One Cheer for Democracy
¡®What is democracy?¡¯ says jesting Esther ¨C and I think I may have an answer.
In any case it¡¯s nice to do a cyber-handshake with my fellow freethinker, and I hope I can cheer her up a bit, while leaving some of the commenters on Open Minds and Empty Heads climbing the lamp posts in Logic Lane.
The idea of democracy is as old as western philosophy, and on the whole very few people have had a good word to say for it. But I think I have a notion of democracy that may recommend itself to Esther Wilson and others.
I think I can dicriminate four different meanings of the term.
(a) Democracy as the rule of ignorance.
To most political thinkers, from ancient Greece onwards, democracy has been more or less equivalent to ¡®mob rule¡¯. Appeals to it have been what we would now call ¡®populism¡¯, meaning the rule of ignorance and fear. Opposed to it was ¡®aristocracy¡¯, which in its original meaning had nothing to do with heredity or wealth, but simply meant ¡®rule by those best qualified to rule¡¯ ¨C what we would now call meritocracy.
(b) Democracy as representation. Today, most people¡¯s idea of democracy is anchored in the idea of representation: rulers are supposed to be ¡®representatives¡¯ of the ruled, and subject to recall or deselection at regular intervals. (The idea is often associated with Locke, and with the American revolutionaries who thought they spoke for him, but it is also part of the conceptual currency of socialism and communism.) The unique selling point of this idea is that it can create an emotional bond between the individual and the state (in other words it generates nationalism). Democracy as representation means that people take pride in their state if it does well (possibly expressing it in violence); equally, it means they get sulky and resentful (and probably violent) if it does not.
(c) Democracy as discovery. Here is a lovely idea, worked out by some of the French Revolutionaries. The rationale for jury trial is that if all the jurors, or a substantial majority of them, can agree on a verdict, then the verdict is almost certainly correct. (Freak misjudgements and biases should cancel each other out to leave the truth shining bright.) But ¨C so the argument goes ¨C the state is like a court, seeking to make decisions on contested issues. Therefore, what method of political decision making could possibly be more reliable than convening the biggest jury possible: namely the citizenry as a whole. Can a majority out of millions possibly be wrong? (The French revolutionaries thought not.)
(d) Democracy as respect. Here¡¯s the sense of democracy that interests me most (it¡¯s been behind all my posts so far): we need to recognise that in politics, as in philosophy and lots of other things, no one can ever be sure of being wholly in the right; and in any case you can always learn something by listening, attentively and respectfully, to what other people have to say, and, where you disagree, explaining why. A democracy of mutual respect: that¡¯s what would put a smile on my grumpy face. I think some people are beginning to get the hang of it, in fact ¨C so perhaps the future is brighter than we might think.
Eh Esther?
Tis not utopia, but what is ?
Curious to know who those people are that "are getting the hang" of democracy of mutual respect??
Maybe more would exist if they would appreciate that self-criticism is a fundamental key in both respecting others and self-respect. Without this the last three meanings of the term democracy are frequently marginalised or ignored in favour of the 1st, "the rule of fear and ignorance".
"" * on 26 Aug 2006,
* Jonathan R¨¦e wrote:
Very interesting, Fitz, but irrelevant. My point was about being able to change your mind, not being unable not to.
Jonathan""
oh I see Jonathan - so this is what a democracy of mutual respect really means then?
If you observe any small local group of people and live with them as I have on a small South Sea Pacific Isle, you will find them practicing Jonathan's "democracy of mutual respect".
Did they get it from the Greeks, I doubt it - I asked them about Greek democracy and they stared at me blankly. No it is more ancient than the Greeks, it's the better side of human nature.
If the group disintegrates as was observed in some of the horrendous village battles in Bosnia, then the "democracy of mutual respect" goes out of the window with savage results.
What made it successful on the South Sea Isle?
A common bond of culture, a plenty supply of simple building materials, seafood and some ritual thrown in and of course the great motivator - survival.
But a survival too of "democracy of mutual respect" not the modern bastardized version you see on 'Survival shows' - promoting their 'dog eat dog' mentality for the sake of entertainment. If our young learn democracy from that - God help us all.
But I do believe that as the group starts getting larger and larger and larger - it can lose sight of it's immediate needs and why it ever needed "democracy of mutual respect" in the first place.
And then we start adopting the hybrid democracies that we all say came from Greece.
