Questioning Democracy

[Edward Grefenstette <pha04eg@sheffield.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


Not that I'm not interested by the dominant topic at hand, but I just  
ate a fantastic steak and therefore feel a little too biased. So  
here's something for steak lovers and cow lovers alike to chew on...

The following topic was brought to my attention a few weeks back when  
I read italian footballer Paolo Di Canio's statement "I'm a fascist,  
not a racist" (http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/europe/ 
4544008.stm) on one of my news RSS feeds. Although I initially  
dismissed it as yet another italian regretting the "good ol' days" of  
Mussolini and his posse, it came up in a conversation only a few days  
later. I was thinking about how we often judge past political systems  
by the stigma they leave on society and history, which I believe is  
not an unreasonable attitude as one might call it "learning from the  
mistakes of the past", but I also believe this attitude leads to the  
emergence of a certain taboo concerning alternatives to democracy.  
Indeed, Churchill once stated: "Democracy is the worst form of  
government, but it's the best we've got for time being". I doubt many  
people here would disagree that democracy is far from perfect,  
although it seems to be considered by some to be a sort of Holy Grail  
of society, especially in demagogic discourse (namely in american  
politics). Even worse, it seems to be unequivocally linked the the  
concept of personal freedom by the same circles. Naturally having say  
in the choice of your country's leader, your region's representative  
or your local councilmen is a form - a degree of freedom. But does it  
necessarily bring the greatest degree of freedom to the people? Does  
it not remove some of the freedom in the act of deferring  
responsibility and power? Perhaps this is necessary. But whether or  
not it is, and to what extent is something I feel should be discussed  
a bit more often.

Moving on, the expression "democracy is the worst form of government,  
but it's the best we've got for time being" also hints that we should  
be looking for something better. Yet the aforementioned 'Holy Grail'  
attitude seems to be fueling a taste for status quo on this matter.  
Perhaps we should spend more time discussing alternatives, examining  
the reasons why past attempts have failed, instead of simply  
lamenting over the occasional failures of democracy, or beating our  
fists on the table about exporting it abroad. On the other hand, one  
would be perfectly reasonable in arguing that it is democracy as it  
stands now, that is imperfect, that we should give it a chance and  
seek to improve it (drastically) instead of wasting time on new  
ideologies that would be hard and risky to implement given the  
relative stability of the current situation.

This is a topic which interests be greatly, but also one I feel  
greatly ignorant about, so I was wondering what people here have to  
say about it. While the matter is unquestionably political by nature,  
I feel it is relevant to the field of philosophy as it had been at  
the heart of many a great philosopher's thought over the past  
centuries: from Plato's Republic to Machiavelli's The Prince, from  
Hobbes' Leviathan to Locke's Treatises of Government, politics is  
everywhere in our field.

So, should we be thinking up new systems? Should we be building on  
existing foundations? Is what we have today truly democracy as it  
should be, or should we be moving back towards its roots ("for the  
people, by the people")? It seems clear to me that something needs to  
change, as always. But on this matter, it seems that there are so  
many ways things could change, and so little will the change.  
Hopefully discussing options if a fairly good start.

Edward.

PS: Oldies but goldies - I have a copy of a passage by Machiavelli  
which has some interesting insights on this matter. He describes how  
various sorts of 'ideal systems' (aristocracy, democracy, and  
monarchy) are all fine and dandy until they fall into their decadent  
form (oligarchy, plutocracy and despotism). Good stuff. Unfortunately  
it's probably buried in my files from my gap year. I'll try to dig it  
up when I get back to England.


Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml