How valuable is democracy?
Assumption: democracy is inherently good, not just a decision-making procedure. You can agree or disagree with this, but for the purposes of this discussion, I want you to assume that this is true.
Now, for the question: what measures are permissible to protect democracy? Is it ethical to spread democracy, rather than just protecting it? And what means would be too terrible to use, even to defend democracy?
For example, assume that the only way to protect democracy is to prevent a totalitarian politician from being elected, and in order to do so, you must either assassinate that politician, or postpone the election, allowing some time for the revolutionary fervor of that politician's supporters to die down. It may seem obvious to you that doing one of those is (or is not) a good idea. But why is it so obvious?
Note that this last example is incidental. You can replace it by any number of things. The essential question here is how far are you willing to go to ensure the survival of democracy, either in one country, or globally?
My own swipe at it: postpone the election. Much as a person in a rage might need to be restrained temporarily, it is permissible to postpone the election to stop the totalitarian from getting into power.
Thoughts?
Now, for the question: what measures are permissible to protect democracy? Is it ethical to spread democracy, rather than just protecting it? And what means would be too terrible to use, even to defend democracy?
For example, assume that the only way to protect democracy is to prevent a totalitarian politician from being elected, and in order to do so, you must either assassinate that politician, or postpone the election, allowing some time for the revolutionary fervor of that politician's supporters to die down. It may seem obvious to you that doing one of those is (or is not) a good idea. But why is it so obvious?
Note that this last example is incidental. You can replace it by any number of things. The essential question here is how far are you willing to go to ensure the survival of democracy, either in one country, or globally?
My own swipe at it: postpone the election. Much as a person in a rage might need to be restrained temporarily, it is permissible to postpone the election to stop the totalitarian from getting into power.
Thoughts?
Comments (53)
This depends on a hierarchy of values, which was not presented in the reasoning, and cannot be deduced by an interlocutor.
It is easy to see this if you switch your undisputable-by-assumption good with any other good, say, chocolate milk. How far are you willing to go to ensure the supply of chocolate milk? Slavery, mistreatment of cows, unethical market practices, invading cocoa-producing countries...
In other words, your question, to be properly answered, requires a hierarchy of values -- implicit or explicit, depending on the philosophical acumen of the one answering. But this hierarchy will be imported by the people doing the answering, it is not a given in the assumption.
Okay, cool! So how does it work out using your hierarchy of values?
I'm not willing to do anything to ensure the survival of democracy. Being tied to one particular political system is a problem, not a solution.
In my hierarchy, democracy is not a good, and therefore the question becomes unanswerable. I don't think it is even a necessary evil -- in my appraisal it is a quite unnecessary evil.
Therefore, from my viewpoint, the real question is, "how far are you willing to go to foster the downfall of democracy?" My answer is, not very far. There are more pressing concerns in my life. The extent of my efforts is to discuss the matter with interested people. I won't found parties, write books, or demonstrate against democracy.
Ahhhh finally a kindred soul :D
Gotcha. Glad to hear all that, by the way. So you have a from-a-distance appraisal of democracy, but you are not politically involved enough to care.
I am surprised - people are normally not so open about such opinions.
Yep. I'm basically the only open anarchist that I know of in real life, if you don't count family members influenced by my ideas. I've met others online, though.
First, you have to define what you mean by democracy. Technically, all it means is that, in some way, the citizens are allowed to vote for their government. In the United States, so long as you are of legal age (and pass some other criteria), you can vote. Democracy has nothing to do with the values of the state: one could have a liberal democracy or a libertarian democracy, for example.
I am an instrumentalist when it comes to political systems: I do not believe democracy is inherently good. Rather, its goodness comes from its outcomes (or, rather, its outcomes overall when compared to other political systems overall).
I tend not to like meddling in the affairs of other countries, as it usually ends poorly or comes back to haunt us later, so I am not a fan of "spreading" democracy in any favorable way.
In regards to the example you gave with a totalitarian politician, the only way it would work is if you could assassinate the politician and shift the blame entirely away to something external. In any state, the state is assumed to have de facto authority. The people must buy into the authority, even if their values and beliefs run contrary to the laws of the state. If you postpone the election, you risk having rebellion, as you not only went against the will of the people, you destroyed the democratic basis. You can't say you are protecting democracy, because you deliberately broke up democracy.
I found that funny but interesting. Why exactly would a population of people vote away their power? Democracy's weakness and strength is the stability it gives. With totalitarianism you can actually have really good times if your leader is benevolent and knows what he is doing. (Example: See Singapore/Lee Kuan Yew, or Korea/Sejong the Great). But unfortunately most of history has been the exact opposite. Democracy avoids this but makes actually fixing issues a slow and sometimes impossible task. But at least the decay is slow! What other alternative system could actually work? Maybe a sentient AI that never dies as a leader. (ergo "The Eternal Benevolent Leader") haha
Democracy is inherent good (per the OP) but while good, it isn't the only good system. China, for instance, is not and has not been a democracy. It is a one party state which has evolved widely varying economic policies and has struck upon one that has produced widespread prosperity for many of it's people (perhaps 700,000,000 out of 1,000,000,000 are better housed, fed, and employed than were in the previous two generations.
