POINTS OF VIEW
8064 Politics 2 – Democracy
The western 'democracies', as they choose to describe themselves, place great emphasis on this - marvellous - concept of democracy. This is equated with all things good, especially freedom -- the US is of course the land of the free. In reality is just so much hogwash.
The classic definition: of government by the people, of the people, for the people is very rarely achieved. Arguably, the Marxist system could get closer to it than many of the western ones. Thus, the concept of the masses being able to make the input which set the policy of communist countries is potentially seductive. The problem is not with the concept, it is with the practice. It was too soon subverted by Stalin and others. They, as we all know, took the power away from the people -- using the very processes which were supposed to give it to them - in order to subvert the political processes. Thus, for many decades the US was able to claim that its own version of democracy was defined by being anti-Communist.
Western democracy, or at least that propounded by the US, actually is rather different. It isn't about the power of the individual to influence the whole, but is the balance in a fight between two opponents. I saw this in Ethiopia. There the government, perhaps influenced by its Marxist past, desperately wanted to find the best way for everyone, down to the lowliest villager, to be able to contribute to the overall position of the country. Thus, we saw village councils personally debating national topics, with their decisions being forwarded to centre. I have yet to be convinced the system would have worked, though the theory was attractive, but equally I am even less convinced by the alternatives.
The American representatives in Ethiopia couldn't cope with this. They promoted a minority party in the coalition, purely because it opposed the rest of coalition. It only had less than 10 percent of the popular vote, but the Americans thought it was the key to the future; since it was literally in opposition to the Ethiopian government which wanted to bring all, including it, together together unanimity. But the Americans saw that as subversive in its own right. Thus, American democracy -- as it was to be seen in Ethiopia and in the US -- relies on the greater good being decided by the fight between two relatively evenly matched competitors.
This pretty is much the same as our judicial system, where -- except under the Napoleonic system -- where is no search for truth but the search for a winner. Each side of the argument present their own distorted view of this, and the adjudicator (jury) is only there to decide who has won. This is a disaster where judgments are being made in grey areas -- as most political decisions are. This has had it is absurd conclusion in the US where the whole nation is almost evenly divided between Republicans and Democrats, and as each captures the Presidency, the Senate or any part of the Congress, the decisions lurch backwards and forwards.
Britain, especially since the time of Margaret Thatcher, is heavily influenced by the US experience. The rest of Europe, however, is following a more sensible path; that of social democracy -- the aim incidentally of the Ethiopian government. This is still beset by party politics, and what is meant by democracy varies quite dramatically. Which system is chosen, be it proportional representation or first past the post, is usually decided by the interests of the political parties.
The European Union is desperately trying to find a better solution, or at least its management -- in the form of the European Commission - is. Its key idea is 'subsidiarity'. Unfortunately, this invented word is one of the most grotesque in the English-language. This is especially unfortunate because it is a significant concept -- all decisions are to be pushed down to the level at which they are best decided. I saw this in action in Ethiopia. There were very real problems immediately after the end of the Civil War, where the government literally didn't know what to do about some aspects of situation. What they did, was very brave. They simply decided to do nothing. This has usually been a sign of weakness, which would bring down governments in the West. Their point, though, was - first - if they did nothing then the people on the ground would have to take their own decisions; and, as they were much better informed about specific situation, they would probably take better decisions than central government. More important, when central government learned enough to be able to take those decisions it would not be hampered by the fact that it had a history of previously taking other decisions.
All in all, the history of democracy is bedevilled by hypocrisy. Democracy in practice, it would seem, largely means whichever approach favours those who might attempt to grab power. In reality is rarely about involving the mass of the people in decision-making.
hits