 How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine SiteThe Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| How Can You Laugh at a Time Like This? is a Dream Machine Site The Dream Machine --- The Imagination of the World Wide Web |
| Home | Current Column | Previous Columns | Other Sites | Libertarian | Feedback |
First of all, let's examine the usual criticisms of democracy. It is "mob" rule, where the majority "imposes" its "will" upon the minority. Another criticism is that "the voting public" is generally uninformed and ignorant, easily swayed by con men and other ne'er-do-wells. Indeed, our founder's decision to use republican methods rather than more direct methods, their decision to create a Senate consisting more-or-less of "aristocracy," is seen to be precisely calculated to "right" this "wrong." Finally, elections can be bought, rigged or simply stolen by those rich or unscrupulous enough, guaranteeing corruption.
All of these criticisms have several things in common. They are profoundly disrespectful of the "average" person's opinion, knowledge and ability. They confuse apples (the system) with oranges (the people who are elected). Worst of all, however, is they completely miss the point of democracy.
But, before we get to that, a little background. We can all, perhaps, agree that a system based on "consensus"...where everyone, or nearly everyone, agrees on all political decisions...is ideal. The amount of dissent or dissatisfaction is almost by definition reduced to a minimum by such a system. However, people who study "intentional communities"...those small groups of people who voluntarily opt out of "standard" society and form their own little sub-societies...will generally use consensus as a political method ONLY if their number is less than about 75. That this number is roughly the size of a "clan"...a group of loosely genetically related people...is probably not accidental...since this seems to have been the very first type of human political structure.
When groups exceed that number, they tend to split into opposing factions, with serious disagreements about how things should be done, who should decide, etc.. The way these disagreements are resolved, is the heart and soul of all political action by larger groups. So the best way to understand democracy, is to examine those systems that preceded it.
There is little doubt that the very first "solution" to this problem of disagreeing humans was resolved with force and laid the basis for the paternalistic, male dominated political structures that have persisted to this very moment. The strongest...both literally and figuratively...male was "chosen"...often by combat...to arbitrate and have the final say in disputes.
When agriculture appeared, creating the notion of "property"...since the surpluses of food and the land it was grown on became very valuable resources for the group...it became necessary to raise "armed forces" to protect this property, probably in reaction to those who would rather loot than farm. The combat that resulted allowed the winners to obtain even more resources...including the capture and subsequent forced labor of human slaves...all to advance the wealth of their group.
These modifications allowed the rulers and their armies...almost all men...to create ever larger collections of humans and their artifacts. Cities came into being. Religions changed from worship of many "gods" who were seen to be spirits governing agriculture, combat, reproduction (love), weather, etc. into ONE God who, like Pharaoh, was in charge of EVERYTHING.
But, aggression and combat have their own USE's (Unanticipated Side Effects). As long as one group dominates all the others, peace prevails and the "average" person is convinced that his or her beliefs and systems are the best of all possible beliefs and systems. All empires successful for any extended period of time, depended upon this phenomenon. However, in the long run, there appears to be no "best possible" way of doing things, no absolute truth about the way the universe works. As empires fragment and disintegrate and peoples...who have now been separated into very large distinct groups...called nations...begin to choose a large variety of different answers to these most important questions. Religions, although similar in many respects, splinter into countless variants, with countless variations of the "truth." European "scientists," arising from the profound advances that preceded the Renaissance in the great Islamic imperial cultures that dominated the "Dark Ages"...a VERY Eurocentric notion...began to discover, if not "truth," at least aspects of the universe that stood up to repeated empirical verification, the "experimental method."
Conflict, now systematized as "war," began to grab ever larger portions of the accumulated wealth of nations. Driven both by convenient "interpretations" of religious doctrine as well as by ever more powerful weapons of death and destruction...enabled by the discoveries by scientists...the booty of war began to be dwarfed by the cost of warfare. Of course, the 20th century, with all its terrible weapons of "mass destruction," brought all of this to a head.
But, how does democracy fit into all this? Well, the ancient Greeks had discovered, that a form of democracy, the sharing of power among the one fifth of the population who were not slaves, was a very convenient way to deal with dissent. By creating a system of elections and a set of rules determining winners and losers, the latter were much more likely to say "Wait'l next time!" than to take up arms against the winners. For those who are powerful, democracy provided a way of arbitrating disputes that involved rules more than personalities.
On the other and, for those who are oppressed, democracy provides hope. When the founders created our republic...which we all know still favored the rule of rich, white men...they inadvertently laid the seeds of the abolition of slavery, the elimination of gender discrimination and, finally, to "one person, one vote," the current cutting edge of democratic action...which ran into trouble in the U.S. election of the year 2000.
Still, despite the fact that there were a LOT of "Sore Losermen," the transition to George W. Bush as president was perfectly peaceful, the only shots fired being verbal. A lot of the media, who seem to "get it" about democracy, lauded this fact. They said it so often, it seemed to be more of an excuse than a basic truth. Nevertheless, we believe that this aspect of democracy, the ability to PEACEFULLY resolve disputes, is the cornerstone, the true genius of democracy.
So back to those criticisms. Mob rule? Yup. Would you prefer Stalin or Hitler or Pol Pot or Mao Tse Tung or Osama bin Laden? These guys settled all disputes quickly and efficiently, but, it seems, not for long. Ignorance and apathy? No doubt. But somehow, rather than destroy democracy, the con-men and ne'er-do-wells just seem to educate us against their ilk for the next "round." Corruption? You betcha. But NO POLITICAL SYSTEM has ever been immune from this problem. Politics is about power. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. So we ask again, which is better, the inefficient, relatively powerless rule of the "mob," or the absolute political correctness of a dictator or the elite. Whom do you trust more, Osama bin Laden or yourself and your "ignorant" neighbors?
For, democracy is a process, not a type of religion or an answer to all questions. Like the free market, it is difficult to comprehend...but it WORKS! And, the longer it is around, the better it seems to work. As people get more power, they get smarter and better informed as well as stronger. Con-men get caught, ne'er-do-wells get smoked out. And corruption rises and falls. For democracy is a "round." Rather than a straight path to enlightenment...the type favored by the impatient few who consider their opinions to be paramount, to be the "literal truth"...democracy is a way of settling arguments, no more, no less. An Internet friend told us a story about himself when he was traveling around Europe with some Brits. In a casual conversation, he asked, "Don't you agree that democracy is the ideal social system?" One of the Brits politely replied, "Not really. Democracy is not a social system at all. It is a way of settling disputes between two groups that each believes that IT has the ideal social system."
Many libertarians think that the "correct" path is to enhance freedom, thus eventually enhancing the power of the individual and later...much later...democracy may be "possible." We say, enhance democracy first. Replace 50% majority rules with supermajorities. Put sunset clauses on ALL laws. Spread the initiative and recall throughout the democratic world. Power to the people MUST precede freedom, or the latter has no meaning. Think about it.
Talk to you later...
...the best independent ISP in the Twin Cities
The Dream Machine --- Network Services
A newspaper near you.