ComradeMan
25th November 2009, 23:44
A response to the article on democracy.
After reading my comrade's OneLove's interesting and perceptive article concerning the myths of democracy I felt obliged to respond in an attempt to look at the semantics and problems of defining democracy.
My idea of democracy.
My own belief is that 100% democracy can never be achieved in human society. There will always be the time that a decision might be undesired by someone or other. If we take the analogy of forcefully restraining a small child who is about to run out in front of a bus- we have been undemocractic and used force to impose our will on another, yet I am sure most people with see the difference. A basic outline of the argument can be found at: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/democracy-is-undemocratic
An outline being more or less as follows. Administration is formed of federations of self-managed groups whose membership policy is decided by vote directly at open meetings. If you are delegated from that group to do something and attend a federal meeting then you have a strict and binding mandate. This is your part of the deal, otherwise don't stand for election! If you don't implement that agreed mandate then you are instantly replaced. This way power remains in the hands of everyone as much as humanly possible and the decisions come from the bottom to the top as opposed to autocratic diktats by electived dictators or others. All those who are placed in a position of responsibility are thus held accountable to the electorate and any attempt to usurp power will be blocked straight away.
Other people's ideas of democracy- what is democracy?
Condoleeza Rice while commenting on events in the Middle East remarked that “Democracy was on the march”. Democracy had been irrevocably personified and was also belligerent. Armies are on the march- armies that carry an ideology or political will. Obviously if that army is your army and your democracy is marching in step then you can sell your point of view as being democratic. It is interesting to note how the US State always seems to have a polarised view on democracy being either on the march or in retreat. We must therefore draw the conclusion that, at least these days, democracy is an army that marches from Washington.
This phenomenon is not new. In 1923 Bertrand Russell also pointed out most astutely that the First World War has been justified as a war for democracy, mostly to make it palatable to the average man and create that useful righteous indignation that states inevitably require when justifying their bellicose actions. According to Steven Poole it is only around this time after the First World War that “democracy” really began to take on the “hallowed sanctity” it has and which persists to this day. Poole quotes a 1953 UNESCO enquiry:-
“The term democracy has held and still holds a rather exceptional position in political terminologies of very different kinds. It is scarcely possible to to discover any large political group in any country where the term is used in a derogatory way- at least officially. [...] The occurrence of a word having such a status is almost unique in the history of the human languages. It has most probably never happened before that the same political term, which for a very long time has been used in eulogistic, derogatory and neutral ways, has been almost unanimously accepted as the main political slogan of nearly all political parties.”Naess, A & Christophersen, J.A., et al, Democracy and Objectivity (Oslo 1956) pp137-8 in Poole, S. (2007) p195.
Poole goes on to note that for most of the 20th century the word democracy had been used by all and sundry- Stalin himself being the first “Allied” leader to state the Second World War was being used to defend democracy in a radio broadcast of 1941. The 20th century is certainly littered with the terminology of democracy and democratic movements, from the various People's Republics and Democratic Republics to, dare we say it, the Italian Fascists and the National Socialist Party themselves. It might seem then that democracy is basically what “we” do, and whatever our opponents to is de facto “undemocratic”. It is interesting to note how often we here the word democratic used in every day parlance to refer to just about anything that is agreed with.
In looking at the semantics of the democracy debate, the whole concept of democracy troubled the philosopher Hayek so much so that he actually proposed the word demo-archy (demarchy) as a replacement. The difference being in that the latter implied more the will of the people as expressed in public opinion than the pure Greek sense of the rule of the people- “kratein”- something which he found undesireable. In fact, direct rule of the people, by the people and for the people is the klast thing that most ruling classes and/or statists desire.
