Monday, January 31, 2005
Incoherent Ramblings on Democracy
Stu asked me to write about whether or not Democracy was the best form of government. First let me say that, of course, we Westerners do not live in a pure Democracy, as we don’t live in a system where every law or ordinance codified into law on society is voted on by the population whom said laws are implied onto. Rather we are a Republic, with a Constitution laying out a system of governance and individual rights with elected officials charged with the task of creating said laws. Obviously this system is designed to manage the task of governing hundreds of millions of people in the case of the United States, where voting on each and every law would be impossible.
The way states have formed today, you are going to have a small group of people managing the national government, with authority over more localized government. There are really only a few ways that said group of people can be enabled with power: They can be voted in, they can have sufficient historical control of state bureaucracy to continue rule without elections (China,) they can control the military (Many, many countries,) or they can be assigned with power due to some status, the divine right of kings or religious leaders being two examples.
Democracy has two big advantages over the other types of government. First, there is a mechanism to remove crappy leadership with some regularity (assuming a populace’s ability to recognize the crappy leaders.) Second, historical evidence suggests that countries with liberal democratic governments in place promote greater freedom of ideas, usually indoctrinated in the rights of free speech, free religion, and free press.
A possible and debated third advantage of liberal democracy is another historical suggestion: Democratic countries do not go to war with each other. Of course they still go to war with "non-Democratic" nations, but this idea has been used to suggest that if Democracy was spread globally, major conflict between states would essentially end. Of course War itself seems to be out pacing this transition, as the latest war is not on a state but a noun (or terror networks.)
I believe this is the rationale behind the Bush Administration’s push for democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a firm belief that Democratic governments are the best forms for pushing freedoms and preventing wars. They remember the 1980s, and the spread of Democracy through Eastern Europe, and hope to replicate that in the Middle East.
The Middle East does not share the same cultural history as the West however. Thus it’s possible that Democracy is not the “best,” form of government for that region at this time. What is the “best,” anyways, for a society as a whole? Relative peace and general prosperity? Freedom at any cost? Stability? Religious conformity insuring salvation?
Democracy has been around for a while, and I have a firm belief that as a form of government, it’s not the final product or solution. As humans evolve with changing needs and changing modes of interaction, there will come the need for new forms of government that accentuate the ability of people to collectively survive and progress. Power will be concentrated in the hands of those with the means to control it, who will justify their control through force, entitlement, or an election. Part of the human spirit desires control, and desires to be led. Our brains can’t handle the pressure of having to decide everything for ourselves; we are too conditioned to having a system telling us what to do, whether that be parking regulations or shariah. Our goal should be to tweak this system of control to provide what as fair a system as we can allow. Democratic government seems an improvement on current forms, as long as we agree to let ourselves live in this controlled society.
The way states have formed today, you are going to have a small group of people managing the national government, with authority over more localized government. There are really only a few ways that said group of people can be enabled with power: They can be voted in, they can have sufficient historical control of state bureaucracy to continue rule without elections (China,) they can control the military (Many, many countries,) or they can be assigned with power due to some status, the divine right of kings or religious leaders being two examples.
Democracy has two big advantages over the other types of government. First, there is a mechanism to remove crappy leadership with some regularity (assuming a populace’s ability to recognize the crappy leaders.) Second, historical evidence suggests that countries with liberal democratic governments in place promote greater freedom of ideas, usually indoctrinated in the rights of free speech, free religion, and free press.
A possible and debated third advantage of liberal democracy is another historical suggestion: Democratic countries do not go to war with each other. Of course they still go to war with "non-Democratic" nations, but this idea has been used to suggest that if Democracy was spread globally, major conflict between states would essentially end. Of course War itself seems to be out pacing this transition, as the latest war is not on a state but a noun (or terror networks.)
I believe this is the rationale behind the Bush Administration’s push for democracies in Iraq and Afghanistan: a firm belief that Democratic governments are the best forms for pushing freedoms and preventing wars. They remember the 1980s, and the spread of Democracy through Eastern Europe, and hope to replicate that in the Middle East.
The Middle East does not share the same cultural history as the West however. Thus it’s possible that Democracy is not the “best,” form of government for that region at this time. What is the “best,” anyways, for a society as a whole? Relative peace and general prosperity? Freedom at any cost? Stability? Religious conformity insuring salvation?
Democracy has been around for a while, and I have a firm belief that as a form of government, it’s not the final product or solution. As humans evolve with changing needs and changing modes of interaction, there will come the need for new forms of government that accentuate the ability of people to collectively survive and progress. Power will be concentrated in the hands of those with the means to control it, who will justify their control through force, entitlement, or an election. Part of the human spirit desires control, and desires to be led. Our brains can’t handle the pressure of having to decide everything for ourselves; we are too conditioned to having a system telling us what to do, whether that be parking regulations or shariah. Our goal should be to tweak this system of control to provide what as fair a system as we can allow. Democratic government seems an improvement on current forms, as long as we agree to let ourselves live in this controlled society.
# posted by Marmaniac @ 11:19 AM 
