A fundamental engine of democracy is found in the dynamic of the desire to be right (consistency) and the desire to connect (immediacy). Righteousness of any sort is decided by humans. Belief in a divine being communicating a moral code still requires a human mind to decide to trust that it itself can interpret the moral code. Removal of a divine being changes nothing, righteousness is a decision by the human mind to trust in a moral code. A moral code gains traction by the amount of visible support from others.
Humans are social animals, we are meant to be in a group of some unclear size and have an inherent instinct to connect. We enjoy conversation. We enjoy the fleeting sense of hierarchy which emerges from correction, most commonly the correction of another although occasionally the correction of ourselves. We enjoy conversation, and conversation draws righteousness from immediacy of moral code & consistency of moral code.
So our conversations, whether of a serious or casual nature, our conversations have a dynamic of righteousness. Of course, there is spontaneity, other forms of playfulness, emotional release, personal revelation and so very much more to conversations than solely righteousness. Nevertheless, the dynamic constrained within our instinct to connect and our enjoyment of righteousness help to propagate good ideas through our society, improve political opinion of the citizen and the political structure of the institutes locally present.
When considering something of a social nature, particularly between groups or hypotheticals, it can be immediately & consistently useful to assess by two values, competition & cooperation. It would seem reasonable to me that the most important agreements are a detailed balance of these, with relevant terminology. It extends from the personal to the larger, less spoken agreements. As a change of perspective, to a simpler way, it is refreshing and may perhaps invigorate your interest to investigate an arena.
The current economic system, in my opinion, is much more simply described as competition. Indeed, this is the enshrining feature in some definitions. This competition appears to have frequent unhealthy results which capitalists would describe as some unfortunate re-ordering of the economic system to a new balance of supply & demand with whatever tweaks they want to throw in. Communists hold a similar perspective, except with a cyclic nature, and an attitude of evolution.
Observe economic ideas in the light of competition & cooperation. A brief mention, consider the outcomes of laissez-faire capitalism as 1: infinite and of communism as 1:1. What would 1:100 look like?
A question could be raised about global agreement on international standards, forms of co-operation upon a competitive arena. It is consistent to develop an idea of an international standards from the pre existing ideas of person, community, and state. Nearly all people agree to live without public violence, although violence is a realistic part of our nature. This co-operation about violence extends beyond a pair, a mob, a nation to the international arena, where standards of war and human rights represent an elevating consistency from the individual to globe.