legal risks to which corruption exposes their operations. Change brings uncertainty. Of particular significance for many large companies is the degree to which they may be responsible for agents acting on its behalf in other countries. What may yesterday have been considered an independent agent - for whom the principal company carried no responsibilities - may today be someone whose actions the principal company indeed can be legally accountable for.

Reputational risks
Based on the experience of recent years, companies whose policies and practices fail to meet high ethical standards, or that take a relaxed attitude to compliance with laws, are exposed to serious reputational risks. Often it is enough to be accused of malpractice for a reputation to be damaged even if a court subsequently determines that they have not been involved in corrupt practices. It is of critical importance for a company to be able to quickly quash any unfounded allegations by demonstrating that it acts in a transparent manner and has in place policies and procedures designed to prevent corruption. The argument that although what they may have done may have been against the law or international standards, it was simply the way business was done in a particular country is not an acceptable excuse. Nor is it good enough to claim that other companies and competitors have engaged in similar practices.

Financial costs

There is now clear evidence that in many countries corruption adds upwards of 10 per cent to the cost of doing business and that corruption adds as much as 25 per cent to the cost of public procurement. This undermines business performance and diverts public resources from legitimate sustainable development.

'Known as clean' and repeat demands

There is growing evidence that a company is less likely to be under pressure to pay bribes if it has not done so in the past. Once a bribe is paid, repeat demands are possible and the amounts demanded are likely to rise. Conversely a company which takes a firm and principled stand against all forms of corruption will become known for this and the risk of its employees being exposed to demands will lessen. For example, a business manager representing a large international company in China recently confirmed that despite pressures to do otherwise, his company did not accept any kinds of corruption: 'Zero tolerance is the only practical solution'.

Blackmail, no recourse and security risks

By engaging in corrupt practices, company managers expose themselves to blackmail. Consequently the security of staff, plant and other assets are put at risk.

'The one who cheats will be cheated against'

If a company engages in or tolerates corrupt practice, it will soon be widely known, both internally and externally. Unethical behavior erodes staff loyalty to the company and it can be difficult for staff to see why high standards should be applied within a company when it does not apply in the company's external relations. Internal trust and confidence is then eroded.

Companies have a vested interest in sustainable social, economic and environmental development

It is now clear that corruption has played a major part in undermining the world's social, economic and environmental development. Resources have been diverted to improper use and the quality of services and materials used for development seriously compromised. The impact on poorer communities struggling to improve their lives has been devastating, in many cases undermining the very fabric of society. It has led to environmental mismanagement, undermining labor standards and has restricted access to basic human rights. Business has a vested interest in social stability and in the economic growth of local communities. It has therefore suffered, albeit indirectly, from the impact of lost opportunities to extend markets and supply chains. The business community can and should play its part in making corruption unacceptable. It is important to recognize that corruption diverts resources from their proper use. Financial resources that were intended for local development may, as a result of corruption, end up in foreign bank accounts instead of being used for local purchasing and the stimulation of local economies. At the same time it distorts competition and creates gross inefficiencies in both the public and private sectors. In most cases when corruption occurs, the services or products being purchased are inferior to what had been expected or contracted for. The long-term sustainability of business depends on free and fair competition. Corrupt practices also accompany and facilitate drug dealing and organized crime. Money laundering and illicit international money transfers are used as support mechanisms for international terrorism. Global businesses have to be constantly vigilant to avoid being associated with these major international challenges.

During an election season, we often step back and allow the candidates to set the agenda. But that agenda may be more about polarizing us and getting them elected than about the real changes we need. Here’s an agenda based on the realities facing Americans, and what we want for our families, communities, and country.

FAMILIES :: Fairness for Working Parents

Author and mother Nanette Fondas lays out what truly family friendly policies would look like—those that help women thrive in the dual roles of worker and mother.

HEALTH CARE :: Health Coverage for Everyone

The movement for universal single-payer health care is growing, and it's not just liberals who are behind it. Dana Saib talks to the doctors and small business owners—including Republicans—who are lobbying for health care reform.

HOUSING :: Keep Prices Affordable—For Now and Forever

Community Housing Trusts buy land and houses, not for profit, but to keep them affordable for low- and middle-income residents. Daniel Fireside looks at the success of Vermont's 25-year-old Champlain Housing Trust, which provides homes for 2,100 households.

JOBS :: Create Your Own Workplace

Cooperative businesses allow employee-owners to receive all the benefits of their work—and their jobs can’t get out-sourced or downsized. Layla Aslani shows how low-income women are starting cooperative businesses, becoming their own bosses, and creating lasting prosperity for themselves and their families.

Many of you have expressed great confusion, in these troubled times, in trying to tell a Republican from a Democrat. Sure, we know what they say they are; most of them have well displayed nameplates. But could you tell one from the other in a blind test? That is, without prior knowledge and access to his/her nameplate, could you determine which was which simply by his/her actions? Probably not. The purpose of this essay is to assist you in making such an identification. In the following paragraphs, I will list the major issues of our times and clearly identify the differences between the Republican and Democrat approaches to these issues.

Abortion

Democrats are generally for abortion. Unwanted pregnancy is -- like addiction to drugs or alcohol, tardiness, and procrastination -- an affliction and therefore needs to be treated by the government.