Representative Democracy in the United States has seen both enhanced prosperity (post WWII boom) and a shrinking economy which has reduced the prosperity available to many of its citizens. If many citizens do not have access to the machinery of democracy (fair voting, fair access to the political operations, etc.) then democracy is irrelevant, at best.
I dunno. Get in a time machine and ask the Germans in the 1930s why they did that.
Not necessarily impossible, but highly unlikely. A government needs the de facto recognition of authority of the general population in order to substain itself. If the population of a democracy (again, are we talking system of voting or something including rights and political ideology beyond just voting) decides that it no longer wants a democratic government and are willing to vote for a totalitarian dictatorship, then I heavily question the de facto authority of that government if it decides to break democracy to defeat the would-be dictator. The population would lose all respect for the government and the totalitarian's allies have a lot of ammo to use against the established system.
I'm saying that a government system can only be maintained by its continued support by the population. Once enough people are willing to topple that system, the system is in trouble. I'm not sure if killing the dictator and blaming it on a rogue third party would prevent the inevitable.
If Democracy is assumed to be inherently good, then a democratic society's 'general will' must also be good. Happiness is the highest good for man, it too must be the ultimate goal of a good society which is then the same as the goal for each individual man, the pursuit of happiness. If happiness for each is the result of virtue then happiness for all must be the result of a virtuous. society.
Every democracy is constituted, composed of laws, customs, norms (institutional and ideological) as well as a variety of citizens each with their own agendas. Protection of a good system of government, then is the same as an individual protection of their happiness. Moral virtue.
A good society it ought to be protected. The limit of that protection as set by normative moral laws of the society. Protection from other countries is a patriotic duty, Protection from internal challenges must be met legislatively and judicially.
I think it's the opposite really. Democratic systems tend to change their ruling party from time to time (for instance just look at the U.S. where they went from Obama to Trump). In contrast, totalitarian countries usually have the same ruling party (and in a lot of cases the same person) as the head of government for decades. Democracy, if anything, is good at avoiding corruption, which is unfortunately something that most totalitarian governments fall victim to.
I see! So it is not the case that the will of the people, or the majority vote, is always the democratic choice; we have to place restrictions on what the vote can do from the outset.
And the Constitution cannot be amended? :-!
Good, then we first amend the article that says those articles are not amendable, then we proceed to amend the unamendable articles. Deal? X-)
"the will of the people" is a myth ultimately. "The people" don't have a will. Only individuals do. The myth of the "will of the people" is the most effective tool for control in a democracy. Maybe we can talk about "the will of the people" in a small group - say 50 people - but for millions, there is no common will. Choosing between black and white - that's not the will of the people, they're simply not given other choices.
Yes, for sure. All political regimes are myths - the world moves through political regimes cyclically. In today's world we have returned to the democracy of the Greeks - the same democracy that killed Socrates. But it is a transformed democracy, it is a democracy of this age. But that is no problem. Soon the other regimes will be coming back as well. Monarchies and all the rest. They will not be like monarchies of 300 years ago. They will be monarchies of this age.
And why should we be attached to democracy? That regime which sent all the greatest people who have ever lived to death. Jesus Christ was killed by a democracy too. Who do you want? asked Pilate to the raging crowd. "Barabbas! We want Barabbas!". And what shall I do with Jesus? asked Pilate. "Crucify him! Crucify him!"
Well, you just said that the only way to avoid a self-defeating democracy was to limit people's voting, which is undemocratic. If people can't abolish their current form of government by means of voting, then their current government is undemocratic.
Not even if it's democratically voted for?
How one wants to respond to a failure of that ethos - or at least a stark sign of it's weakness, as would be the need to worry about a impending totalitarian leader - is itself a matter of political judgement (and not a 'philosophical' one). What effects would such a response have on the contours of the democratic regime as it currently stands? Would a 'tactical' victory over such a leader imply a strategic defeat by undermining further an already fragile democratic situation? Given one's current political situation - the alliances one can forge, the institutional power one wields, the motives and needs of other agents involved - would it be politically expedient to act in this manner or that, for the sake of bolstering democracy? These are the kinds of questions that need to be asked, and I don't think they can - or ought to be - answered in the abstract. There's kairotic (from the Greek kairos, 'opportune moment') element that is irreducible, and needs one to attend to the concrete 'on the ground' aspects of any one situation.
There is the use of "Democracy" to indicate features of current institutions which lay claim to being democratic. And then there's the more general idea "Democracy", which seems to me at least to not even require a state. The latter I think is good, the former not.
Which are we assuming is good?
If we are assuming that democratic states as we currently see them are good, then I can't say that I feel a great deal of urgency to preserve them. I am willing to participate within them for the benefits of other causes I care about, and relative to those causes I'd judge whether it were worth said institutions to continue on or not -- whether I'd go this or that far.
