Is democracy overrated?
bbc.co.uk
bbc.co.uk
Here are some quotes:
The totalitarian system, I learned, endures not simply by getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. It endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and the state, and by allowing nothing significant to occur which is not controlled by the Party.
...
In the underground universities of communist Europe, my friends and colleagues studied those things, and prepared themselves for the hoped-for day when the Communist Party, having starved itself of every rational input, would finally give up the ghost. And the lessons that they learned need to be learned again today, as our politicians lead us forth under the banner of democracy, without pausing to examine what democracy actually requires.
That would be because the Article is bland and devoid of interesting or original content, but the title is provocative and Democracy is so frequently taken for granted.
That statement really gets me thinking. Without wading down into full-blown social Darwinism, it wouldn't surprise me if human organizations are subject to a kind of memetic fitness. Maybe a trade off between ideological rigity or purity, and actual, objective inputs about their environment. When the Soviet state exiled, executed or imprisoned just about anyone who contradicted party doctrine, they systemically starved themselves of opportunities to make evidence-based decisions.
It reminded me of the Stephen Hawking quote; "Science wins because it works".
.. three ideas - democracy, freedom and human rights - are spoken of in one breath"
Ironically, thing that current liberal-democratic ideologies should have inherited from Marxism is the emphasis on influencing the people. Democrats of the last few decades give the general public's attitude and political culture a ridiculously strong presumption of innocence. The problems in autocratic countries are assumed to be institutional: bad systems, bad leaders. The People want peace, freedom and human rights. I think that's why human rights are expected to follow democratic elections.
In the middle east right now we have seen this fail in a similar way in several places. Democratic elections bringing to power strongly non "democratic" candidates. Confessionalists, nationalists & theocrats.
A more Marxist-like approach would worry more about spreading the ideology among the general public. In Eastern Europe (especially East Germany) "like Western Europe" was enough. In the middle east "lets be more western" is not going to work. We're understandably hesitant to start pushing a "little book of ideology" into the hands of 16 year olds around the world given our 20th century experience with such books. I don't know what the answer is to that. What I am pretty certain about is that if you want to see "democracy" in Syria or Egypt, you have more than just an institutional problem to fix.
It will fall apart as all the other systems have and be considered "silly compared to our knew awesome form of rule"
Which brings me to my second point: democracy seems to me like the natural order of a large group of people. It's natural for people to compete to achieve their goals, and democracy seems to be the only system that spreads success around.
We had all formal procedures in USSR & Russia in 1988-1991, but the citizens did not know what to do with them, and then they were gradually taken away. Democracy is a grassroots phoenomenon, it grows ground-up.
"Democracy [...] encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination."
This article is not alone in having a very narrow and technical conception of democracy as solely a method of election and legislation. That this in itself is not sufficient for a flourishing and liberated society seems obvious.
The real issue seems to be how to encourage actual, real, functioning democracy, instead of installing a thin veneer of technical democracy on top of a society whose deeper currents are undemocratic.
For some reason I'm thinking about the story of how the Velvet Revolution in Czechoslovakia has historical roots in the Communist suppression of Zappa-influenced psychedelic rock band The Plastic People of the Universe. Maybe the world just needs more psychedelic rock.
That is an argument about words and not ideas. The article says that voting is not enough, and so do you.
"That this in itself is not sufficient for a flourishing and liberated society seems obvious."
Some things bear repeating.
Pretty much everyone government ultimately devolves into a form of "mafia" -- a relatively tight network of powerful individuals united by some fairly strong bond such as familial/ethnic ties. This network can count on each other to "cooperate" and not "defect", while the public/masses just can't coordinate and cooperate enough to oppose them.
The key in democracy is exactly what it says on the tin - one person one vote. This is much more stable to this devolution, because other people in society can observe when this rule is broken by anybody and take action. Thanks to this, much less energy is required for infighting, and people can be happier.
They might have initially, but I'll make the argument that probably since the dawn of agriculture, and the generation of large societal surpluses, evolution has been pushing humanity towards defection.
I think recent experience in the US shows quite clearly that votes don't really matter, only money does. Moreover votes can be manufactured through the media (money).