In answer to this problem, Britain's glorious socialist leader Tony Blair, albeit indirectly, seems to have knocked democracy off her pedestal when in repeated statements he affirmed that Britain should be a “meritocracy”. This is a word we often hear, extolled by all those who consider themselves “reasonable” and democratic. Yet the word meritocracy is interesting in itself seeing as it was coined by (Old) Labour's 1945 manifesto drafter Michael Young in The Rise of the Meritocracy- actually intendedn to condemn such a concept as being undemocratic and elitist- something which Young asserted in 2001 when he deplored the official misappropriation of the word. See :- The Guardian , 29th June 2001 “Down with Meritocracy”, Young, M. The problem with this word is that is sounds good but actually does a lot of harm. The only people who should govern are therefore those with merit- and those without merit have no say? And who are those with merit? And who is to decide who is meritous and who is not?
Referring once again to recent events in the Middle-East it is interesting to show how Western news portrays democracy as the pathetic queue of people lined up to vote in an Iraq election- that some maintain was “rigged” anyway. In relation to this phenomenon others have pointed out that Britain, along with other Western Democracies is no more than an elective dictatorship in which democracy wakes up every four to five years and means nothing more than waiting in line to put a cross on a piece of paper and then go away again for another fout to five year period. This does a lot of harm to democracy and assists the powers that be in their cunning statist subterfuge- by portraying democracy as mere pencil and paper voting once in a while they dilute the potency of the concept and convince the ordinary man that this is democracy.
In considering the semantics of democracy it is interesting to note as well that in Arabic countries the word has acquired rather negative connotations. Gilles Keppel wrote, largely as the result of US foreign policy, the Arabic word damakratia is frequently used as pejoratively as meaning a kind of diktakt or poltical will, change etc imposed from an outside force. See Kepel, G., “The War for Muslim Minds” Cambridge Mass. (2004) p.293
So what is democracy? It certainly seems from this that democracy is all things to all men- and by default it has become nothing to no man. This draws me to the conclusion that 99% of what is described as being democratic is not democratic at all, if the reader will forgive my use of hyperbole! Perhaps we should have more suspicion of those touting democracy than we think, perhaps like the Federalists attacked the Republicans in the embryonic US State of over 200 years ago!
Postcriptum:
I recommend an excellent book “Unspeak: Words are Weapons”, Steven Poole, Abacus, GB. (2007) ISBN-976-0-349-11924-3. The main references in this short article are drawn thence.
After reading my comrade's OneLove's interesting and perceptive article concerning the myths of democracy I felt obliged to respond in an attempt to look at the semantics and problems of defining democracy.
My idea of democracy.
My own belief is that 100% democracy can never be achieved in human society. There will always be the time that a decision might be undesired by someone or other. If we take the analogy of forcefully restraining a small child who is about to run out in front of a bus- we have been undemocractic and used force to impose our will on another, yet I am sure most people with see the difference. A basic outline of the argument can be found at: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/anarcho/democracy-is-undemocratic
An outline being more or less as follows. Administration is formed of federations of self-managed groups whose membership policy is decided by vote directly at open meetings. If you are delegated from that group to do something and attend a federal meeting then you have a strict and binding mandate. This is your part of the deal, otherwise don't stand for election! If you don't implement that agreed mandate then you are instantly replaced. This way power remains in the hands of everyone as much as humanly possible and the decisions come from the bottom to the top as opposed to autocratic diktats by electived dictators or others. All those who are placed in a position of responsibility are thus held accountable to the electorate and any attempt to usurp power will be blocked straight away.
Other people's ideas of democracy- what is democracy?
Condoleeza Rice while commenting on events in the Middle East remarked that “Democracy was on the march”. Democracy had been irrevocably personified and was also belligerent. Armies are on the march- armies that carry an ideology or political will. Obviously if that army is your army and your democracy is marching in step then you can sell your point of view as being democratic. It is interesting to note how the US State always seems to have a polarised view on democracy being either on the march or in retreat. We must therefore draw the conclusion that, at least these days, democracy is an army that marches from Washington.