I don't think democracy should be spread globally. Such talk just justifies war, and nothing else. And on the whole war is bad for my people. And on the whole this is how I view actually-existing-democracy -- its opposite is not "totalitarianism" (itself a hangover term from the cold war meant to justify expansion and defense of global power), it is a totalitarianism. It constructs our world just as much as any dictatorship does, and we act within it in relation to our collective self-interest. It all boils down to self-interest, but not of the individual sort -- just of the groups we are a part of.
For the latter I don't think there's much I would rule out a priori. That being said, I can't say that I've participated in anything so extreme as your posited scenario. I've broken laws in the defense of causes which include the broader idea of democracy, and put a pause in my career for several years, but that pales in comparison to what others have done and in your hypothetical.
a priori nothing is ruled out, but at the same time it doesn't seem to me that this sort of thinking really answers the question. I think it's the sort of question you answer and find out for yourself in the moment.
Direct democracy (as per ancient Athens) would be better than what there is nowadays. But it would still be quite tyrannical. Ask Socrates.
per your link at Wikipedia.
Well, taking that as an assumption we are talking of a potentially hypothetical situation. We might as well assume that democracy is worth killing every single person whom it affects and that answer is just as valid as that it's a positive thing to begin with.
The question is comparable to "if -2,3 was a positive whole number, what would it be?"
I disagree. "If -2,3 was a positive whole number" is an absurdity because (-2,3) is an ordered pair, which is, by definition, not a positive whole number. The assumption that "democracy is inherently good" doesn't contradict the definition of democracy. Note that it's not an assumption that I hold.
Besides, how do we define definition itself? What real difference, especially in the context, does it make whether ¬X is a part of the definition of A or whether it directly follows from its definition?
"What if I go to the store tomorrow?" is an absurd question, then (except it's not).
Seriously, man, re-read what you just wrote. If what you say is true, then all hypotheticals are absurd. Come on.
Are they not?
And here's the guy (not you BC) who said I'm the most dishonest person here... >:O
No it's not. We haven't had drastic changes in our livelihood over short periods of time. If it were a totalitarian regime it could fluctuate based on the leader. Since the Obama to Trump transfer of power there has been no huge change, the constitution still applies and all changes that happen in future will be slow. A totalitarian regime can change over night based on the absolute rulings of their leaders. That was my point, of course there could be stability like you mentioned in a totalitarian regime, but the democracy is overall more stable.
Corruption is just as bad in both systems, you just see its impact more readily in totalitarian regimes. Money in politics, division of the lower class by elites over "ideology" all are signs of corruption (propaganda). Bribery happens secretly but in broad daylight through "campaign contributions", which in most 3rd world countries is just called bribing. Democracy biggest achievement is its ability to slow down corruptions impact on the system as a whole (and it's population).
I wasn't really referring to our livelihood, but the type of government that a country would have over time. Speaking of livelihood though, you say that it can change depending upon the leader, but of course, with totalitarian governments that's the one thing that rarely changes. If a leader is corrupt and selfish, then they will use any opportunity to better themselves at the expense of their people and unless they have a sudden change of heart (which sounds very unlikely) than the people will continue to suffer under their rule.
Quoting yatagarasu
Sure, there is corruption in both systems, but I wouldn't agree that they are both just as bad. Not only is it easier to get away with corruption under a totalitarian system than it is a democracy, but it is easier to get away with a greater amount of evil. A totalitarian ruler can execute someone in public and no one can do anything about it, but don't expect Donald Trump to get off with shooting someone on fifth avenue (though whether or not he would lose his core support is another issue). Democracy isn't able to stop all kinds of corruption, but it is, despite its flaws, able to stop the worst instances of corruption.
Ah yes, but that was not a popular vote, in the sense of it being nation-wide, like the census. It appears a small mob forced a politician to bend to their requests. Sounds familiar - democracy it is not.
Supporters of any politician have a democratic right to vote for that person, even if he is a 'totalitarian politician'. It's all in the game. I would think that assassination is not part of a democratic system. I would say that such a thing breaks democracy.
The other point I wish to make is that 'you can't make a good machine with bad parts'. Is there democracy among thieves? In a nation divided by racial prejudice or even views of political systems? If you are talking about democracy among different tribes vying for control, then it becomes a sort of collective mob rule.
That's all democracy is anyway.
Quoting Mr Bee
What do you mean by "type of government"? It is either a democracy or dictatorship in this case. You mentioned the party changing but that is hardly a real change because it is still a democracy. My point was that livelihood can change over night in a totalitarian regime, that is not the case in a democracy. All corruption is slowed in a democracy and you usually don't see the worst parts of corruption, like you said. There have been times in history where a leader has been truly benevolent and changed the lives of his citizens within years. The vast majority did just better themselves but that's not really point, it's more about how stable the systems are. Democracy doesn't let that happen as quickly so they are more stable (in terms of positive livelihood for their citizens)
For the second part I guess I will agree that the worst of corruption is not very likely to occur but it is still there. It just doesn't affect the average citizen immediately because of the way democracy slows everything down. This slow "rotting" can be even worse in some ways, but still is preferable to immediate and volatile change. And because of that democracy>totalitarianism. But I wouldn't at all agree that it is good at avoiding corruption. No system is, and democracy can be just as bad. But like I said, you don't notice the affects as easily.