The ideal is to give everyone the same say in what laws should govern the society. In my view, that ideal isn't overrated. It's just basic fairness.
If you have two kids, that argue for a toy, what do you do? You force them each to have it for half a time, fairly.
The societies that evolved the ability to implement such fairness spend less resources warring about who should get how much power (arguing about the toy), and so spend more resources on productive activities (playing with the toy).
These other institutions that can exists with or without democracy are judicial independence, property rights, freedom of speech and opinion and, finally, legitimate opposition. In his view, all these can exist independently, and often existed before democracy in Western European countries.
He is not correct in lumping all those together in his analysis. Maybe he could say "Western democracy".
I agree that these institutions existed before democracy. But you would also be hard-pressed to find democracy without them, but it's not because democracy would require these institutions to exist.
I can perfectly imagine a democracy in Islamic society with Sharia law, that doesn't have those institutions. As long as everybody can secretly vote, with equal vote, they know what they vote about, and it's impossible to restrict voting of other people by voting, it's democracy in my books. However, I don't think it would last too long. The other innovations are probably so useful for majority of people that they would very quickly (and democratically) agree on implementing them. That's why we never see anything like this in the real world (in the real world probably both things co-evolve).
In other words, I see democracy vastly more important than those institutions, because implementing democracy itself will probably lead to implementing these institutions, while the opposite is not true.
Democracy only works with a politically active population. And frankly, most people don't give a shit.
The church is not a democracy and truth is not established by a show of hands
In short, Democracy is superior to this method, because it can be made to work.
I'm not sure how that makes it better. Democracy has failed much more often than it has succeeded. Many a revolution to Democracy has been tried, with only a few succeeding. And even where Democracies are lasting, they can still be cruel and brutal to minorities, by the hands of the majority.
The main reason there is no protests in the street of America, despite the abysmal approval ratings of Congress, is that most Americans have reached a point where their day-to-day lives operate with almost zero visible interference from the government. Out of sight, out of mind. That's basically the best we can hope for.
Can you provide example of democracy brutal to minority? Which actually allows the minority to vote as well? That could be prevented if only political elite of the time would have say in the matter, then it wouldn't have happened? I don't think there is a historical example.
Let's say this philosopher wants to do something which is undeniably correct, but majority of people still disagrees with it, and they are willing to protest and risk lives. Then what is he going to do?
Is he going to kill those protesting? Or beat them up? Then I would submit he is not enlightened in any way.
Or is he going to back down with his proposal? Then here you have it. He basically let the people decide.
He also may have a third option, deceive the majority of the population. I would not consider that enlightened either. It's a slippery slope - he has to know what is good for you before _you_ know it, if that's possible at all.
I also don't think democracies are _designed_ to move slowly. In fact, the more direct democracy, the more slowly it moves - common people are much more conservative than people who want power. You can actually observe that empirically, and it is arguably a weakness of democracy.
A truly wise and benevolent leader (if such a thing were possible) would also be skilled at assessing public mood around a proposal and would weigh that into his plan.
Of course the difficulty is in knowing what constitutes a "good" policy. Is it something that makes the majority of people happier right now? Is it something that rewards desired behaviour? What about weighing long term factors against short term? For example if we can increase greatly quality of life right now at the cost of massive environmental destruction that won't be felt for several generations.
But isn't this "weighing" you talk about just a form of voting? If he caves in based on public opinion, then he is being effectively democratic.
That's the problem. The concept of "benevolent dictator" is just oxymoronic. I would be glad if people stop using it as an argument, because it's just so contradictory.
I guess a truly benevolent dictator would have some objective principles to decide the best course of action and use those. What those principles would look like, I have no idea.
You just hid the contradiction of "benevolent dictator" into "objective principles I have no idea about". That's the reason why you have no idea - such principles don't exist independently of subjective values of each person!
Of course you will still get people under such a system who would be worse off than they would under others. You also have questions about whether you let some people be happier than others if their actions are likely to cause the average level of happiness to increase. Similar to the conversations we have about wealth now.
However I don't think the choice would be between implementing majority rule on every micro decision and tyranny.