Whilst I would always support the present models of democracy - who was it who said " it's the best rotten apple we have at the moment - so don't knock it"? I do think a greater challenge would be to relook at the South Sea Isle model.
Distill it's absolute essence put it in a bottle ( sterilised of course) and bring it back home for analysis.
Because for me they have captured the true essence, but even in their own environments when it get's too big (the environment that is) it can get out of hand as can be seen in Papua New Guinea for example.
It seems to me that "democracy by mutual respect" is a gift from God, a theocratic gift that we have chosen to call a democracy. It can be strong but also delicate in the wrong hands.
And I guess the ultimate question is not what makes democracy work but "what makes respect work" - answer that and democracy will follow like a lamb!
I like the taxonomy. I think the first is what we have, the second and third is why we have it, and the fourth is a potentially rational conclusion based on the first three.
Viewing philosophy solely as a school of thought; it is evident that in an effort for western philosophy to make progress, eastern philosophy is being rapidly incorporated into our knowledge - or meme machines. Politicians are being forced -as per usual by expedience- to do the same. All of this reminds me of our earlier discussion, 'What is progress?'. So, now that I am equipped with some new rationale I'll have another go at it.
Progress [a property] is the capacity to incorporate new information into conciousness in a way that enhances the subjective experience of reality.
The word conciousness is derived from; con -the bringing together, and, scious -knowledge. Most of us here accept that we are considerably more ignorant than we would care to brag about. When we democratise ourselves we are, to all intent and purpose, giving away a part of our subjective experience for it to be agreed upon in a collective and hopefully objective manner.
Lets be practical though, someone has to decide what colour to paint the public toilets, I know I can't be bothered to consider it! Let me pose another question based on this idea. How much of my potential subjective experience should I give over to this organised mob? After all, its my universe also, isn't it?
So in Richard's opinion we in democracies belong to 'the mob'.Correct me if I'm wrong but all democracies are just examples of 'mob rule'.
Well Richard I hope that you do exercise your right to vote each election, because then we can assume that you are part of the 'mob'
I and many other countless millions of course would not agree with you one iota - and that's the beauty of free thinking and free speech, albeit cloaked with the shadow of the moderator!
However what you say Richard is not irrelevant, I would never say that - just wrong!
Democractic rule is rule by the mob is just one of those tongue in cheek generalisations often said to provoke thought and discussion rather than to be taken seriously.
But tell me all you learned gentlemen of philosophy, if democracy is mob rule, than what would you call the rule of Hazzbellah in Palestine or the rule of the Mullahs in Iran or indeed the rule of the gun in Iraq.
I guess it can be easy for us to sit in our comfortable democracies around the world feeling safe and protected knowing that our secret services are watching the every move of potential terrorists, and criticise the very process that keeps us safe.
Try living on the other side sometime and see how non-democracy fits for you then - it will still have it's 'mob rule' but won't feel quite so safe!
If only the Romans could have voted out the emperor, instead of organising a stabbing eh
Yes it can be very easy Fitz. Whilst I was serving in the British Army it struck me as somewhat paradoxical that there I was, the bayonet of democracy, and it really did not matter a jot who I voted for. I worked neither for myself nor for any one government. As governments came and went, I learnt that to be a soldier is to relinquish fully all freedoms and rights all wills and wishes over to the collective, for better or worse.
I haven't learnt what being a civilian or a democrat or a theocrat or an autocrat for that matter, really means, I have never experienced these things. I've decided that I'll give being Human a go. My point was that we change 'our' experience of the world around us via our actions. I was also trying to suggest that the stuff that drives this process is nothing more than information.
They painted the public toilets blue, I mean seriously, who would choose blue? I hate blue!
The best democracy is the one in Great Britain.
Ah Richard, how paradoxical, my favourite topic the British Army - "hands on the buzzer for 10!
I worked neither for myself nor for any one government.
legally correct in practice not. Yes the British Army is the property of the Queen and only she can direct it. However in practice the Govt of the day advises her what they will do and she rubber stamps it. Can you imagine a woman so wise as the Queen directly instructing the army to invade Iraq?
We often think that England and it's army are good examples of democracy - far from it. Go back to Queen Victoria and her army invading all those countries that became called euphemistically 'colonies'. They never really saw themselves as colonies - the british did!