This phenomenon is not new. In 1923 Bertrand Russell also pointed out most astutely that the First World War has been justified as a war for democracy, mostly to make it palatable to the average man and create that useful righteous indignation that states inevitably require when justifying their bellicose actions. According to Steven Poole it is only around this time after the First World War that “democracy” really began to take on the “hallowed sanctity” it has and which persists to this day. Poole quotes a 1953 UNESCO enquiry:-
“The term democracy has held and still holds a rather exceptional position in political terminologies of very different kinds. It is scarcely possible to to discover any large political group in any country where the term is used in a derogatory way- at least officially. [...] The occurrence of a word having such a status is almost unique in the history of the human languages. It has most probably never happened before that the same political term, which for a very long time has been used in eulogistic, derogatory and neutral ways, has been almost unanimously accepted as the main political slogan of nearly all political parties.”Naess, A & Christophersen, J.A., et al, Democracy and Objectivity (Oslo 1956) pp137-8 in Poole, S. (2007) p195.
Poole goes on to note that for most of the 20th century the word democracy had been used by all and sundry- Stalin himself being the first “Allied” leader to state the Second World War was being used to defend democracy in a radio broadcast of 1941. The 20th century is certainly littered with the terminology of democracy and democratic movements, from the various People's Republics and Democratic Republics to, dare we say it, the Italian Fascists and the National Socialist Party themselves. It might seem then that democracy is basically what “we” do, and whatever our opponents to is de facto “undemocratic”. It is interesting to note how often we here the word democratic used in every day parlance to refer to just about anything that is agreed with.
In looking at the semantics of the democracy debate, the whole concept of democracy troubled the philosopher Hayek so much so that he actually proposed the word demo-archy (demarchy) as a replacement. The difference being in that the latter implied more the will of the people as expressed in public opinion than the pure Greek sense of the rule of the people- “kratein”- something which he found undesireable. In fact, direct rule of the people, by the people and for the people is the klast thing that most ruling classes and/or statists desire.
In answer to this problem, Britain's glorious socialist leader Tony Blair, albeit indirectly, seems to have knocked democracy off her pedestal when in repeated statements he affirmed that Britain should be a “meritocracy”. This is a word we often hear, extolled by all those who consider themselves “reasonable” and democratic. Yet the word meritocracy is interesting in itself seeing as it was coined by (Old) Labour's 1945 manifesto drafter Michael Young in The Rise of the Meritocracy- actually intendedn to condemn such a concept as being undemocratic and elitist- something which Young asserted in 2001 when he deplored the official misappropriation of the word. See :- The Guardian , 29th June 2001 “Down with Meritocracy”, Young, M. The problem with this word is that is sounds good but actually does a lot of harm. The only people who should govern are therefore those with merit- and those without merit have no say? And who are those with merit? And who is to decide who is meritous and who is not?
Referring once again to recent events in the Middle-East it is interesting to show how Western news portrays democracy as the pathetic queue of people lined up to vote in an Iraq election- that some maintain was “rigged” anyway. In relation to this phenomenon others have pointed out that Britain, along with other Western Democracies is no more than an elective dictatorship in which democracy wakes up every four to five years and means nothing more than waiting in line to put a cross on a piece of paper and then go away again for another fout to five year period. This does a lot of harm to democracy and assists the powers that be in their cunning statist subterfuge- by portraying democracy as mere pencil and paper voting once in a while they dilute the potency of the concept and convince the ordinary man that this is democracy.
In considering the semantics of democracy it is interesting to note as well that in Arabic countries the word has acquired rather negative connotations. Gilles Keppel wrote, largely as the result of US foreign policy, the Arabic word damakratia is frequently used as pejoratively as meaning a kind of diktakt or poltical will, change etc imposed from an outside force. See Kepel, G., “The War for Muslim Minds” Cambridge Mass. (2004) p.293
So what is democracy? It certainly seems from this that democracy is all things to all men- and by default it has become nothing to no man. This draws me to the conclusion that 99% of what is described as being democratic is not democratic at all, if the reader will forgive my use of hyperbole! Perhaps we should have more suspicion of those touting democracy than we think, perhaps like the Federalists attacked the Republicans in the embryonic US State of over 200 years ago!
Postcriptum:
I recommend an excellent book “Unspeak: Words are Weapons”, Steven Poole, Abacus, GB. (2007) ISBN-976-0-349-11924-3. The main references in this short article are drawn thence.