A couple of days ago, the London Guardian challenged us as to whether we really want honest politicians. Now it asks us whether democracy is overrated, concluding,
Perhaps these developments point to a deeper problem incipient in western democracies. Far from the free market and democracy enjoying the kind of harmonious relationship beloved of western propaganda, democracy grew in fact as a constraint on the market, holding it at bay and enabling a pluralism of values and imperatives. What happens when this healthy tension becomes a dangerous imbalance, in which the market is dominant and consumerism is established as the overriding ethos of society, permeating politics just as it has invaded every other nook and cranny of society? Democracy comes under siege. In Italy it is already gasping for breath. In the US it is deeply and increasingly flawed. Democracy is neither a platitude nor an eternal verity - either for the world or for the west.
Aaron,
ReplyDeleteThanks for flagging this article.
I think it's most unfortunate that "Democracy" has become the rallying point for what would be much better described as "liberal institutions."
What is usually meant includes the rule of law, an independent judiciary, multiple parties (or at least not a single party), minority protections, and a reasonably "free" market. Democracy, on the other hand, can certainly be illiberal.
"Western-style constitutional democracy" comes closer, emphasizing the crucial qualifier "constitutional" - certain aspects of political order are intentionally made very difficult to alter, having been removed from the table for direct vote.
Endless opportunities for mischief are created when naming the supposed ideal "Democracy." Opponents will be quick to question why a country voting itself out of a system of popular representation altogether isn't recongnized as a legitimate outcome of the democratic process, "if that's what 'the people' want." Making plain that one's ideal is a stable liberal order (lowercase "l"), no such conundrum obtains.
Even still I think that many of the qualifications Martin Jacques makes vis-a-vis "Democracy" - it being a creature of time/space, a particular cultural context, &c. - are apposite to the "exportability" of Western, Liberal ways.
As far as the Middle East goes, one could do a lot worse than help to bring about a revivified "Millet" system.
Paul (Craddick)
You remind me of the abortive effort by Algerian voters to end their democracy - a democracy subsequently "saved" by military intervention. (And yes, a modified Millet system might work acceptably in a nation like Iraq, particularly when compared to most alternatives.)
ReplyDeleteI don't want to state the obvious, but when people don't feel that the government is satisfying their basic needs (e.g., access to food and adequate shelter, basic security, reasonable economic stability) their concerns are often less about what form their government takes and more about what form might be effective to counter the societal problems. Things were unquestionably bad under the Soviet Union, but the problems after the fall of the USSR led some to be wistful for communism. Just as some Iraqis now seem wistful for Saddam Hussein - not because he wasn't a brutal tyrant, but because there was order in the streets.