This essay is a discussion on the mixed premises underpinning democracy and how they constrain human progress. This essay will establish the following:
People accept democratic outcomes by default
Democracy is a socio-political system based on flawed premises
Democratic principles highlight contradictions in social values
A meritocracy - the basis for a moral society
What might a meritocracy look like?
Dissatisfaction with democracy
We live in a world where a great many people are dis-satisfied with political outcomes. Most people seem to blow off their frustrations by evading the problem all together, as if its an unassailable fact, beyond question, 'a fact of life'. Notwithstanding the notion that democracy is participatory, its hard to accept inefficient government. This is not an isolated occurrence, rather ineffective government is symptomatic of ALL democracies, though clearly some are more ineffectual than others. eg. Democracy in India has delivered very poor outcomes for its people.
We have witnessed undemocratic governments perform better than democratic governments. To a large extent the stronger growth in these countries has been achieved because of cheap labour, but this is just part of the story. I'm not an advocate for authoritarian states, tyrannical or benevolent, but I do recognise that, an authoritarian state can implement policy with greater integrity than than democratic states. Why? Because its outcomes comes down to 'one mind' rather than an attempt to integrate the fragments of many minds, many interests. In conclusion, democracy is a valid socio-political system if REASON is the primary standard, and democracy a default standard. There is no escaping the need for democracy. Better to preserve the structure of
Criticism of democracy is often countered with spirilous presumptions - like anti democracy presupposes for form of tyranny, but I am suggesting an alternative - REASON. Democracy is a socio-political system that vests executive authority for government in the hands of elected officials whom are deemed to represent the majority of the electorate. Having voted for an elected official, ask yourself the following questions:
1. Competency: How competent are your elected officials? Elected officials are usually professional politicians with
Fundamental flaws inherent in democracy
People often take the view that those frustrated with democracy could only wish to impose their own views on the rest of society. But this critique assumes that values are subjective, and herein lies the fundamental flaw underlying democracy. The 'subjectivist' accepts the view that we can't be certain of anything, or very little, so we are obliged to respect the views of the majority if we are to live in harmony. Depending on the extent of their 'subjectivity', these people accept that ideas are rough approximations or totally unreliable as knowledge.
Inherent flaws in social values
Social values are a set of values accepted by the majority of people. Social values are based on a 'subjective' concept of truth and values, where 'what's right for you is right for you, and what's right for me can be whatever'. It defies the fact that humans have a nature, that when humans defy their nature, they are in fact acting contrary to their happiness or self-preservation. Drinking poison, taking drugs are examples of living a life contrary to your nature. Over-exertion is another, selflessly sacrificing your life is another.
Social values suffer from the same fundamental dilemma. Whilst they might be negotiated or generally agreed in a society, that are contrary to our nature. Their harm is not readily apparent because they are abstract, but consider the impact of 'welfare'. It meets the immediate survival needs of recipients, but it subverts their hierarchy of values. The benefactors clearly have already been subverted.
Origins of flawed social valuesIt is not surprising that humans still retain their 'collectivist, tribal' values when you consider our origins. Historically the survival of the human race was tied to the group, and its equally as pertinent that humans have gained a great deal by co-existing. eg. trade, education, social relationships. The nature of these relationships have changed over time. The nuclear family is the result of greater independence or self-reliance.
The basis for a moral society - a meritocracy
If human values are to evolve, to progress the mediocrity of the masses, then constitutional reform is critical. Reason needs to be the fundamental standard of value (truth). If this is going to be established, then parliaments have to structured to achieve that value. Concrete ways in which this can be achieved is:
Voters given direct access to parliament through 'vested interest groups
Parliament operates as an 'open forum' for opinions from various vested interests, ie. parliamentarians
An independent person determines the legitimacy of the arguments presented
Speakers are obliged to support their arguments with evidence
The number of parliamentarians who support an issue does not legitimatise the premise.
A concrete outline of a meritocracy
There are a number of reasons why this can be so:
Our socio-political process undermines the rights of individuals
People have unreasonable expectations of what is possible
Our socio-political process is fundamentally sound, but inefficient
I would argue that to some measure all 3 of these factors are true. Yet there is a fundamental 'issue' common to all of these issues, and that is the flawed theory of values underpinning our democratic instititutions. By that I mean there is no objective concept of truth. Principles are dispensed to the ideological dustbin, as the 'majority', or anyone whom claims to speak for it with some 'legitimacy', holds the power to dispense their authority. There policies need not be reasonable, they might be pandering to the lowest common denominator, yet people accept that they have a legitimacy sanctioned by the 'majority'. No accountability is necessary, no intelligibility is necessary. No valid protection of rights is possible. Principles have no substance when juxtpositioned next to arbitrary assertions.
