A "free and fair election" does not a democracy make

This is a reply to those who say that freely and fairly elected leaders are democratic and should be allowed to do whatever they want.

"One swallow does not a summer make." Aristotle.
Similarly, a "free and fair election" does not a democracy make.

This webpage 

About democracy 

says it very well.

"Free and fair" elections: Necessary but not sufficient for democracy.

"Elections constitute the basic democratic method for selecting those who make decisions on our behalf, and holding them accountable for their decisions. For elections to genuinely reflect the people's will, votes have to count equally, candidates for office have to be able to campaign freely, and there has to be a "level playing field" for governing and opposition parties and candidates in the electoral contest. Most infringements of these principles occur when governing parties or leaders refuse to accept the possibility that they might lose office, and try to prevent that from happening.

However, holding elections does not make a democracy. People have to be able to influence their representatives on a continuous basis, and to communicate and organize with others on matters of common interest, independently of government. This requires an underpinning of guaranteed individual rights and freedoms, particularly of expression, association and assembly. These, in turn, require an independent judiciary to uphold them. Also crucial is the existence of free media of communication (press, broadcasting, the Internet) to ensure that there is independent information about the actions of public officials, and to facilitate communication and organization among citizens in defence and promotion of their interests.

Basic economic and social rights – a minimum livelihood, health care and education – are also essential to democracy, since without these the right to participate in public affairs cannot be exercised effectively. It is for this reason that democracy and human rights can be seen as closely connected. Both have as their basic premise the equal worth of each individual, regardless of race, gender, personal belief or style of life."

A democracy that does not protect political, social and economic rights is not a democracy.

Communal property with equal-distribution of benefits

Story 1. Communal Property that is free for all to take

Communal vs. Private Property Rights : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education:

This is a story from the above about communal pastures for cattle grazing.

"In a famous 1968 essay, “The Tragedy of the Commons,” Garrett Hardin used the England commons to illustrate the problems of communal ownership. In the sixteenth century, many English villages had commons, or commonly held pastures, which were available to any villagers who wanted to graze their animals. Since the benefits of grazing an additional animal accrued fully to the individual, whereas the cost of overgrazing was an external one, the pastures were grazed extensively. Since the pastures were communal property, there was little incentive for an individual to conserve grass in the present so that it would be more abundant in the future. When everyone used the pasture extensively, there was not enough grass at the end of the grazing season to provide a good base for next year’s growth. Without private ownership, what was good for the individual was bad for the village as a whole.

In order to preserve the grass, pastures were fenced in the enclosure movement. After the enclosure movement established private property rights, overgrazing no longer occurred. Each owner had a strong incentive to protect the land."

Story 2. Communal Property that provides equal dividends to all

The usual idea of a communal property is that it is free for anyone to take as much of it as he pleases. As the above story shows, people will take as much as they can, and put in as little as they can. The crucial factor is the lack of a good distribution mechanism. A communal property can be carefully managed to provide equal dividends to everyone. The "management" procedure can even be written into the Constitution of a country. Such an example is the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is "communally" owned and distributes annual dividends to every resident in Alaska.

In such a scenario, the common owners will guard the communal property carefully. It is reported that some lawmakers tried to raid that Alaska Permanent Fund, and they got a big NO from the Alaskans.

Alaskans are fiercely protective of the dividend.

"But Alaskans are fiercely protective of the dividends they receive from the fund, and a "leave it alone" mentality is prevalent, creating a major political problem for Knowles. In a non-binding, advisory election two years ago, 83 percent of Alaskans voted "no" on a proposal authorizing the Alaska Legislature to tap into fund earnings to help balance the budget. A controversial 30-second ad aired before the election portrayed lawmakers who favored the plan as swashbuckling pirates bent on raiding the fund."

Moral of the stories.

"What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others." - Aristotle.

Property ownership can be refined. It need not be a strict dichotomy of private property versus communal property. There can be different categories. The order of care will be:

1. What is their own. (private property)

2. What they possess in common with others and which provides an equal distribution of income (equal-distribution communal property). Example: Alaska Permanent Fund. Equal-distribution does not mean that everyone must use the property equally, e.g., everyone sends 10 cows into the grazing commons. Equal-distribution means that the property is carefully managed for profit, and the profit is distributed equally to the common owners, i.e., the citizens.

3. What they possess in common with others and which is free for all (free-for-all communal property). Example: common grazing ground, free city park, national park.

4. What they possess in common with others and which is not accessible to them (communal property in name only). Example: Soviet collective farm, many sovereign wealth funds.

What people should do is to convert communal properties to the equal-distribution type. 

Ask your politicians to do this, or become a politician to do this. Many analysts say the current Brazilian President & party won the election because of a basic income system that her party implemented.

Aristotle, democracy, communism, citizen-ownership

"What is common to many is taken least care of, for all men have greater regard for what is their own than for what they possess in common with others." - Aristotle.


Communal vs. Private Property Rights : The Freeman : Foundation for Economic Education:

"In the Soviet Union, most farmland is cultivated collectively. The output of the collective farms goes to the state."

"Families living on collective farms are permitted to cultivate a private plot, the area of which is not to exceed one acre. The “owners” of these private plots are allowed to sell their produce in a relatively free market. Although these private plots constitute approximately one per cent of the land under cultivation in the Soviet Union, the Communist press reported that in 1980 about one-quarter of the total value of agricultural output was generated by these plots. The productivity per acre on the private plots was approximately 33 times higher than that on the collectively farmed land!

Property rights make a difference even in the Soviet Union. Clearly, the farm workers take better care of the plots they own privately than the land they own communally."

A citizen-ownership democracy is not about communal properties. There is common ownership, but management need not be everybody. An example is a sovereign wealth fund. Citizens share ownership of a sovereign wealth fund, but the fund is run by professionals.

Using the Soviet example of collective farms, ownership will be by citizens but the collective farms will be auctioned periodically to private owners. The auction proceeds will be distributed to all citizens. After winning an auction, the private owners will be highly motivated to work and get their profit, just like owners of the private plots.


Aristotle had not considered a "communal" property that distributes dividends to all. For the Alaska Permanent Fund, which is "communally" owned and distributes annual dividends, the Alaskans are fiercely protective of the dividend.

"But Alaskans are fiercely protective of the dividends they receive from the fund, and a "leave it alone" mentality is prevalent, creating a major political problem for Knowles. In a non-binding, advisory election two years ago, 83 percent of Alaskans voted "no" on a proposal authorizing the Alaska Legislature to tap into fund earnings to help balance the budget. A controversial 30-second ad aired before the election portrayed lawmakers who favored the plan as swashbuckling pirates bent on raiding the fund."

Tapping into the Alaska Permanent Fund to balance the budget will be a highly regressive taxation.

If and when people see a direct tangible benefit from their "communal" properties, they will be motivated to watch the communal properties very carefully.