Democracy should be about ethics, morality and social values, not just regime changes

No doubt many are questioning the moral and ethical values of politicians in general and the limitless price they will pay to achieve their ultimate objective, power

Democracy today is the dominant principle and practice throughout the world to legitimate political power through the choices expressed by people and yet its relationship to moral and ethical values and traditions does not seem to be an integral part of democracies. Moral and ethical theories are universal theories, whether they are on account of religious faiths or otherwise as they based on basic human values of kindness, compassion, fraternity and a sense of the wellbeing of a community rather than the individual. This thinking appears to be in contradiction of how people think and act when it comes to what is generally understood and practiced as democracy

“Democracy must fall because it will try to tailor to everyone: The poor will want the wealth of the rich, and democracy will give it to them. Young people will want to be respected as elderly, and democracy will give it to them. Women will want to be like men, and democracy will give it to them. Foreigners will want the rights of the natives and democracy will give it to them. Thieves and fraudsters will want important government functions, and democracy will give it to them. And at that time, when thieves and fraudsters finally, and democratically take authority; because criminals and evil doers want power, there will be worse dictatorship than in the time of any monarchy or oligarchy” – Prediction of the fall of democracy: Socrates (470-399 B.C.)

What is the role of ethics and morality in politics?

At best it is confusing, contradictory and almost oxymoronic! From a governance perspective one can look at this issue as one related to adherence to laws in a lawful society. It however does not consider the hearts and minds of people when it comes to personal and community ethics and morality and here lies the confusion, contradiction and the oxymoronism.

The Australian Parliament says the following about this question: “Political ethics requires leaders to meet higher standards than would be necessary for private life. They may have less of a right to privacy than ordinary citizens do, or no right to use their office for personal profit. Personal or private morality and political morality are often viewed as a conflict of interest.”

How many political leaders of today have one face and one life? How many do not use their office for personal profit? What was their wealth before coming into politics and after? The answer to this question lies with the readers and the broader public in general. If they are indifferent, life will continue and they will change regimes periodically, re-elect them again and again, as their expression of their democracy without any examination and discussion about the deeper issues that afflicts the Sri Lankan society. 

The last part of Socrates’s prediction is worth considering in the light of recent news reports and social media messages that have been flowing freely concerning the killing of an influential individual who has been attributed with many shades of character, and who it appears has had friends in very high places in the country. From these accounts, it does not appear that the person killed had a character that the younger generation of the country could be proud of and should be emulated. Even worse, if these social media clips are to be believed, those in high places who associated with this individual, perhaps are akin to the “thieves and fraudsters wanting important government functions, and democracy giving it to them, and when thieves and fraudsters finally, and democratically, take authority; because criminals and evil doers want power, there will be a worse dictatorship than in the time of any monarchy or oligarchy” that Socrates wrote about.

No doubt many are questioning the moral and ethical values of politicians in general and the limitless price they will pay to achieve their ultimate objective, power. Means, it appears are of no consequence as long as they are able to achieve their end objective. Enforcers of the law of the land too in instances appear to aid and abet individual immoral and unethical crusades, for a price. Money it appears could buy anyone and anything irrespective of considerations for the future wellbeing of the country and its morality and ethics. 

In a country predominantly Buddhist by label, the degraded moral and ethical values are entirely unBuddhistic although the country seems to be one where the greatest number of Buddhist sermons are delivered, with the most number of listeners of these sermons, but perhaps the lowest number of those who actually practice even a fraction of what they have listened to.

Democratic values

The Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing in an article (http://journalppw.com>jpsp>article) poses the following: “What values are important in a democratic society? Respect for individuals and their right to make their own choices. Tolerance of differences and opposing ideas. Equity—valuing all people and supporting them to reach their full potential. Each person has freedom of speech, association, movement and freedom of belief.”

No doubt these are essential values for a democracy. However, one could and should consider the degree to which there is adherence to these values in Sri Lanka (and elsewhere) and how much lip service is paid to these in democracies throughout the world.