Republicans are generally opposed to abortion unless of course it is one's own daughter that got knocked up, in which case the decent thing to do is to ship her off to some distant city where private but expensive medical care can be provided and the local community is spared the details.

Animals

Democrats believe that wild animals should have all the rights of humans, protected from any harm and allowed to die slow and agonizing deaths like most of the world's humans do.

Republicans believe that wild animals were put here for the sport of hunting, provide a little expensive but gamy and tough meat, and an occasional fur coat for the missus.

Both think that domestic animals and the raising thereof need massive government support. This often results in an excess of such animals, which are then killed, burnt or buried instead of being shipped off to starving humanity around the world because to do so might upset the local economy.

Capital Punishment

Because Democrats are genetically compassionate, they are opposed to capital punishment especially if it is someone who has tortured and molested 27 women and children to death as it is self evident that such a person has had a bad childhood, probably having his pacifier forcibly taken before he was nine years old. However, Democrats do make an exception to this opinion, if the victims were actually a close friend or part of the family. That family includes the family of government employees such as those that were blown up in Oklahoma City. In cases like that, the guy ought to be hung out in the sun by his testicles and left to die a slow death.

The Republican's position on this issue is clear and is based upon the Judeo/Christian bible: an eye for an eye. That we are not always completely sure that we have the right dude before we send him on his way to St. Peter is not really all that serious of an issue. "God will sort it out" is their most commonly stated rationale for slaughtering a group of people that from their very looks it is obvious that they are guilty -- of something. Actually God really only gave us a hint as to the real possibilities: how about a lopped head for a mashed finger, for instance? That certainly should work even better. I understand that there are now over 50 offenses for which you can be given a quick dispatch to meet your maker.

The Children!

Democrats love children as a group but find individual children a pain in the butt. "We do it for the children" is an extremely effective slogan for the populace whether the particular program at issue is robbing the tobacco companies or grabbing more land in Colorado. The annoyance of individual children is easily appeased by hiring illegal aliens for house nannies.

Republicans love individual children but find supporting the class of children as not part of God's plan (see Jeremiah 18:21: "So give their children over to famine; hand them over to the power of the sword.")

Crime

Democrats know that when someone commits a crime, it is society that has failed and should have to pay -- in the form of higher taxes and reduced freedom.

Republicans believe that every person inherently knows right from wrong, whether they were raised by harlot on the mean streets of East St. Louis or by a wealthy Episcopal minister in the ritzy 'burbs of Germantown. They know that the solution to violent crime is to beat the hell out of the perpetrators.

Drugs

Democrats have no qualms about recreational drugs. In fact they think the use of such drugs is cool. However, medicinal drugs are another matter. Since they think of the general populace as children, they want these drugs highly regulated.

Recreational drugs are absolutely verboten according to the Republicans. It is rumored that many folks actually have great fun with such drugs, therefore they are opposed, of course, as it is a basic principle of Conservatism that having too much fun is bad for the character. On the other hand, Republicans would allow you to prescribe and buy medicinal drugs without constraint as the drug industry is quite profitable. If you use the wrong drug or a bit too much, then the subsequent repairs to your body will again raise the national income just a bit. Republicans support the consumption of vast quantities of alcohol even though it kills more people by a factor of ten than all the "illegal" drugs combined. This makes sense because while it may get you high and out of control, technically it is not a "controlled substance".

The Drug War

Strangely, while Republicans oppose the use of recreational drugs and Democrats are much more tolerant, they both support, with great enthusiasm, the so-called War on Drugs (WOD). That is because the WOD has little to do with drugs but is big business with large profits and incentives as well as an expression of political agendas and control.

Making a distinction between Republicans and Democrats with regard to the WOD is difficult for several reasons that are fundamental to what government is all about. I list a few:

1. The WOD allowed that time-honored tradition of governments -- the seizure of private property -- to be re-instated (amazingly, with citizen approval!). History tells us that in ancient times, governments satisfied their desire for accumulating wealth by simple and honest plunder and property seizure. As governments got smarter, they organized the theft, provided a stable environment for its culture and labeled it "taxation" (See Mancur Olson's essay, "Dictatorship, Democracy, and Development", American Political Science Review, Sept. 1993). I quote Olson (discussing the successful evolution of Chinese warlords): "The warlords had no claim to legitimacy and their thefts were distinguished from those of roving bandits only because they took the form of continuing taxation rather than occasional plunder." (In these modern times, the plunder sometimes has even more sophisticated titles such as "surcharge" as used by the recently imposed fee on anyone who has more than one telephone line.)

2. The WOD allows the meddling in the affairs of small defenseless countries at will. The WOD provides another great opportunity to collect and spend great quantities of taxpayer's hard earned cash without any serious opposition. The reason for this is that the Drug problem is very close to being a natural disaster -- which governments love as they can spend freely without complaints.

3. That said, there are small but helpful differences:

The Democrats, as well as the Republicans, support the WOD, if for no other reason, because to do otherwise would result in the loss of votes. However, Democrats also support the concept as it allows the U.S. to act as the world policeman. Socialism is never going to work without one-world government.

The Republicans love the WOD because it allows us to build up the military, throw a lot of people in jail that don't come around to the prescribed religious/moral values, and is very p