The army even ignored the Queen in for example the Australia's invasion. she instructed them in writing (and I have seen the script in museum archives) that the inhabitants of Australia were british subjects and had to be treated with the same manner as the invading british.
History of course tells a different story.
You say that you were the bayonet of democracy - now there's another paradox - democracy being introduced at the end of a bayonet.
Well my dictionaries gives me all sorts of descriptions about democracy:
people power - well that certainly equates with the bayonet picture
personal freedom and equality - hardly at the end of a bayonet
everyone should have equal rights and involved in making decisions - see above!
No I think the British took the concept and screwed it for their own ends and are still doing so - and following other 'democractic leaders' like Bush to free the world of non-democratic leaders in a non-democratic way!
Now an army who's sole purpose is to remain on British soil and defend the country against invasion is one thing - but to send it out at every whim and fancy to defend democracy and to give it to people who don't necessarily want it NOT in my book democracy at all - it's akin to autocracy and dictatorship.
How can you force democracy on another group - don't you have to persuade gently?
"History tells a different story." Strange that, because I thought it just told the same one over and over. Ok the actors may be different, or the language strange or the technology better....
When it comes down to it though, we are still Stanley Kubricks angry ape newly armed with a jaw bone -or perhaps a gloabl postioning system guided 2000lb bomb- to persuade the other angry apes.
You used the South Sea Isle experiment to argue that organised groups outgrow themselves into monsters, I agree. But whether we are 5 or 5 billion we are still just angry apes.
Ah! a Darwinian at heart - how they ape reality!
Jonathan thanks for putting me 'reet' so to speak....which one would you recommend and can we vote on it?
I have had time to respond more carefully now Jonathan.
I really am interested in ideas- full of a cold and miserable as sin with it like, but less arsey now the 'chip's' been brushed onto the floor and I've had a lemsip.
Meanings of the term 'democracy'.
a) This one scares me. For obvious reasons...not least because (here we go, here we go, here we go)
but ¡®....rule by those best qualified to rule¡¯ begs the question who decides who's qualified to rule?
And of course I don't believe being popular makes something 'good/right'.
There was only one Leonardo De Vinci or 'Repeat after me....we are all individuals.'
Stan's Cafe Theatre company has a show - using grains of rice - called 'Of All The People In All The World' www.stanscafe.co.uk/ which sort of explores that idea beautifully.
the show is touring again.
b)As disappointing as a)....and also seems practically, to me,to be as full of potential pit-falls.
'(but it is also part of the conceptual currency of socialism and communism)'
Maybe it's my age....but didn't a lot of us feel a little broken hearted over those ones?
I do feel pride in my nation at particular times and though I marched against the Iraqi war, did all the 'armchair' protests and am appalled at our foriegn policy -
if 'they' start killing my kids - I ain't up to thinking anymore - I'm only up to seeing them as a 'they'.
c) 'discovery' - the word appeals. It has everything going for it, for me.
Sounds exciting. As a pre-fix to the concept but look a little further and it's not that much different to the other two - in practise, I mean.
'Therefore, what method of political decision making could possibly be more reliable than convening the biggest jury possible:'
Yes Jonathan I can see this as being a workable concept - if it weren't for the fact that we know it doesn't always. work. Human error, corruption, political instability, fear - is it time to re-write the human rights act yet?
d) 'Democracry as respect'- this is the one where my heart flies a little and I regret being so bloody tired by concepts.
I do like exploring ideas and I am so, so, so open to having my mind changed (is there anything worse than cynicism?)because I agree with you Jonathan
'....no one can ever be sure of being wholly in the right;
and in any case you can always learn something by listening, attentively and respectfully, to what other people have to say, and, where you disagree, explaining why.'
My point about 'democracy' was that the definition(s) seem (historically) to be so opposed to the very nature of us being 'physically in the world' they only seem to work as theories.
Our living, breathing, blood-curdling, gut wretching day to day existance is in constant flux.
'Democracy' frustrates me. And, like a smiling assassin, still seduces me. (don't get carried away, like, I did say I've got a cold).
But yes, the exchange of ideas, thoughts, knowledge....
....free thinking...careful thought and explaination of concepts/disagreements- all vital to the evolution of our species-
-I just can't help wishing that more people would log on and engage....but just because 'we can' doesn't always mean 'we do'.
Mind you, having said that -
Roberto Carlos Alvarez-Galloso,CPUR wrote:
'The best democracy is the one in Great Britain.'