You might well ask - if it smells like a fascist society, why isn't it? The reality is - it is. It lacks compelling leadership (unlike the periods under Napoleon & Hitler), and leadership is somewhat more fragmented, but don't under-estimate the potential power for ambitious souls to orchestrate a campaign to enforce their values. You might well ask - am I not doing the same? Forcing my values upon others. I'd make the following distinction. I'm seeking your understanding, not your blind acceptance. Ever been to a political meeting where they espouse popular 'non-thinking'. They want to be accepted, liked, so they are unlikely to be contraversial unless there is a dire emergency giving them a convenient rationalisation. The other distinction is that I'm not expressing ideas that INITIATE force upon other human beings. I'm fighting for the rights of individuals - the smallest minority, where rights consistute alienable recognition of the sovereignty of your body & soul. This is contrary to popular social concepts which presume to arbitrary manufacture rights like 'the right to education' (and that would be a bad education) at the expense of those who are required to fund it and teach it. Its a philosophy of victims and perpetrators. The sad fact is that most people regard the perpetrators as practical. But by what standard? Show me a thief that can have pride in his work? If he could, would he not rather be a productive member of society.
This state of affairs is the culmination of historical philosophical developments. Truth is considered to be subjective, at least that is the presumption of our democratic system. Democracy equates truth with numbers. If the majority believe it, then it must be true, or if its not, then it may as well be, because if we oppose them, we'll have more guns at our head. As the Japanese say 'Shou-ganai' meaning "That's life!" - well its there's and a great part of it was ours. But it has not always been that way, for them or us. These societies - East & West - have migrated by default more than by any coherent philosophy. Are not ideas supposed to have some basis in society? Outside the field of politics, we certainly accept as much. We can grasp the concept of a car, possessing mass and movement, having momentum and thus the capability to kill us. We cannot afford the subjective luxury of evading that knowledge. We'd be dead if we stepped in front of one. Even on-lookers would be acknowledging the objectivity of 'our' shared reality. "Why didn't he see the on-coming car?".
But politics is different. Why? Well, not just politics, but philosophy. Its different because its abstract and its personal. When our ideas conflict with others, we are not just conflicting with isolated, concrete premises, easily substituted for our values, we are undermining fundamental concepts of a person's being. Even on such trivial knowledge, people can be quite defensive or self-righteous. Should their thoughts come into question, alot of people feel vulnerable. The implication is that they start to question the efficacy of their own mind, their ability to survive at some level, and that's before they have reached a value judgement about their own self-worth. Their pride is bruised, and perhaps at a deeper level, their self-esteem. Criticism is thus regarded as demoralising, hurtful and vindictive. It is thus the reason why we accept the need to avoid such confrontation. Conflict can also alienate you from peers if you are in the minority, as I tend to be.
I must confess that alot of people regard me as quite cruel because I have strong opinions which I spare no energy to suppress. Why? Because I don't think anyone every achieved anything by thinking they were wrong. Our capacity to know is limited, but it doesn't warrant skepticism. There is a great deal of knowledge we can be confident about if we critique it. But few among us live an 'analysed life'. Many would argue its not practical.
There is no question that there is a need to be 'practical', but what is the implied standard here. A thief might rightly be regarded as practical if the acquisition of property is his standard of value. This is the accepted logic of today - that being a thief is 'impractical' because you might get, or will eventually get caught. The best example of this is wartime attrocities, or the Rodney King (L.A.) riots about 10 years ago, when seemingly 'good people' looted stores in Downtown LA because they could get away with it. The only reason we remain in a civil society today is because people don't think they can get away with it.
The implication is that 'the truth can hurt' or even ill-conceived ideas if they are not critiqued by the defendant. Evasion and diplomacy then become the standard of engagement. But is that a good standard? What is wrong with being wrong when it offers you your best chance of getting it right. What is wrong with being upset? Is that not the role of emotions to tell us when we are doing well (happy) or poorly (sad/depressed) in life's struggles. Since when was comfortable numb a compelling option? Who made 'ducking and hiding' the commonly accepted wisdom. Since when was honesty a dirty word. Of course, its not, so long as you don't hurt anyone. But then my mere presence can make anyone shudder. I've made a few Seven Day Adventists run for their lives. Glad to do it - its all part of my Community Improvement Program.
No comments:
Post a Comment