A good opinion piece highlighting how the word "democracy" can mean something &, at the same time, can be meaningless. Although, the piece is few months' old, but the heart of the opinion is "democracy" is a fairly debatable concept.
The primary reason it is debatable or "essentially contested concept" is because most of the public don't understand what the heck is "democracy". Most of the public thinks that merely voting in an election by the general public is "democracy", but it isn't. In many developing countries, elections take place quite frequently, but as soon as the election results are called, the losing party calls foul.
Democracy in the modern world has become similar to a soccer / football match. If a referee awards a penalty or free kick & then that penalty or free kick results in a winning goal for one of the teams, the other team (coach, players, fans etc.) call foul & blame the referee for the decision that helped the other team win the match, regardless of that decision being correct or wrong.
People like & want "democracy" as long as it benefits them economically, financially, socially, politically etc. As soon the "democratically-elected" government makes a decision which goes against the wishes of the public, that same public turns against the government & start claiming that "democracy doesn't exist in this country."
As I stated above that people don't know what democracy is about. Elections & voting are not "democracy," because after all, these activities also happen in Zimbabwe & Congo. Perhaps, those are rigged elections but then most elections are, around the world. In some place, rigging happens at the polling station & in some place, rigging or, in other words, public relations, happen long before the polling day; throughout the election campaign.
Democracy is essentially about the leader (elected or otherwise) listening, learning, & then doing what the majority of its public wants; all the while keeping a close eye on the human rights of minorities, so they are not trampled afoot, while the decisions to benefit the public majority are being implemented. It's not so easy to do. It requires a leader who is not afraid to do something, which may even harm its political party in the short term. It requires a leader who puts the needs of its countrypeople well ahead of his/her & its political party's needs. These kinds of leaders are non-existent in this modern world, where it seems that every other country is either "democratic", or "undemocratic", depending on the public's benefits gained from that given government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
...
Is anyone actually against democracy, after all? Surely not. But democracy is a tricky word. It can mean all sorts of things, or something close to nothing at all.
...
But there I go, using one of the most loaded words in any language, “democracy,” to score cheap debating points. It’s hard to resist the temptation. We do it all the time in Canadian politics. When a cabal of opposition politicians wanted to supplant the Conservative government at the end of 2008, they said they were serving parliamentary democracy. When Harper fought back, he made similar claims. In 2009 & 2010 & 2011, every time Michael Ignatieff thought he might defeat the minority government of the day, it was easy to find observers who’d ask what could be wrong with a little democracy. As if only an election is democracy. As if Parliament isn’t an expression of democracy.
...
“Democracy” is what the Scottish philosopher W.B. Gallie called an “essentially contested concept,” a notion everyone can praise in the abstract while disagreeing, honestly & in good faith, about almost every detail of any given case. (Gallie listed “art” & “duty” as other essentially contested concepts. Art is wonderful & everyone should do his duty, but is that mess on the wall art, & what’s my duty today?) Debate is at the heart of democracy, or should be. But appeals to democracy are usually designed to shut debate down, not to deepen it.
The primary reason it is debatable or "essentially contested concept" is because most of the public don't understand what the heck is "democracy". Most of the public thinks that merely voting in an election by the general public is "democracy", but it isn't. In many developing countries, elections take place quite frequently, but as soon as the election results are called, the losing party calls foul.
Democracy in the modern world has become similar to a soccer / football match. If a referee awards a penalty or free kick & then that penalty or free kick results in a winning goal for one of the teams, the other team (coach, players, fans etc.) call foul & blame the referee for the decision that helped the other team win the match, regardless of that decision being correct or wrong.
People like & want "democracy" as long as it benefits them economically, financially, socially, politically etc. As soon the "democratically-elected" government makes a decision which goes against the wishes of the public, that same public turns against the government & start claiming that "democracy doesn't exist in this country."
As I stated above that people don't know what democracy is about. Elections & voting are not "democracy," because after all, these activities also happen in Zimbabwe & Congo. Perhaps, those are rigged elections but then most elections are, around the world. In some place, rigging happens at the polling station & in some place, rigging or, in other words, public relations, happen long before the polling day; throughout the election campaign.
Democracy is essentially about the leader (elected or otherwise) listening, learning, & then doing what the majority of its public wants; all the while keeping a close eye on the human rights of minorities, so they are not trampled afoot, while the decisions to benefit the public majority are being implemented. It's not so easy to do. It requires a leader who is not afraid to do something, which may even harm its political party in the short term. It requires a leader who puts the needs of its countrypeople well ahead of his/her & its political party's needs. These kinds of leaders are non-existent in this modern world, where it seems that every other country is either "democratic", or "undemocratic", depending on the public's benefits gained from that given government.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is anyone actually against democracy, after all? Surely not. But democracy is a tricky word. It can mean all sorts of things, or something close to nothing at all.
...
But there I go, using one of the most loaded words in any language, “democracy,” to score cheap debating points. It’s hard to resist the temptation. We do it all the time in Canadian politics. When a cabal of opposition politicians wanted to supplant the Conservative government at the end of 2008, they said they were serving parliamentary democracy. When Harper fought back, he made similar claims. In 2009 & 2010 & 2011, every time Michael Ignatieff thought he might defeat the minority government of the day, it was easy to find observers who’d ask what could be wrong with a little democracy. As if only an election is democracy. As if Parliament isn’t an expression of democracy.
...
“Democracy” is what the Scottish philosopher W.B. Gallie called an “essentially contested concept,” a notion everyone can praise in the abstract while disagreeing, honestly & in good faith, about almost every detail of any given case. (Gallie listed “art” & “duty” as other essentially contested concepts. Art is wonderful & everyone should do his duty, but is that mess on the wall art, & what’s my duty today?) Debate is at the heart of democracy, or should be. But appeals to democracy are usually designed to shut debate down, not to deepen it.
No comments:
Post a Comment