Democratic, Egalitarian Buddhism...
While safron-robed monks in austere monasteries strictly following the demands of mysterious cosmic gurus is a somewhat dressed up version of what most Westerners think of when they hear of Buddhism, many modern Buddhist groups are quite surprisingly different. Buddhist doctrine deals very little with social life, especially outside that of the monastery, and even where prescriptions of how society should be run one must acknowledge the social context in which these prescriptions were made.
Throughout time the way in which Buddhist groups have operated has changed as widely and nearly as frequently as the direction of flow of a great river. It began in a time of quite strong patriarchy and for practical reasons adopted many patriarchal practices. Today, in America as throughout much of the West, Buddhism exists in societies that have witnessed great revolutions of thought in both gender issues and politics, and it has responded openly.
To say that all Buddhist groups and hence all Buddhism today is run in a democratic or egalitarian manner would, however, be a great disservice to the truth. Countless organizational structures can be found in modern Buddhist groups ranging from hierarchical, guru based structures to groups in which no central teacher figure is even recognized.
From the "Buddhism is..." page (7 May, 2005):
Last, but not least, is the concept of Buddhism being democratic and egalitarian. A pretty big claim for a religion/philosophy which originated and has continued in many monarchical/theocratic societies! But I think it is in many ways a fair claim to make. First, how is Buddhism democratic? First, Buddhism denies any 'innate' qualities in people: nobody is innately bad or innately a king, etc. This means we are equally capable of advancement in the world. Next, it could be said that the concept of Karma (Pali: kamma) is about as democratic a concept of justice as it gets. Your own intentional actions shape who you are and the world around you: if you are kind with selfless motivation, then the world will change, you will change, for the better; if you are cruel and selfish, then the world will change for the worse, people really will get nastier (to you). Does this mean that Buddhism urges or demands political democracy? No, and I think this should give us some pause. In a sense I would say that Buddhist principles are profoundly democratic, and yet at the same time I think Buddhism would not urge political democracy. Perhaps we could say that with the 'internal' democracy, the 'external' (and ultimately unreal, both in Buddhist terms and according to a great deal of contemporary political analysis, see especially this and other books by Jürgen Habermas) democracy is not an issue. That is my speculation, at least, and certainly something to think about. I am myself, and was even prior to Buddhist or philosophical studies, quite skeptical of democracy, as it appears to be at once a product of mass (and uncritical) consumptionand an ideological tool for war and oppression.
Calling Buddhism egalitarian is, again, perhaps more normative than descriptive. The essay here, from Dr. Alan Sponberg, takes a good look at the assertion of egalitarianism in Buddhism. In one sense there is clearly an understanding of hierarchy: being a person is 'better than' being a dog, being a man is better than being a woman. Much of this, however, is or at least could be, pragmatic. Being a man is better (in 5th century BCE India) because men can wander around half naked begging for food without (too much) worry of attack and/or possible rape. This is common sense, not patriarchialism. Such a stance is made clear in Tibetan Buddhism (and likely earlier though I'm not sure where exactly), where it is explained that being a human is better not 'innately' or because of any occult reasons. It is better because humans both suffer and can reason, so they can think about suffering and think about useful ways out of it. Animals suffer but don't understand their pain. They cannot infer causes or contemplate ways of escaping suffering. This dichotomy plays well amongst humans as well: people who never think about suffering seem to be those most prone to sudden ups and downs dictated by events around them, while people who do think about it a lot (Buddha and Socrates, let's say) remain calm and collected, in control of their emotions and reasoning faculties, despite the events around them.
See the full "Buddhism is..." essay.