Friday, December 10, 2004
Democracy vs The World
I have a sneaking suspicion that my generation may see the end of Democracy As We Know It. I kind of hope I’m wrong, and it’s tough to tell what would replace it entirely.
Even as Afghanistan has completed their first election ever, Iraq is preparing for their first ‘free’ election and Ukraine has demonstrating they won’t tolerate crooked politics, there is a certain ennui falling over democracy in North America. I know we didn’t invent democracy, but I’ve got a feeling that if we give it up, it’s not going to last long anywhere else.
Of course, it’s tough to say exactly at what point democracy ceases to exist. Certainly we vote for our representatives, and they make the laws. In Canada we currently have a Prime Minister who is theoretically in complete control, though he didn’t receive the support of a majority of Canadians. (I like to call that ‘Prime Minister Lite’.) So, is ANY decision he makes technically democratic? He doesn’t have the backing of a majority, just the backing of more than anyone else. Is that democracy?
In the USA there is a lot of talk that George Bush Jr won his second election as president because a great portion of the electorate was uneducated and ill-informed. True or false, their vote counts, doesn’t it? Should people meet minimum requirements before they can vote? Who sets those requirements?
In the European Union, they are wrangling with choosing the leaders of the whole Union. I’m not as familiar with that process as I am with Canadian/American politics, but I have heard that EU officials are not being selected by European citizens, but rather by other people in charge. Who will all these people be accountable to?
Of course, there is the United Nations, the biggest democratic dichotomy of them all. They routinely hold votes (which is good), however, their electorate contain scores of people who are not accountable to their own nation’s citizens. People who are there because their people CAN’T vote, and yet they get to vote.
Well, it’s good that the UN considers every nation equal. Otherwise, who’s going to come up with the criteria that one nation is better than another? And it’s not a great idea for the UN to enforce a specific governmental form on a country, what works for one group of people will be a disaster for another.
However, how can you let someone vote if they themselves don’t believe in voting?
The UN can only survive its schizophrenia for so long. This has to be treated, or the UN will fall apart. Perhaps the time for the UN is past: if the entire world were democratic, we’d get along without a forced forum. If the world eschews democracy as a whole, then the UN can’t work anyway.
Of course, for Democracy to decline, something has to replace it. I can’t imagine dictators taking over the ‘mature’ democracies. Of course, a few subtle moves, and you can create a dictatorship that certainly LOOKS like democracy. Hitler pulled a trick like that.
What’s more likely is a circle of ‘elites’ will manoeuvre to ensure that selection is limited, so that while people are voting, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Whether or not people catch on might be immaterial. If our leaders do a good job, it’s hard to argue with them. If our leaders do a bad job, they know they’ll be out on their ass.
I don’t think this is a better solution, but certainly the idea of a leader for life/until you screw up has merit. I think that the downfall of democracy is having to get elected means making promises that don’t make sense: great leaders have to compromise their way to power, and are handcuffed from really using it.
One effective leader can supplant democracy. The question is: what comes next?
The civilised world was once democratic, and then lost it. It can happen again.
¶ 1:35 PM
Even as Afghanistan has completed their first election ever, Iraq is preparing for their first ‘free’ election and Ukraine has demonstrating they won’t tolerate crooked politics, there is a certain ennui falling over democracy in North America. I know we didn’t invent democracy, but I’ve got a feeling that if we give it up, it’s not going to last long anywhere else.
Of course, it’s tough to say exactly at what point democracy ceases to exist. Certainly we vote for our representatives, and they make the laws. In Canada we currently have a Prime Minister who is theoretically in complete control, though he didn’t receive the support of a majority of Canadians. (I like to call that ‘Prime Minister Lite’.) So, is ANY decision he makes technically democratic? He doesn’t have the backing of a majority, just the backing of more than anyone else. Is that democracy?
In the USA there is a lot of talk that George Bush Jr won his second election as president because a great portion of the electorate was uneducated and ill-informed. True or false, their vote counts, doesn’t it? Should people meet minimum requirements before they can vote? Who sets those requirements?
In the European Union, they are wrangling with choosing the leaders of the whole Union. I’m not as familiar with that process as I am with Canadian/American politics, but I have heard that EU officials are not being selected by European citizens, but rather by other people in charge. Who will all these people be accountable to?
Of course, there is the United Nations, the biggest democratic dichotomy of them all. They routinely hold votes (which is good), however, their electorate contain scores of people who are not accountable to their own nation’s citizens. People who are there because their people CAN’T vote, and yet they get to vote.
Well, it’s good that the UN considers every nation equal. Otherwise, who’s going to come up with the criteria that one nation is better than another? And it’s not a great idea for the UN to enforce a specific governmental form on a country, what works for one group of people will be a disaster for another.
However, how can you let someone vote if they themselves don’t believe in voting?
The UN can only survive its schizophrenia for so long. This has to be treated, or the UN will fall apart. Perhaps the time for the UN is past: if the entire world were democratic, we’d get along without a forced forum. If the world eschews democracy as a whole, then the UN can’t work anyway.
Of course, for Democracy to decline, something has to replace it. I can’t imagine dictators taking over the ‘mature’ democracies. Of course, a few subtle moves, and you can create a dictatorship that certainly LOOKS like democracy. Hitler pulled a trick like that.
What’s more likely is a circle of ‘elites’ will manoeuvre to ensure that selection is limited, so that while people are voting, it ultimately doesn’t matter. Whether or not people catch on might be immaterial. If our leaders do a good job, it’s hard to argue with them. If our leaders do a bad job, they know they’ll be out on their ass.
