Hello Fellow Student Philosophers!
The following is something I wrote down a few weeks ago, forgot about, and then, just recently, found on one of my father’s computers in his office. Re-reading this has re-spurred by interest in the topic, so I figured I’d post it here to see what you guys think.
Enjoy!
George (“The Meager Weakling”)
———————————–
Unless you’ve been who-knows-where for the past few weeks, then you most certainly know of the hubbub that’s been going on in Egypt, Libya, and other Middle Eastern countries. One of the interesting things I’ve noted about what’s happened, especially in Egypt and Tunesia, is the people’s demands for Democracy, or Democratic-like processes, in place of the governmental system (or processes) already in place, against which they are protesting.
This brings me to wonder about what exactly, from a philosophical perspective, would account for this. What is so inherently good about a Democracy over other governmental systems such that a people would want to default to that system, and only that system, over any other?
Now, I don’t want to say that what the Egyptian, Libyan, and Tunesian people have (with respect to their governments) is any good. Indeed, I think the opposite is true. But the status quo being bad doesn’t necessarily mean that Democracy is the solution, or that it is ‘good,’ per se.
In fact, it seems to me that Democracies are subject to a heck of a lot of quarrels and problems of its own. Just take a look at what’s going on in Congress if you want a clue at what I mean. And indeed, in any system, there will be some problem with it as long as humans are part of the picture (given that we’re imperfect by nature).
But what makes a Democracy less of a problem-filled solution than another form of government? Again, what is so inherently good about it such that the people would default to it in their demands? (I mean, take a look at Jordan, for instance. Except for the bit of hubbub that was in the news some weeks ago, I haven’t heard much about the people uprising against their monarchy so as to over-throw it in favor of a democracy.)
Could this be a thesis-antithesis-synthesis thing going on here?
What do you guys think?
Supposedly because it provides a possibility, when coupled with a constitution, for procedural guarantees for preservation of liberty (liberty in a narrow sense).
This may be the hubbub you mention, but recently Jordanian tribal leaders called for more democratic elections but given Jordan’s tribal track record I doubt such protests are genuinely geared toward democratic reforms:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12400274
As for thesis-antithesis-synthesis, if you mean some sort of The End of History scenario I think the recent rise in fundamentalism as well as China’s model should give some pause as to any notion that democratic liberalism is the end point to which the whole of history has been moving.
I would say that they whole ‘end of history’ notion is nonsense.
I would agree – but given the period Fukuyama was considering (just prior to 1992 and a focus on the Cold War) I do not think he could have predicted the rise of fundamentalism, nor was China and especially dominant threat to liberal democracy at the time.
Though I think he might see the recent protests sweeping the Middle East as proof of his theory I think he would have difficulty reconciling the sorts of conservative revolutions that appear to be occuring in some democratic nations, as well as the potential for many of these Mid East revolutions to turn sour in favor of Islamist fundamentalist governments.
As for the notion in general that there is some sort of end-point for sociological and political evolution toward which we are working, I, too, find it suspect.
A question I’ve asked myself as I look at our government. Also, how much influence over the policies of our government does my vote every 2 or 4 years give me? Does democracy on a large scale simply trivialize popular government?
Steve,
I think direct democracy is only truly functional in small communities, like the Greek city-states. Even then, any citizen could attend most discussions and have a voice for their own interests and the turn out could have been in the thousands. Then again, ‘citizens’ were Greek males over a certain age, so they did have a limit.
As for the voice of the individual in a country as large as the United States, not only did the original formulation of the government attempt to limit the ability of citizens to directly elect their representatives (the closest to ‘direct democracy’ we can get) but even reforms that made direct election more possible make little difference for a single voter having any sort of say in the outcome of specific legislation or policies. I believe most evidence would point to the Founding Fathers as being quite worried about a popular government model.
I would say one of the great strengths of the American systems is that it allows for flexibility in forming political interest groups, which can then form voting blocs that can sway politicians and have a larger impact than any individual could possibly have. This does require that there be like-minded people, and that someone put in the effort to organize, etc. However, one of the paradoxes of the democratic system is that it allegedly gives the individual a great number of rights, even though the larger the system the less likely (and appropriate) it is for any single individual to have any measure of political influence. As Jacob Burckhardt said, “The state is thus, on the one hand, the realization and expression of the cultural ideas of every party… It should be able to do everything, yet allowed to do nothing.”
Jared, thanks for the thoughtful reply.
You identified the mechanism underlying successful democratic government in a large country. What is discouraging in our current debates is the popular railing against “interest groups,” “lobbyists,” “K-Street,” “unions,” etc. as if !) we weren’t all part of one or more interest groups and 2) these groups were not essential to the function of the democracy.
Accompanying that theme is the often underlying notion of a “non-economic” ideal, one in which the “playing field is level,” as if removal of any wealth advantage is possible without losing the basic means of exchange required for a society.