Democracies and Moderation
Hopefully most of my readers understand that the United States is not a democracy, but a democratic republic.
Additionally, it does seem, however, many people confuse a democracy with the mere act of voting.
The mere act of voting does not guarantee one is getting or participating in a democracy. The people of Iran had an election recently and elected a president. The problem is, the mullahs run the country, select the candidates, and thereby ensure all possible election winners share their views and ideologies. Are they a democracy? No.
This leads me to a question that I have been mulling over and have yet to answer. If the goal is to get as many countries to switch to a "true democracy" (not the farcical ones like Iran, and like those elections under Saddam in which he got 99% of the vote), which needs to happen first:
(A) that country's conversion to a "democracy", so they can vote, or
(B) that country's cultural conversion to a position of moderation?
Take Palenstine for example. They recently had elections? Does this make them a democracy? Without a cultural change to a position of moderation, it makes no difference which "party" wins - the party which is designated officially by many as a terrorist group - or the party which was in power and many would argue was a terrorist party. In either case, each party and the Palestinian people want to eradicate the "Joos". What needs to come first? "Democracy" or moderation?
If a cultural change does not take place that truly embraces democracy, their attempt of transition may likely be only a thin veiled attempt. Once a thuggish dictator is elected to the presidency, what are the chances that he will be voted out in future elections? Chavez in Venezuela comes to mind.
Additionally, it does seem, however, many people confuse a democracy with the mere act of voting.
The mere act of voting does not guarantee one is getting or participating in a democracy. The people of Iran had an election recently and elected a president. The problem is, the mullahs run the country, select the candidates, and thereby ensure all possible election winners share their views and ideologies. Are they a democracy? No.
This leads me to a question that I have been mulling over and have yet to answer. If the goal is to get as many countries to switch to a "true democracy" (not the farcical ones like Iran, and like those elections under Saddam in which he got 99% of the vote), which needs to happen first:
(A) that country's conversion to a "democracy", so they can vote, or
(B) that country's cultural conversion to a position of moderation?
Take Palenstine for example. They recently had elections? Does this make them a democracy? Without a cultural change to a position of moderation, it makes no difference which "party" wins - the party which is designated officially by many as a terrorist group - or the party which was in power and many would argue was a terrorist party. In either case, each party and the Palestinian people want to eradicate the "Joos". What needs to come first? "Democracy" or moderation?
If a cultural change does not take place that truly embraces democracy, their attempt of transition may likely be only a thin veiled attempt. Once a thuggish dictator is elected to the presidency, what are the chances that he will be voted out in future elections? Chavez in Venezuela comes to mind.
posted by HeavyHanded at
10:57 PM
2 Comments:
Excellent post H-H! I have had similar thoughts when the Left bemoans attempts to ‘force’ democracy on other countries. Democracy, by its very nature, can not be ‘forced’ on any country. All that can be done is to provide them an opportunity to embrace it. To do so takes effort on their part. That is something our own citizenry should better understand.
People need to know how to be citizens of a democracy and, as you say, it involves more than just voting. It involves taking the time and effort to truly understand the available candidacies and pertinent issues. That, in turn, requires that the freedoms of speech, peaceable assembly, redress of grievances, religion, press, keeping and bearing arms, owning property, against unlawful search and seizure and quartering of troops, et. al. be inherent and accepted throughout the culture. It requires that the citizenry have control not just of their votes but of the candidate nominating process as well least, as you pointed out, the candidates constitute a distinction without a difference. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Our own process’s favoritism for encumbancy poses a similar problem. If the citizentry does not conscientiously fulfill their responsibilities as citizens of their democracy they will loose it. As Benjamin Franklin observed, they will have been given a republic, if they can keep it.
As to your specific question, which comes first, democracy or, moderation?, we can only look to our own experience. Our Founders represented a culture that both wanted a better government, defined as one which drew its just powers from the consent of the governed, and one which accepted the responsibilities such a government required of them. Moderation, as you pose it, was inherent in the culture, not necessarily absolutely, for there were surely fanatics among them, but at least by default inherent in the competing interests, that competition then maintained by democracy. If we begin with a truly fanatical culture, democracy will neither work nor matter. That is why the Lefts notion of morality being relative to the culture is so wrongheaded, the culture itself may be evil. If it is, then it must be defeated. The hope is that a culture which acts fanatically does so, in large part, only out of fear of reprisal from the true believers and givin an opportunity where the true believers are nullified will become more moderate.
Of course, you understand all of that as well as I do. The problem we both face is what if the culture is truly fanatical. Then how do we get there from here?
By
Anonymous, at 9:12 AM
Great follow up. That indeed is the question that I see as well, "How do we get there from here?"
It dovetails with other posts and comments we have had in regards to multiculturalism, exceptionalism, and the like.
If the majority wants a democracy but are unable to do so because of a viscious dictator with a well armed army, someone (outside forces) has to be able to make that determination to remove the oppressor so that hopefully democracy can take hold.
But if not enough of the citizens embrace democracy, it will fail because as you said, you cannot force democracy upon someone.
How do you change a corrupt culture? As you and I both know, all cultures are not equal.
By
HeavyHanded, at 9:43 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home