JazzRemington
21st January 2006, 16:30
We've recently read, on our own that is, two articles dealing with Democracy: one maintaining that it is a myth and one maintaining that it is a reality. I'm not going to get into the nitty gritty of the articles here, but they are contained within one bigger article called "Democracy: Overrated or Undervalued?" if one can find it.
As part of the class, we are given several readings and must write a summary and give our opinion to three of them and on one of those three present it to class with at least three group discussions. I have chosen this particular article to write about but I am reluctant to present it because I hate debating. One should note that 1) I don't know the political makeup of the class and 2) my teacher is an ex-hippie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two articles attempts to summarize different points of view on modern Democracy, mostly centering on American democracy. Both view democracy as still useful and needed, but one critiques the democratic ideal as being simply a myth and is not real and the other maintains that the ideal of democracy is real and happening.
The first article, entitled “Democracy's Romantic Myths,” being written by John Mueller, describes Democracy as a simple, “romantic myth.” It uses the argument that those who have the most money typically get results done and that generally those who were elected to represent the people only respond to money. For example, he cites, from what I can understand, a quote stating that a telephone call from a CEO to a representative “may carry considerable more weight than one from an unknown constituent.” The next argument he uses is that not enough people simply do not participate to call Democracy democratic, though they do do this for various reasons. The final argument is that people are not simply intelligent enough or informed enough to weigh a candidate's platform against another's
The second article is entitled “The Active Citizen” and was written by Paul Rogat Loeb. This individual argues that public and personal participation in a democracy is required utmost. He also argues that private interest groups that lobby are a good thing, giving an example of a fishermen-environmentalist alliance used to stop the bulldozing of a lake. He states then that the reason we do not actively participate in Democracy is because of a learned "helplessness," a "cynicism [that] insists that nothing we do can matter." He then gives a few other reasons, including that people are not joining groups that they used to, people not having enough time, etc.
But in truth, modern democracy is, in fact, a romantic, idealized, absurd myth. While arguments have been presented numerous enough times to the point where I do not want to even get into them how Democracy is flawed, I have a few that are not well discussed, for hopefully obvious reasons. One is that democracy prevents direct action, action that is to solve the problem directly. Instead of working at the root level and attacking the problem directly, we must put it before our beloved and illustrious and all-knowing representatives to decide if anything, if anything at all that is, can be done. Only such a system of directly acting against something can ever work truly better and is better than relying on often bought-out (or in) representatives. As the old slogan goes, "direct action gets the goods."
Another is that there really is no escape from such a system, even if one does not actively participate. When one does not vote, one basically automatically “votes” against what ever is being voted on, even if he or she would have voted for it if he or she had voted in the first place. This creates an all encompassing “net” that certain individuals use as a justification for their “legitimacy” in being in power. In theory, if 99% of those eligible to vote in a population do not vote in an election, the 1% who did vote gives justification for claims of legitimacy on behalf of the individual who was elected, thus enslaving the 99% of the rest of the people, including the population as a whole, under the “majority,” though in this case it appears to be a minority within the majority. But even if one does not vote, they some how loose the right to complain, as if those who do take part in a system in which they know almost aways results in some blundering fool being elected have a monopoly on the right to complain.
Yet another problem is that it really does not take into consideration the individual as much as one would hope for. Two individuals who cast a vote that have only a passing consideration in what is being voted for, against my one very much dire opposition not to do the thing that is being voted on will out weigh me. For such a democracy, the “liberal democracy,” individual wishes and desires are not seemingly dealt with or addressed. These systems also do not have the one option that will truly and finally give rest to the argument of legitimacy: the option not to be governed. One never sees this choice on a ballot. One never sees “None” on the list of selectable candidates. In truth, one must always choose between options presented to them by someone else, as opposed to choosing amongst options they present themselves.
As part of the class, we are given several readings and must write a summary and give our opinion to three of them and on one of those three present it to class with at least three group discussions. I have chosen this particular article to write about but I am reluctant to present it because I hate debating. One should note that 1) I don't know the political makeup of the class and 2) my teacher is an ex-hippie.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
These two articles attempts to summarize different points of view on modern Democracy, mostly centering on American democracy. Both view democracy as still useful and needed, but one critiques the democratic ideal as being simply a myth and is not real and the other maintains that the ideal of democracy is real and happening.
The first article, entitled “Democracy's Romantic Myths,” being written by John Mueller, describes Democracy as a simple, “romantic myth.” It uses the argument that those who have the most money typically get results done and that generally those who were elected to represent the people only respond to money. For example, he cites, from what I can understand, a quote stating that a telephone call from a CEO to a representative “may carry considerable more weight than one from an unknown constituent.” The next argument he uses is that not enough people simply do not participate to call Democracy democratic, though they do do this for various reasons. The final argument is that people are not simply intelligent enough or informed enough to weigh a candidate's platform against another's
The second article is entitled “The Active Citizen” and was written by Paul Rogat Loeb. This individual argues that public and personal participation in a democracy is required utmost. He also argues that private interest groups that lobby are a good thing, giving an example of a fishermen-environmentalist alliance used to stop the bulldozing of a lake. He states then that the reason we do not actively participate in Democracy is because of a learned "helplessness," a "cynicism [that] insists that nothing we do can matter." He then gives a few other reasons, including that people are not joining groups that they used to, people not having enough time, etc.
But in truth, modern democracy is, in fact, a romantic, idealized, absurd myth. While arguments have been presented numerous enough times to the point where I do not want to even get into them how Democracy is flawed, I have a few that are not well discussed, for hopefully obvious reasons. One is that democracy prevents direct action, action that is to solve the problem directly. Instead of working at the root level and attacking the problem directly, we must put it before our beloved and illustrious and all-knowing representatives to decide if anything, if anything at all that is, can be done. Only such a system of directly acting against something can ever work truly better and is better than relying on often bought-out (or in) representatives. As the old slogan goes, "direct action gets the goods."
Another is that there really is no escape from such a system, even if one does not actively participate. When one does not vote, one basically automatically “votes” against what ever is being voted on, even if he or she would have voted for it if he or she had voted in the first place. This creates an all encompassing “net” that certain individuals use as a justification for their “legitimacy” in being in power. In theory, if 99% of those eligible to vote in a population do not vote in an election, the 1% who did vote gives justification for claims of legitimacy on behalf of the individual who was elected, thus enslaving the 99% of the rest of the people, including the population as a whole, under the “majority,” though in this case it appears to be a minority within the majority. But even if one does not vote, they some how loose the right to complain, as if those who do take part in a system in which they know almost aways results in some blundering fool being elected have a monopoly on the right to complain.
Yet another problem is that it really does not take into consideration the individual as much as one would hope for. Two individuals who cast a vote that have only a passing consideration in what is being voted for, against my one very much dire opposition not to do the thing that is being voted on will out weigh me. For such a democracy, the “liberal democracy,” individual wishes and desires are not seemingly dealt with or addressed. These systems also do not have the one option that will truly and finally give rest to the argument of legitimacy: the option not to be governed. One never sees this choice on a ballot. One never sees “None” on the list of selectable candidates. In truth, one must always choose between options presented to them by someone else, as opposed to choosing amongst options they present themselves.