Ten questions: What does democracy mean to you?
Democracy is not attached to any pre-given political or ideological ends, but allows ends to be chosen by the majority vote of free.
Stanley Fish
A FEW weeks ago I sat down with an interviewer from the BBC who ask ed me
10 questions about democracy. I thought I would share my answers.
Two of the questions are related to one another: “What is the biggest threat
to democracy?” and “Can terrorism destroy democracy?” The answers depend on
what you think democracy is. I opted for something analytic: democracy is a
form of government that is not attached to any pre-given political or
ideological ends, but allows ends to be chosen by the majority vote of free
citizens.
What this means is that democracy is the only form of government that, at
least theoretically, contemplates its own demise with equanimity.
Democratic elections do not guarantee that the victors will be
democratically inclined, and it is always possible that those who gain
control of the legislative process will pass laws that erode or even repeal
the rights – of property, free expression and free movement – that
distinguish democracies from theocracies and monarchies. (Some would say
that this is exactly what has been happening in the past six years.)
Democracy, then, can be said to be its own biggest threat.
Terrorism presents a parallel threat from the outside. The danger is not so
much that terrorists will defeat democracies by force as it is that, in
resisting terrorists, democracies will forgo the procedural safeguards
(against warrant-less detention, censorship and secret surveillance) that
make a democracy what it is.
Two other questions are also related to one another:
“Are dictators ever good?” and “Is democracy for everyone?” If you are
concerned with personal freedoms and don’t want society policing everyone’s
behaviour, a strong, permanent and intrusive executive will have little if
any appeal. But if, like Thomas Hobbes, stability and security matter more
to you than anything, you might warm to the idea of an absolute sovereign
who is strong enough to protect you from your neighbour and both of you from
foreign enemies.
The same reasoning applies to the question of whether democracy is good for
everyone. It depends on whether you think democracy is the form of
government history has been working its way toward (Francis Fukuyama’s
thesis in The End of History) or is merely one option among others. If the
former, you will believe that the more your adversaries are exposed to
democratic ideas, the more attractive they will find them. But you could be
sceptical of the possibility of exporting democracy and think of it instead
as something others might take or leave, depending on what they hold dear. A
society that rests on a strong religious foundation may find some democratic
practices useful, but it won’t be inclined to fight and die for them.
This brings me to another of the questions. “Is God democratic?” That one’s
easy. God, like Hobbes’ sovereign, requires obedience, and those who worship
him must subordinate their personal desires to his will. His rule,
therefore, is the antithesis of democracy. That doesn’t mean, however, that
God frowns on democratic states or requires a theocratic one or has any
political opinions at all.
One question I was asked seemed to me to involve a category mistake: “Can
democracy solve climate change?” Solving the problems of climate change, if
it can be done, will be a matter of advances in technology and alterations
in personal and corporate behaviour in response to state directives and
regulations. No political system is either naturally suited to the task or
barred by definition from performing it. Politics and technology are
independent variables.
Another question offered a trap: “Are women more democratic than men?” Any
answer you give will get you in trouble with half the world. In recent years
we have been told that women incline toward connection, compromise, empathy
and conversation, while men like to stand on their own and establish
boundaries that sharply separate them from one another. If this is so, men
are more democratic than women because democracy, especially American-style
democracy, is more rights-based than it is communitarian. But I am sceptical
of these binaries and therefore of the question.
I found one question too general and ambitious: “Who or what rules the
world?” Capital? American consumer culture? Religious fervour? My answer
would be “contingency.” You never know what’s going to happen or what
forces will be unleashed by unforeseen events.
I passed on another question because I’m too old to answer it: “What would
make you start a revolution?” At my age, nothing. If things got really bad,
I’d look for a place to hole up.
The final question put to me was, “Whom would you vote for as president of
the world?” I know whom I’d like to vote for. Someone wise, learned, strong,
courageous, compassionate, authoritative, incorruptible, inspiring, capable
and good-looking. No one living (or dead) came to mind, so I settled for a
fictional character, Atticus Finch, at least as he was played by Gregory
Peck.
Publication : IE; Section : OP-ED ; Pg : 11; Date : 13/10/07
URL :
http://70.86.150.130/indianexpress/ArticleText.aspx?article=13_10_2007_011_009