I love the fact that concepts are just like everything else- relative to 'where one is coming from' physically or metaphorically.
"We are fast losing the ability to imagine a different way of living. This is fatal to the future of society. Without the hope of a different world, progressive politics simply dies. Progress is driven by the search for the good society. Where would the idea of a national health service have come from if not someone's dream? Blairism offers no such hope because it refuses to buck the market and instead seeks to fashion society in the image of the economy. We live in a good society already - it's just not ours. We live in the good society of neoliberal beliefs and practices because they had the courage and the capacity to build it."
--Neal Lawson, writing in the Guardian last Thursday
So, Half a Cheer
I've copied this paragraph less as a current political point, more to remind us of how even democratic countries can end up being governed presidentially -- and that we can start wondering whether this is what the electorate wanted, even if they fell in thrall to "someone's dream" as Mr Neal Lawson puts it.
I know I'm a dreamer myself, and I wouldn't want voters cherry-picking which half of my dream suited them, before I'd managed to show the whole package.
I see both sides of the argument. If what you're creating is good and succeeds, then you will be praised for having seen it through, against all odds, sort of thing. If it falters, for any reason, and never comes to make it, then you become a tyrant who's hanging on, wasting people's time.
The second problem is the tendency to suck away "rights" from the minority. Not all of the election's "losers" are going to be permanently of little interest, but any the major parties don't chase could find themselves under repressive legislation if there was electoral mileage in it.
Esther writes:
"... so opposed to the very nature of us being 'physically in the world' they only seem to work as theories."
Yep. This is basically the conclusion to a recent argument with friends, and it's encouraging to see it repeated. In the end we came up with the following statement, "Stop living a theory and start living the reality." We are all open to the foible's of Human Nature, some overcome them and some don't. A bit hit and miss if your trying to create a global village but... hey?
Esther Writes:
if 'they' start killing my kids - I ain't up to thinking anymore - I'm only up to seeing them as a 'they'.
Human nature in a one liner! So how do you overcome the necessity for this survival instinct? I suppose we could start by stopping treading on everyone else's toes; stop wanting them to be a little more like us -and this ones a big ask- go out of our way to understand each other.
My democracy is an illusion, I don't know how yours checks out? I'm certain that most people would just look at me blankly if I went around saying that, but my point is that the theory of a life is one thing; whether it can be weighed in the final moment... well that's something completely different isn't it.
On a practical point we have a unique opportunity to improve our democracy. The future composition of the Upper Chamber is still not settled and I suggest that the Lords be replaced by the Jurors, chosen at random from the Electoral Register.
In an important sense politicians can not represent us (they must put themselves forward and this eliminates the less brassy of necks). Also in practice politicians may well hold representation low down on their list of priorites, after the needs of their own career development, the demands of more powerful colleagues in turn securing their own careers, the "brown paper envelopes" from petitioning entrepreneurs. Any tinkering with electoral-representation will only produce yet more of these politicians, and their attendant administrators, researchers, beauticians paid for from the a gravy train fuelled by switching public spending from needed projects to, well, the executive.
We face the most severe test humanity has ever seen. In a wide variety of fields those who understand the science and have done the maths are telling us that disaster is inevitable within decades. Climate Change, Nuclear Proliferation, Depletion of Natural Resources, we're even due a visit from Asteroid Thatsitfolks. Even if we survive all this we will be so debased (implicated as we must be in the deaths of billions of the poor) that, as children of our much vaunted Westen Enlightment, we would not deserve to have lived.
We must have recourse to mature decision making. Our executive decision making has to reflect our cultural values and thus make the culturally correct choices about allocation of resources for our survival. It must be impartial.
I picture:
2 * Jurors for each constuency, each elected for 4 years, out of phase by 2 years.
Year "New Juror" "Old Juror"
1 B A
2 B A
3 C B
4 C B
5 D C
etc.
New Jurors learn the ropes and get up to speed on current debatesbut only Old Jurors vote. Jurors form sub committees to investigate particular issues of concern and government legislation.
Jurors can change their terms of reference as they gain experience and wish to pass on improved structures to later Jurors.
May I leave it to other correspondents to put some meat on these bones of an idea and explore the dangers inherent in it. I'm hoping that there will be enough support for this idea that we can start a ball rolling that will build such strength and momentum that we can actually impose it on HMG. Long hope, its true, but, I believe, our only one.