I don’t think this is a better solution, but certainly the idea of a leader for life/until you screw up has merit. I think that the downfall of democracy is having to get elected means making promises that don’t make sense: great leaders have to compromise their way to power, and are handcuffed from really using it.
One effective leader can supplant democracy. The question is: what comes next?
The civilised world was once democratic, and then lost it. It can happen again.
¶ 1:35 PM
Comments:
<< Home
Charlotte, your fears about democracy in Europe, at least, are misplaced - voter turnout, and public interest and level of being informed are much higher than your view of their equivalents in North America. It helps, probably, that each European country is relatively small (compared to the USA anyway) so people are more likely to actually know their politicians - and it makes politics more local. That a few of the leaders of the European Union are not directly elected doesn't really matter - the people who pass the laws in the EU are elected, and those who ride herd on the EU are selected by each country's democratic leaders (for in the EU, as the UN, each country is equal, regardless of size) and are responsible back to them. The EU, after all, is not a country - it's an international organisation like the UN or NATO.
As for the UN - we have to have it, it's time is not past, as countries have to meet somewhere - we can't go back to doing everything bilaterally, or the big countries (USA, China, India, Japan, Germany) will get everything and the little guys will get the dregs.
As for the UN - we have to have it, it's time is not past, as countries have to meet somewhere - we can't go back to doing everything bilaterally, or the big countries (USA, China, India, Japan, Germany) will get everything and the little guys will get the dregs.
# posted by 
: December 14, 2004 at 8:46 AM
: December 14, 2004 at 8:46 AM
First up, I missed a few points that I’d meant to include. These aren’t columns I write, refine and store up. They’re just thoughts that I’d like to get down ‘permanently’. I love to have someone respond, because I know I’m not always right, and the easiest way to find out, is for someone to tell me.
So thanks.
What did I miss?
Demographic shifts. Many democratic nations have immigrants from non-democratic nations. In general, most of these immigrants are happy to be in a free land, and are more likely to exercise their democratic freedoms than those of use who take them for granted. However, just as there are malcontents born in western nations, there are some who choose to come here, or are forced to come here.
It is the nature of a free and open society to adapt to include all its members. If we have a growing number of people who accept that the strong should lead, how long before that’s true? Don’t get me wrong, it’s not just immigrants who feel this way. But you need fewer people believing in ‘might makes right’ to take control than you need for ‘democracy’ to retain control. I have no idea where the tipping point is, but they certainly found it in Rome, France and Germany. It can happen here.
As to rebut your specific points: if the EU is like the UN, then what’s the point? Either the UN is broken, hence a need for the EU, or the EU is superfluous. Also, if the EU cannot mandate action in its member countries, what is it for? Hence, people in Spain can be forced by simple majority to go along with Italy and France. It may be democracy, however, I wouldn’t call that ‘Democracy as we know it’.
Perhaps that’s what I should be clear about. I’m talking about DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT. Perhaps the entire world will be run by a super-democracy.
However, it won’t be the UN. To refute your point about the UN being necessary: they didn’t stop the USA from invading Iraq. They didn’t stop France from invading Sierra Leone. They haven’t ended famine in Zimbabawe, and 10 years of sanctions against Iraq had no effect what so ever. The UN cannot continue as it is. It must change.
It’s not that I don’t have faith in democracy. It’s not that I believe that ennui will allow something awful to happen. I just think that in 50 years, our leadership will be structured VERY differently than it is today, and how they get there will border on unrecogonisable.
I wouldn’t mind being wrong, like most prognosticators. After all, I’m just a fat chick with a blog!
Post a Comment
So thanks.
What did I miss?
Demographic shifts. Many democratic nations have immigrants from non-democratic nations. In general, most of these immigrants are happy to be in a free land, and are more likely to exercise their democratic freedoms than those of use who take them for granted. However, just as there are malcontents born in western nations, there are some who choose to come here, or are forced to come here.
It is the nature of a free and open society to adapt to include all its members. If we have a growing number of people who accept that the strong should lead, how long before that’s true? Don’t get me wrong, it’s not just immigrants who feel this way. But you need fewer people believing in ‘might makes right’ to take control than you need for ‘democracy’ to retain control. I have no idea where the tipping point is, but they certainly found it in Rome, France and Germany. It can happen here.
As to rebut your specific points: if the EU is like the UN, then what’s the point? Either the UN is broken, hence a need for the EU, or the EU is superfluous. Also, if the EU cannot mandate action in its member countries, what is it for? Hence, people in Spain can be forced by simple majority to go along with Italy and France. It may be democracy, however, I wouldn’t call that ‘Democracy as we know it’.
Perhaps that’s what I should be clear about. I’m talking about DEMOCRACY AS WE KNOW IT. Perhaps the entire world will be run by a super-democracy.
However, it won’t be the UN. To refute your point about the UN being necessary: they didn’t stop the USA from invading Iraq. They didn’t stop France from invading Sierra Leone. They haven’t ended famine in Zimbabawe, and 10 years of sanctions against Iraq had no effect what so ever. The UN cannot continue as it is. It must change.
It’s not that I don’t have faith in democracy. It’s not that I believe that ennui will allow something awful to happen. I just think that in 50 years, our leadership will be structured VERY differently than it is today, and how they get there will border on unrecogonisable.
I wouldn’t mind being wrong, like most prognosticators. After all, I’m just a fat chick with a blog!
<< Home
