Writing a blog in Guatemala is sacerdotal, given internet connections, and the need to re-write stuff umpteen times.... Anyway: (this will be more than 5 minutes, sorry!)
"Art is difficult, criticism is easy" is a saying by Polybe, (Πολύϐιος / Polúbios), a Greek historian I believe in very strongly. When I was still working, I used to be one those to say to subordinates : "Don't give me problems, give me solutions".
So, now that I have bashed and ranted about politicians and democracy, I suppose it's time to try and be constructive, and propose alternatives.
It's again a bit complex, as we tend to view a political system from a national point of view, i.e. as a system applying to a social group that happens to have been put together via battles, treaties or colonial rule.
Nations today do NOT necessarily correspond to the new context of civilization (i.e values). See the extremely interesting theory by Samuel P. Huntington (Samuel P. Huntingto) in his book "the clash of civilizations or the remaking of the world order". Civilizations, i.e. values are more diffuse than geographical borders, as the Chinese, Muslims and other groups prove every day (I don't agree with his implied idea that Western civilization is better, but the theory remains a truism for me).
I believe the issue of the value of the social contract in modern society should today be more related to a commonality of views than to a national frontier. I am not advocating breaking down borders (or at least not right away), but at least within borders, for a start, trying to find commonality between people, and adapting the political system to that overwhelming need for a common ground. Modern democracy claims it is doing that, but the failure is obvious: society is made up of minority opinions concerned with small matters that impact their life, people being allowed to vote once every so many years, and voting in a politician who... see previous post!
Churchill said that "Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this
world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or
all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…"
So what is the answer?
I believe the answer is neither in enlightened dictatorship (although it works in some places), nor in the leftist utopian theory that mankind is inherently good, and hence sharing means of production (and all the rest) is the answer (proven to have failed).
I believe direct democracy is the answer.
Direct democracy. It's basically the concept used by the Greeks (who excluded slaves, women, and whoever didn't contribute to the war effort), at a time when it meant meeting in the Agora and voting on ANY topic of interest. Somehow it worked then, but then remember, the numbers were smaller than today (OK, 30,000 people is not small, but they did manage to make it work for a long long time with zero technology).
Applied with today's technology, direct democracy is perfectly possible (it's called "EDD"). As a matter of fact direct democracy is practiced in Switzerland (or at least two of their cantons (Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus), and in an interesting way in all the other cantons), and in a limited way in 24 US (yes, US of A) states via the "ballot" system.
Direct democracy is very close to the libertarian concept of"social anarchism", which added the component of non-nation (which I agree with), and collectivism (which I disagree with). Kibbutzes in Israel worked fine, not that I'd want to be part of it, but that's the whole point: if you like it, do it!
Anyway, direct democracy is a system that in my opinion would be perfectly viable in our modern world, as long it is linked with an information system (i.e. education and media) that performs it's natural function of INFORMATION and education, as opposed to opinion, belief or propaganda (seem my blog on media).
Our modern technologies would very easily allow for a citizen (let me define a citizen here, once and for all: a citizen is a member of society who contributes to the common good: he pays taxes. PERIOD!) to be involved on a quasi-daily basis in decision making, be it on micro or macro-societal issues, on domestic topics: economic, legal, other matters, or international: treaties or war and peace...
We are not any longer in the dark ages. We have information and communication technology that makes direct democracy perfectly possible. It does not do away with some kind of executive apparatus (let's call it a government), but it allows for the individual citizen to become seriously involved in the running of the social group, on a "piecemeal" basis. The government
Moreover it allows for a reduction of size of the social group on may issues: Smoking in restaurants, seat belt laws, speed limits on the roads, local environment issues, noise rules, you name it: why does this have to be decided at "national level", why not at local level? Are the little things not what creates quality of life after all?
Again, the Swiss are leading the way: any person who collects 50,000 signatures can call for a referendum on just about anything, anyone with a 100,000 signatures can propose a change in the constitution. And remember, Switzerland is a small country, yet is subdivided itself in cantons, who in turn have different ways of exercising their democratic rights: Two of them actually ask the citizen to meet physically in the marketplace to vote on significant local issues. Not the best use of technology, granted, but what a great way to create or maintain social cohesiveness!
Last but not least, I believe that allowing individuals to feel they have an impact on small topics is also likely to re-create a sense of belonging in society, hopefully leading to a "vision" that everyone can adhere to. In a way like in world wars, where petty disagreements are put aside and all societal forces work together for victory. Isn't it unfortunate that this typically occurs in war, and is fast forgotten in peace time?
So, direct democracy, education and the rebuilding of the social contract.
Next post is about the environment, and the great conflict between growing population, growing consumerism, and the limits to which the environment can(not) be pushed.
As usual, comments are welcome!
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Politically incorrect, fact based comments on the travails of modern society. Once in a while, a post on the travels of SY Mary Ann around the world. Ranting, raving about stuff, but still enjoying life.
Do you mean we would get a vote when we submit a (positive) tax return? Does it matter how many years one has contributed and whether they were consecutive years?
ReplyDeleteWhat about those whose contribution to society is not measured in economic terms? Why should they be removed from participating in the machinations of their social-political reality? Boo to that. Politics is not solely about economics: the two mostly need to go hand in hand but they have areas of estrangement.
Or should there be an influence-weighting that reflects the amount contributed in taxes: I pay one euro and you pay two, so your vote is worth two of mine? Such a system of voting influence based on amount of tax paid would exclude or be detrimental to those who are wealthy enough to be able to afford to avoid paying much tax. This would be advocating a society run by middle-class people who don’t have efficient accountants. I wouldn’t vote for that.