A successful model here would no doubt be copied elsewhere; Jurists in various Republics [following GK Chesterton's Napoleon of Notting Hill I imagine a randomly selected monarch, too, perhaps to serve for 10 years] can negotiate not only on basis of National interest but in wider sense of implementing Republican positions of which the above is one example.
Some meteorologists say we are 10 years too late. Others say the window of opportunity for "Saving th Planet" is as long as 50 years. In that time we must first create the social structures to achieve our survival, then set about implementing necessary measures. We talk of "logical", "physical" and "technical" impossiblilities. This project is only "severely technically difficult (counting social difficulties as technical)". '39-'45 was more difficult but the people cracked it.
What do you say Radio 3 bloggers!
are giving us u
British Republican:
I think that you raised some interesting points about the pyschological profile of our current political machine. Personally I just see some simple things that can be put into to place that would significantly improve the current system.
1) Psychological profiling before and during a politicians carrer.
2) Random drug testing.
3) Ban the consumption of alchohol on Westminster grounds.
4) Make voting by an MP remotely accessible.
5) Ban the use of whipping.
6) Replace ideology with a simple reflection of Human needs.
I think this should be introduced into any new system and the one we have.
The Commons has to be a matter for the MP's their parties and their executives their constituency parties and their constituents. Oh and the financial backers and the generators of ideological "intellectual superstructure", or 'propaganda' as we say of our enemies, 'rhetoric' of those we must get on with otherwise 'refreshing, penetrating and perceptive analysis'.
The intention behind the proposal for a randomly selected Upper Chamber is for the people to be represented in a different manner:
1. cf running two or three independent software control systems in the same plane and acting on what any two of them agree in the case of conflicting output.
2. At best it is a waste of directed energy to antagonise the politicians any more than is necessary to sting them to awareness of the problem and, perhaps, intimidate them into taking action through concerted action by the broadest front possible of the people. In a sense it is a loss of power for the elected. But it gives them more strength in foreign relations and implementing environmental policies for example. To the extent that they are representatives, chosen as, say good constituency MPs or as genuinely having good ideas, they will gain in respect. And Mps haven't really got much power, nor local councillors, hardly even cabionet ministers and senior civil servants. Most of the time they rubber stamp edicts from the European Commision and decisions of the "democratic" EU, itself suffering its own delusions. And the politicians are weak because a government only has between 25% and 30% of the eligible vote, even ignoring those who aren't registered bu could be. And that's before we consider the implications of Arrow's Paradox etc. Political support must be gathered in from elsewhere. I'm not knocking it, though. It's lasted a long time, seen us through napoleon and 2 world wars etc. Especially with so many threats to our comfort, let alone our survival, I am in favour of strong, fair structures. Let the people be part of that structure.
3. If constituents want a druggie or a drunk to represent them, let them. But the drunk cannot be extended quite the same access to sensitive stuff blatently.
As a further proposal how about some retiring Jurors would be trained up as trainers etc. And advisors would include teachers or other experts in communication and the Jurors received training on stripping through rhetoric, disinterested thinking and avoiding corruption? As I say my opwn idea is that to a large extent the Jurors will be able to say "hang on we can do this quicker, better and more efficiently and more comfortably", but there will need to be consideration of the seperation (and conmingling) of responsiblilities betwen the thwo Assemblies.
Hello Jonathan
To me democracy is a word, just that. and can be interpreted in different ways by different people.
In Britain I see it as a minority of the population telling the majority "You are free to do what we will allow you to do". All your examples have merits and demerits.
The French connection relates to proportional representation, but for example if in Britain 70% of the population lived in areas of comfort, full employment and nice surroundings and the other 30% lived around industrial sites of crime and pulling their tripes out to live decently that is the way it would stay permanently.
Your last example suggests heaven on earth. The problem is, getting the whole human race to respect each other is unattainable.
Jesus Christ said "Let each m,an take only what he needs" which is the credo of the Communist Party, hence the book "Animal Farm".
However someone will always want that little bit more and will want to run things, and as the pigs said in Rwell's book, to do that we need a slightly better standard of living than the rest.
I think Jason's view hit the nail on the head "This is not Utopia" but what is?
Maybe Hell is life on Earth and the perfect democracy is on the other side. However we are allowed to open our minds on the Blogs. To a point.