No doubt the relationship between ethics and morality and governance is complex and multifaceted. Scholars argue that governance should not be just about legal and political administrative procedures, but also about moral and ethical responsibility and that the contemporary world has transformed governance from a moral and ethical system to one of procedures for managing, and some would say, controlling society

Democracy today is the dominant principle and practice throughout the world to legitimate political power through the choices expressed by people and yet its relationship to moral and ethical values and traditions does not seem to be an integral part of democracies. 

Moral and ethical theories are universal theories, whether they are on account of religious faiths or otherwise as they based on basic human values of kindness, compassion, fraternity and a sense of the wellbeing of a community rather than the individual. This thinking appears to be in contradiction of how people think and act when it comes to what is generally understood and practiced as democracy as noted by Patti Tamara and Margaret Moore in an article titled Democracy-and-Morality-Religious-and-Secular-Views (https://rowman.com/ISBN/9781538188903/Democracy-and-Morality-Religious-and-Secular-Views#:~: text=Democracy% 20is%20a%20dominant%20principle, and%20 Egalitarian%20variants%20of%20Liberalism), “that ‘the people’ who are the source of democratic legitimacy might support some things that are contrary to justice, as described in the tradition. Yet, appeal to democracy remains one of the most powerful appeals to legitimise political power in the contemporary world.”

No doubt the relationship between ethics and morality and governance is complex and multifaceted. Scholars argue that governance should not be just about legal and political administrative procedures, but also about moral and ethical responsibility and that the contemporary world has transformed governance from a moral and ethical system to one of procedures for managing, and some would say, controlling society.

The relationship that must exist between morality and governance is unclear and confusing. While democracy per se is about people participation in decision making and people having a stake in the system, it is difficult to see how morality fits in here if people do not practice kindness, compassion and fraternity from the heart.

The same confusion exists relating to the argument that “ethical aspect of democracy is uncovered in the meaning of three pillars of democracy that are liberty, equality and fraternity. They are fundamental values of democracy. They have an equal sense with the freedom from control, interference, obligation, restriction, hampering conditions, etc.; power or right of doing, thinking, speaking, etc., according to choice, freedom from captivity, confinement, or physical restraint” (http://www.dictionary.com). While fraternity could be an ethical and moral issue, from a broader sense, liberty and equality does not necessarily be “moral and ethical” from a perspective outside that of governance, especially where governance is compromised when the end matters more than the means.

Of course everybody must be equal in the eyes of law, without any discrimination on grounds of race, religion, gender, caste, class or birth, but it is not clear whether these qualities are only applicable “in the eyes of the law” and whether they are or should be arising from the heart of people, so to speak.

Fraternity on the other hand has a direct community wellbeing consideration as against just an individual wellbeing and therefore a sense of brotherhood and sisterhood among the country’s citizens and a sense of belonging. Genuine fraternity and kindness and compassion to each other are therefore synonymous with morality and ethics as it refers to how people look at each other, look after each other for the betterment of the many. True fraternity cannot be subject to a law, except the law of nature and it should be an uppermost consideration in a democracy.

World’s major religious faith perspective on morals and ethics

Hinduism 

What are the morals and ethics of Hinduism? (Morality and moral development: Traditional Hindu concepts - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)

‘Dharma as universal moral principles’

In following Dharma, a number of values and attitudes are listed in the Hindu scriptures as necessary for a human being, for example absence of conceit, absence of hypocrisy, speaking the truth, harmlessness, accommodation, straightforwardness and compassion for all beings.

Hinduism and diverse forms of moral discourse found in the Indian context – https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118499528.ch76 

Moral action is generated out of human nature or disposition. Hindu traditions recognize four distinct values or goals of human life: love and physical pleasure (kama), the acquisition of material well-being (artha), morality and the good (dharma), and spiritual liberation (moksa). Religious sentiment is paired with tenderness and moral sensitivity. In Hindu thought, normative discourses pattern or condition moral behaviour, inscribing the natural moral order on persons and behaviour.

Buddhism

Sīla, in Buddhism, morality, or right conduct; sīla comprises three stages along the Eightfold Path—right speech, right action, and right livelihood. Evil actions are considered to be the product of defiling passions (see āsrāva), but their causes are rooted out only by the exercise of wisdom (prajna).

Buddhist morality is codified in the form of 10 precepts (dasa-sīla), which require abstention from: (1) taking life; (2) taking what is not given; (3) committing sexual misconduct (interpreted as anything less than chastity for the monk and as sexual conduct contrary to proper social norms, such as adultery, for the layman); (4) engaging in false speech; (5) using intoxicants; (6) eating after midday; (7) participating in worldly amusements; (8) adorning the body with ornaments and using perfume; (9) sleeping on high and luxurious beds; and (10) accepting gold and silver. Laymen are to observe the first five precepts (pañca-sīla) at all times.

While there are no significant differences in religious beliefs about what ethics and morality is, and should be, it appears that despite professing to be ardent followers of one faith or another; in politics and democracy, the very people who elect political representatives and governments, by and large do not practice ethics and morals as taught in their religious faiths. Ethical values and moral values seem to have two different meanings to people when it comes to politics and democracy and their religious faiths. This contradiction leads to poor governance, corruption and unsavoury activities, and means becoming irrelevant as long as the end is achieved

In contrast to the English word “morality” (i.e., obedience, a sense of obligation, and external constraint), Sīla is a resolve to connect with what is believed to be our innate ethical compass. It is an intentional ethical behaviour that is refined and clarified through walking the path toward liberation - Britannica

Christianity

What did Jesus teach about ethics and morality? (College Ethics Symposium- http://ethicssymposium.org)

Jesus asks his followers to choose righteousness and goodness for a responsible moral life. His righteousness is manifested by inward dispositions of the heart and moral actions. Integrity as a core virtue embodies a many-faceted combination of character traits.

What does Jesus say about morals? (Gospel coalition- http://www.the gospelcoalition.org)

Another place where Jesus summarises the Law is in the Sermon on the Mount: ‘So whatever you want men to do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets’ (Matt. 7:12). This is a different way of saying, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’, and it confirms the practical nature of ‘love’.

Islam

What are the morals and ethics of Muslims?

Many virtues/good character traits/moral qualities such as kindness (to people and animals), charity, forgiveness, honesty, patience, justice, respecting parents and elders, keeping promises, and controlling one’s anger, are commanded or encouraged in verses in the Quran and hadith – Wikipedia

What are the ethical and moral values of Prophet Muhammad? (Iqra Online –http://iqraonline.com)

Our beloved prophet is the best example to follow, he was kind, merciful, forgiving, trustworthy, humble, honest, just, and brave. He followed the orders and guidance of the holy Quran in everything, so that when Aisah was asked about his morals she said: “His manners were the Quran.”

Common thread in all religious beliefs 

While some Christian and Islamic religious scholars may have differing views on ethics and morality and how these relate to Gods will, or Dharma as in Hinduism, in Buddhism, there is universal acceptance and belief in the Buddha’s teaching on SĪLA as the ethical and moral compass for human beings.

While there are some differences in the belief systems, what is common to all in all religions is the need to adhere to the fundamental human qualities of love, kindness, compassion and fraternity, and the fundamental dictum as stated in Buddhism, Bahujana sukhaya bahujana hitaya cha or “for the happiness of the many, for the welfare of the many”. All these qualities are and should be matters of the heart and not as a consequence of a law that has to be obeyed. 

Conclusion

While there are no significant differences in religious beliefs about what ethics and morality is, and should be, it appears that despite professing to be ardent followers of one faith or another; in politics and democracy, the very people who elect political representatives and governments, by and large do not practice ethics and morals as taught in their religious faiths. Ethical values and moral values seem to have two different meanings to people when it comes to politics and democracy and their religious faiths. This contradiction leads to poor governance, corruption and unsavoury activities, and means becoming irrelevant as long as the end is achieved. 

The calibre of political and administrative leaders, professionals in various fields, business leaders elected and appointed, then represents the ultimate result of this overall contradiction. People then basically get what they deserve as they have collectively poisoned themselves and the society and given opportunities for the unethical and immoral few to govern the many.

Will Socrates’s prediction of the fall of democracy come to pass? Probably not, as the meaning and purpose of democracy itself has undergone change and what is there now in the name of democracy, but in effect the opposite of it, will continue as that appears to be what a majority of people seem to be resigned to accept or willing to accept as their democracy.