There’s a negative side for your earlier post too, in that if the number of groats I earn directly equates to the power of my vote then I may as well not bother voting as hundreds of thousands of me could be out-voted by any single billionaire. Or perhaps I could trade my measly vote for a few groats and improve my influence for the next vote. Maybe I could take a bit of commission for selling the small-value votes of my friends, packaged as a larger-value unit …
I see this ‘direct democracy’ as a conservative perpetuation of the current political ethos and elite by excluding, among others, those who bring disruptive change—the true innovators. The assumption is that economic success is the only important contribution to society. There have been many economic successes that have been detrimental to society. Some would say that religious piety matters more, or genetic fitness, or intellectual participation, or artistic contribution.
Cogitate on that which history has shown us of the outcome of such ancient ‘democracies’. Soon enough, those with mightier arms (the majority) decided that they contributed more than those with mightier wallets (the minority) and assumed control for themselves. Then came the ambitious religious types, talking of eternal bliss/damnation and such, who usurped those with the mighty arms and greed (en)gorged. Worse yet, there came a hybrid of those with mighty arms and who were ruthlessly religious, in the form of those ‘divinely’ appointed to rule over us. A spot of feudalism ensues, followed by conflict among the mighty-armed self-righteous types as to who is the mightiest and the most pious. After this comes revolution and the sense of a right to a vague sense of self-determination. It’s very important that we have a system that allows people with many different types of philosophy to have an equal vote in how their environment is politically managed. Otherwise, we start the cycle again.
We must all be included equally in a system that is equally all-inclusive.
Oh crap, I’ve written too much and will stop.
Cool! I like the fact that you comment, and the historical perspective.
ReplyDeleteA few clarifications first:
1) I don't advocate that voting rights be related to how much tax one pays (where did you see that in my blog?). I do believe however that deciding to spend somebody else's money is not right, and unfortunately this is the business of many left wing parties: reduce tax thresholds, then make a political base out of the beneficiaries. Tax can be 1 cent, depending on capability (I did state this in my blog), maybe other forms of contribution should be considered (not sure how, but let's talk), but zero contribution is not acceptable
2) I don't advocate economic success as the only factor of contribution (where did you see this in my blog?), and certainly don't see direct democracy as being a "conservative perpetuation of the current political ethos and elite by excluding, among others, those who bring disruptive change", quite the contrary. If any individual can start pushing change via direct democracy, it may lead to fundamental changes, which will NEVER happen in our existing system.
3) History indeed shows that any system eventually gets corrupted by some kind of manipulator (economically powerful, dogmatics of a religious kind or other, or armed groups). Does this mean we shouldn't try something else? I believe that a system should allow for it's own evolution, and so far none of the human systems have done so. Maybe direct democracy could?
OK, now my response to you, anonymous: what do YOU propose?
Thanks. Your blogs are interesting.
ReplyDeleteFurther clarification:
1) I was just openly exploring the idea--'running with it.' I didn't mean to attribute such a comment (and others to which you've drawn attention) to you. Words such as 'if' signal this but I am too ignorant to write in your language as well as you can write in mine. I'm not trying to be obtusely antagonistic; I'd eaten well and drunk wine and was enjoying the thinking. You weren't here to answer the question so I explored it anyway. I also get irritated when people misquote me and it's important to me that you don't see my reply in such a light.
A simple example of non-taxed contributors who are beneficial to society (in my view): people who pick up litter dropped by others, or those who don't drop litter.
2) Your point was clear in your blog. The point I made was a different perspective (explored for fun, no attribution intended). Our existing system has fairly recently produced the Internet and Web--equal to flight and the wheel?
3) We are currently (last 100 years or less) trying something else but the legacies of previous systems are hobbling progress. Democracy is all about evolution, not just the mutation that eventually dominates but all those developments that are no longer suitable or, more importantly, whose time has not yet arrived. This 'direct democracy' that you propose is but one such mutation: it may not be successful but it's a valid contribution all the same.
Finally: Oh no, no, no! 'Non', even, with 'absolument' chucked in somewhere in a grammatical improbable place. This is your blog. I'm only anonymous because it's the easiest way to post on your blog. I think that there's lots wrong with the current system when incorporating everyone, but less is wrong than with other systems. I applaud your attempt to resolve this but continue to reject the proffered concept.
Due to matters of prudence I must decline the opportunity to reveal my Universal Manifesto of Irrefutable Brilliance at this point in time. :)
Cool again!
ReplyDeleteNo antagonism felt or meant, at any time. This is a blog, and I welcome all sensible contributions, but wish to slowly build a train of thought that leads to action, hence my tendency to remain practical.
In my opinion, the evolution you mention is merely in economics (I find the sociological evolution repulsive), but unfortunately not in politics. I think it is very frustrating that technology (and particularly information technology) be so misused. It could be such an amazing vector for education, but is used for the continued trend towards imbecility (reality shows, sensationalism, soaps, hoaxes, etc...). In turn, if the power of technology was indeed used for education, one could dream of a society where people feel indeed a part of a whole, via direct democracy.
If you care to stay with me, you will find that I am slowly trying to build an argument for a 'revolution of thought" which is made necessary by the conflictual nature of living in ever greater numbers on a planet that doesn't grow.
As stated my next blog is on the environment, and I'm sure to get some challenging comments from some quarters (Monsanto bashers, wild life defenders, pesticide phobics and the like). I probably also will get criticism by growth addicts and the economically dominant.
Stay tuned.
Cheers
Champion. Glad we're on the same wavelength. I too am dismayed at the banal use to which we (society) put this amazing technology. I look forward to a sorely needed revolution in thought.
ReplyDeleteLead on, Macduff!