Posts
Mutating Democracy
Formerly, people of the same political views (or,
more specifically, of the same economic interest or cultural/moral conviction) formed
or joined political parties. Subsequently, “people governance” eventually became “party
governance”. Parties studied national issues and events before taking a position
on them. However, inherently, party politics looked after the interests of one
group of people rather than after the general interests of the nation (despite
their “national” rhetoric). This and the fanatical adherence to party lines created
division among the public. Group interests occupied the driver’s seat; national
interests took the back seat. Elections and important national issues became
knockdown-drag-out fights between factions. Opposition parties, under the grand name of “public interest” and instead of working to correct government actions, opposed government actions by all means available to them in order not to be seen by
their supporters as not doing their job of opposition. Once they came to power, they set to undo the deeds of the earlier administration.*
Democracy is still undergoing transformation,
particularly since the advance of the electronic medium in the last few decades.
Citizens now directly get involved in daily politics. One would think that the
more there is public participation in governance the closer we are to
democracy, but the more of citizens get involved in politics the more politics
and governance become impulsive and reckless. The so-called social media
enables the spread of individual opinions nationwide (even globally) without
the traditional prior scrutiny by parties or by media. It may be safe to assume
that most of personal opinions expressed instantaneously are emotional
(knee-jerk) reactions to news as perceived. Some such personally expressed views
coalesce in the form of hard-lined beliefs in large groups. Some are capable of
even launching instantaneous mass protests to influence the public opinion or the
government. Worse of all, parties take advantage of this new found tool for
their objectives and cheerlead such spontaneous movements. Roman agora where
opinions were exchanged turns in to gladiators’ arena.
This development in the exercise of democracy may be
simply the expression of a common, but primitive, emotion of the human species
called in social psychology the “gladiators spectacle” (like the excitement
they get from boxing, dog fight, etc.). Does a nation as a whole get something
beneficial out of this spectacle, other than excitement?
One theory is that a frequent change in
administrations is necessary for avoiding undue accumulation of power in the
hands of one group, and for enabling adaptation of the system to ever-evolving
society. Very true; however, if the change is only because of disagreements
between the economic or ideological differences based on group interests and on
emotional reactions, without objective and scientific considerations concerning
the needs of the nation as a whole, the change is not in society’s interest.
When one group takes the nation in one direction, and the following one in the
other, just for the sake of opposition, the system is not adapting or
advancing; it is taking one step forward one step back at best, or becoming
directionless at worst.
In national issues, public’s views almost
always rally around two opposing groups. One group applies a reasoned approach,
using studied, rational, and patient methods. The other group seeks fast,
forceful, impatient methods. This difference, which is in fact the reflection
of two different types of human nature, causes division in democracies.
The former group encounters two obstacles in a
dialogue with the latter: the perception of being elitist or condescending, and
the delay in demonstrable results caused by due care. The latter group does not
even enter in a dialogue; it is action oriented for quick results, which
however causes economic and political damage that require additional costs and
time to repair thereafter.
With regard to domestic issues, the unnecessary back
and forth in administration may be minimized if the former group were to avoid
delays in results by accepting a reasonable level of risk and criticism of
adverse effects of its decisions. After all, trying to ensure better results costs also
money and time; furthermore, better results are relative to time, because the
efficacy of an expected result erodes with the passage of time.
In international
matters, the views are divided as well. One group has a rational view of
world affairs and favors dialogue with others; the other group –in smaller
countries–, views the other countries untrustworthy and thrives on conspiracy
theories, or -in more powerful countries- irrationally wishes to enforce their
policies on other countries.
The former group can achieve compromises only after
long dialogues. This puts them in the category of ineffectiveness, although
they may provide a relatively peaceful environment. The latter group may
achieve its purpose expediently, but it may be short lived for the global
unrest it would cause in economic and political fields. The “exceptionalist/greatest”
philosophy alienates other countries by exclusion. The group then leads the
country to isolation at best or to combat at worst. Irrational rash actions in international affairs almost always are responded by the like. Even a smaller country can be harmful to a bully state. Jonathan Swift’s political
satire Gulliver’s Travels reminds us
that even little people, Lilliputians,
can capture and sentence a bigger man for treason (believed to be an allusion
to the impeachment of 1st Earl of Oxford Bolingbroke in Swift’s time).
A middle way solution cannot be found for the divide in
foreign affairs, like the one suggested above for national
affairs. The political divide in domestic affairs may be bridged somewhat by the
rational group being a lot more efficacious, but in foreign affairs the brash
group needs to accept the policies of the rational group. On the world platform, the leader of any country, big or small, has no choice but to act rationally, with a world view, with patience, and with due respect to the independence and interests of other countries, as well as to the general world interests as a whole.
Another remedy for saving democracy may be to redefine
the rule of majority decision. A 50+% majority is nothing more than a small
majority’s tyranny over a large minority –totalitarianism. A 66%
majority for election could be considered more appropriate, similar to 2/3 majority
rule practiced in many important decision making processes in the Senate. What can be more
important than electing a party to power that will be holding the destiny of a
nation in its hands for some years to come? A larger participation in the final
decision has also the advantage of reducing any potential dissatisfaction,
unhappiness, thus unrest in the nation.
At any rate, we need to act before democracy
self-destructs.
*"Repealing
Executive Orders
James Pfiffner and Joshua Lee, January 23 2017,
Washington Post
For instance, in reaction to Nixon’s
abuses of presidential power, Jimmy Carter replaced Nixon’s Executive Order
11652 on secrecy and classification by issuing his own Executive Order 12065,
requiring more open access to government policies and documents. His
successor, Reagan, then reversed Carter’s order with his own (12356),
tightening secrecy again. Clinton revoked Reagan’s order with Executive Order
12958, pushing the government back toward openness. George W. Bush then issued
Executive Order 13233 to assert more presidential control over the release of
governmental records. And shortly after his inauguration, Obama revoked the
Bush order and later replaced it with his own approach to classification (EO
13526).”
February 7, 2017
No comments:
Post a Comment