Perhaps it makes sense to think of such a system as a representative democracy where every election is won by the same candidate because they are so vastly superior to the others.
The point isn't to implement majority rule on every micro decision; people are often generous enough not to be control freaks. But again - when they are not, then it probably isn't just a "micro" decision.
Your last sentence was exactly my point. If such a dictator is going to win every election, why he needs to be a dictator? Why we can't just have those elections? By this, you also gain trust.
I love Linus Torvalds quote: "People can trust me [about kernel development], because they don't have to trust me." I think it's true everywhere - trust is only gained if you have choice not to trust.
The ancient Greeks had enough experience of direct democracy that they built theories of government cycles (democracy, dictatorship, oligarchy) to explain the instability. Eventually they were conquered by the much more stable republic up the road which practiced a slow-moving, complex form of representative democracy.
I invite you now to imagine a world where internet lynchmobs are able to pass laws. And whether you would be satisfied if you were falsely accused in such a world.
So what's your evidence for the opposite claim? I want hard evidence, not "imagining things".
I don't consider "Ancient Greek" system to be democratic. In particular, you cannot restrict other people from voting democratically, then it's not a democracy (that would be type of Russell's paradox).
I also think that "Greek" theory of government cycles is bullshit. (Almost any theory that has "cycle" in name is bullshit, for what is it worth.) Historically, there have probably been more failures of representative democracies than of direct democracies.
I do however consider representative democracy to be a form of democracy. (There are 3 basic implementations of the democratic principles - direct voting, representation and random drawing, each having advantages and disadvantages for different things.)
Probably the most famous example was Socrates being directed to die because he asked annoying questions.
Maybe you could provide a 19th or 20th century example, if those things are so common?
About the closest you get is citizen-initiated referenda. The experience is mixed. Some people reckon it's wonderful in Switzerland. Meanwhile in California, the state budget is unfixable because of previous CIRs.
I haven't read a very good analysis of California yet. What I read about it looks like they got into the trouble because they have both representative and direct systems kind of checkmating each other. Would they prefer strictly one system over another, it wouldn't have happened.
There are couple of other U.S. States with similar provisions for semi-direct democracy (which is actually a model I prefer, like in Switzerland), and they don't seem to have quite the same problems as California.
Just as certain ciphers are mathematically flawless but can still be defeated by side-channel attacks, certain forms of government are apparently perfect but suck in practice.
The idea of philosopher kings comes from Plato's Republic. I encourage you to read it. He lays out a vision for a totalitarian state in which a specialist Guardian class governs, partly in secret, according to the highest and noblest of intentions.
But consider: you've given these folks unlimited power because you have unlimited trust in their goodness, education and training (Plato lays out a 30-year curriculum).
1. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup?
The population, who are used to a government with unlimited powers, might simply shrug and accept it.
2. What kind of person plans such a coup?
Freaking psychopaths.
3. What happens if there is a irresolvable dispute between the Guardians?
A voting mechanism? I guess not, since we're not using democracy. Let's appoint a single arbiter.
4. Who chooses the arbiter?
Oh please, now you're just being ...
5. So who is actually in charge?
The Guardians, still.
6. What if the arbiter bribes one Guardian to always disagree, meaning all disputes are referred for arbitration?
Well I guess you've got a de facto single philosopher-king now.
7. What happens if someone usurps them or there is a coup?
Well shit. I guess that didn't last very long. I guess we need some sort of countermeasures to prevent that. Some sort of policing body, able to gather intelligence on such plots from within the community. I guess they couldn't reveal their intentions in public.
8. What are the incentives for the people who disagree?
To hide their true intentions.
9. What does this do for everything else in society?
Creates a corrosive low-trust atmosphere that slows trade, impedes the spread of innovation, mucks up education.
10. But the philosopher-king will be secure?
Yes. Just stuck with a shitty society, secret police and an unending threat of being replaced with an even worse psychopath.
In my opinion that's a vastly superior approach to having everyone vote for one a bunch of - for the most part - crooks, thieves and liars.
http://www.diffen.com/difference/Democracy_vs_Republic
Black's Law Dictionary says that the difference between a democracy and a republic is that sovereignty is retained by the individual within a republic. (USA is a Constitutional Republic)
The article fails to note that democracy does not preclude communism, and the DPRK (http://www.korea-dpr.com/) is a classic democratic communist nation in which the people have no individual sovereignty in lieu of that sovereignty being relegated to the collective in the name of the greater good for the nation.
Personally I think the pendulum needs to swing a lot more in favor of true democracy, and accountability of those "few" representatives in power. Because it doesn't look like the current system, where the pendulum swings a lot more in favor of the representatives, has been working very well.
We need more direct democracy, more referendums, more citizen law-making, where the representatives are only a relative "check" on that citizen power (to prevent extreme abuses of "mob rule").
Why should individual sovereignty be forfeit in favor of the group sovereignty that is democracy?
East Germany was another "Democratic Republic," which didn't turn out so well.
Is the fault with "democracy," or the "republic?" (these terms have little relevance to America's present political parties) Or is it some other aspect.
In my estimation, if a nation's citizens have no individual sovereignty, that nation cannot be properly referred to as a republic, yet such nations do fit the definition of "democracy" by virtue of the sovereignty enjoyed by the collective majority.
You also ask: "Why should individual sovereignty be forfeit in favor of the group sovereignty that is democracy?"
Because we want to agree on certain things. Human societies have evolutionary advantage over independent sets of humans.
Thanks to internet we are getting closer to a new Era where citizens will have direct control on the governments. This is yet to be achieved but there are already thousands of people working silently on this.
We will have the first real democracy in Europe at the end of 2015 and it will spread quickly.
We are citizens, we are real democracy.
What are you referring to ?
I was asking myself what could be going on regarding EU laws or constitution or sthg in 2015.
This is a very old idea indeed. And direct democracy still has the same problem as representative democracy: you need some ground rules about the limits of the democratic decision-makers or the whole thing will come unglued.
The problem is that in the "western world" there are complex systems designed to preserve both widespread individual liberty as well as consensual governance (for convenience I'll call these "free systems"). However, we tend to merely label these systems as "democracy" even though many other systems that have popular voting can exist which do not offer the same protections of liberty and consensual governance. This terminology and modeling problem makes it more difficult to spread the aforementioned "free systems" of government because it's very much more difficult to elucidate all of the factors behind such systems, some of which are socio-cultural and economic.
One common pattern in "unfree" countries that have experienced bouts of democracy is for there to be a popular vote that brings in a government that then ends all of the democratic institutions. This has happened routinely for well over a century. Another problem is that you have a corrupt group in power with few checks on their authority and they simply rig every election in one way or another.
I think it's mistaken to believe that it takes generations for a country to be ready for freedom and effective democracy merely because naive attempts to set up democracies can easily fail. I think it's also a mistake to assume that countries with long histories of democratic institutions and liberty are comparatively immune to collapses of those institutions.
Much like the situation with economics we tend to live within political systems which rest on foundations that are not widely well understood, if at all, and rarely even discussed in depth at an abstract foundational level.
It's no wonder it's so difficult for countries to try to bootstrap their way to democracy and it's a bit of a shock that our own systems of government in the "free" world work as well as they do.
No.
It's just that we haven't gotten through to eliminating the corrupting elements and anchoring this legally, yet.
Why? Because corruption (= ultimately money) protects itself.
Most people are literally not interested in everything around them and get mad when you start talking about politics. With people like this, democracies will fail. A living democracy needs involved and civilized people.
To me that just sounds like an underserved market waiting to be addressed.
Maybe one answer is "because we don't feel enough pain yet". In this case, don't worry, the pendulum will swing back soon enough.
The concept of real democracy is still the best one we can get.
Imagine you own a company, but you can only change anything once every 4 years. And even then you only choose between a few groups of people from which to hire.
When the people hired don't do what they said they would you can't do anything till the end of that 4-year period.
I am all for more direct democracy (something like liquid democracy). We have the technology to eliminate middleman, but middle man doesn't want to be eliminated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Wahlbeteiligung_Bundestags...