Where democracy is a recent growth you get lots of uncontrollable egos, both at voter and leader level - parties and people that are simply not willing to accept electoral defeat or, often, can't even bear to see their side being criticised by a free press. These are so-called 'illiberal democracies', where majoritarian rule often swamps the normal democratic freedoms. They are inherently unstable since there are no real boundaries as to what the political elite might get up to, and usually the rule of law is the first casualty.
The sad fact is that there's no way for a country to become properly democratic except by living as a democracy over time, with all the ups and downs that means. France got its first democratic regime in , but its first stable democracy was achieved only in , and even that was extremely uncertain for a generation.
Even in the West, democracy is quite recent - women only got the vote in in Italy and France, and in Switzerland not until Yes, for everyone except children who are innately tyrannical and require dictatorial parents. Even those who are scornful of democracy and who would fancy their chances if allowed to grab what they could would lose something of real value in a non-democratic society.
Few of us value properly the benefits of living in a coherent, integrated society, where everyone has a value because everyone has a vote. Democracy is not good for everyone. Democratic values are pretty bad news for tyrants, terrorists, corrupt vested interests and all those who seek and abuse power for personal gain or glory. The picture is not too bleak for these groups, however. The corrosion of democracy makes it so much easier for them to survive. More often than not. Obviously, at times of war and national emergency the practicalities of democracy can be suspended subject to the rule of law.
The more subtle question is whether one mode of democracy is suitable for all societies everywhere. On the one hand, it is right to tailor a democracy to reflect contexts such as gender relations, subnational entities, societal structures the role of tribes and families , as well as ethnic make-up. The effect of political environment on population health has not been adequately researched, however. This study investigates the effect of democracy or lack thereof along with socioeconomic factors on population health.
It is maintained that democracy may have an impact on health independent of the effects of socioeconomic factors. Such impact is considered as the direct effect of democracy on health. Is it unequivocally a good thing?
Professor Derek Matravers discusses Plato's argument against democracy. Radub85 Dreamstime. But is it? Even Winston Churchill, who frequently spoke in favour of the system, stigmatized it as the worst form of government apart from all the others that have been tried. The great Greek philosopher, Plato, was no fan of democracy. There are a couple of arguments he had against it which have a particular resonance for our times.
His first argument comes in two stages. The first is that running a state takes expertise. Not everyone is suited to do it, in the same sense as not everybody is suited to being the captain of a ship.
Captaining a ship requires physical and intellectual stamina; it also requires mastery of the science and art of navigation. The second stage concerns the procedure for selecting such experts. A democratic selection procedure is to find the person who is most popular. We would not think to appoint the captains of our ships, or our brain surgeons or any other sort of expert in this way so why should we appoint the captain of our state in this way?
Watch the mini documentary below, as Professor Derek Matravers explains how we may not necessarily get the most competent leaders due to democracy. Democracy gives us, via our representatives, a say in choosing between complicated and subtle alternatives.
To be worthy of having a say, we surely need to have researched these options in depth and come up with robust and considered views. Which of us has the inclination, let alone the time, to do this? Plato took a dim view of democratic citizenry. He thought that once we have pulled ourselves away from drinking and listening to music, following the latest fads and fashions, we start thinking about politics and bounce up and say whatever enters our heads c-d.
The Irish philosopher, Edmund Burke thought that democracy should not be about electing representatives, but about electing someone who we trusted to do our thinking for us. So should we reject the claim that it takes expertise to run a state? Do we want the person who is most expert at running the state to be the person running the state? Perhaps we do not.
An alternative not the only alternative is to think of the person running the state as having the authority to do so because he or she represents our views whatever they happen to be. The captain of a ship or a brain surgeon does not represent anyone; they are simply employed to do a job.
Running a state is a different kind of thing — it requires representation. Nonetheless, that does leave us with his second argument. Indeed, the second argument now seems more pressing. If we, as a democratic citizenry, we are generally uninformed then our representatives are representing generally uninformed views. That does not seem sensible. It has to be said that following this announcement, Burke was voted out in the next election.
0コメント