I apologize in advance for sounding pessimistic and maybe being the one to invade your idealistic world, but it is necessary that the crude truth be talked about with limited constraint. When I refer to the truth I seek to avoid philosophical debates and stick to the truth as reference to that which makes my reality; that which I live and experience on a daily basis. Of course your reality might be different than mine, but if this is the case I kindly as you to accept my perspective and reflect upon this humble outlook of life; my reality.
Democracy and democratic debates are what we base the majority of our socio-political efforts on. Thus, I find it crucial to speak out on the current status of our democratic institutions and on our democratic progress as a society. Once again, taking a more realistic view (some might call it pessimistic) I argue that democracy is undergoing a very rapid decay. It is enough to take a superficial analysis of the current shape of the US political situation to understand the dimensions of my argument. However, the democratic "powerhouse"-as it loves to be called- the US is now in a state of political upheaval and confusion. This, however, is not alien to nations around the world. Is this something we should be surprised of? Is this something unprecedented? Who is to blame? In which direction are we headed? Although answering all of these questions may be somewhat ambitious and far-fetched, I am an individual who likes taking risks and this is not the exception. To put my lovely readers into context, the concept of democracy is a very complex concept that would require many lecture classes to fully understand the complexities of the topic. For these purposes I will define a democracy as a politic in which the outcome of elections is representative of the people. In other words, this definition describes a substantive democracy that functions in the interest of the governed. I use this definition of democracy because many argue that a democracy can be considered as such as long as you have "free and fair elections". For me, this is simply being mediocre and minimalist as "free and fair elections" guarantee no protection to the interests of the governed beyond that of whom is above the governed. In this sense, the one being governed is at the mercy of the one governing if the only contribution they have in decision-making is legitimizing the individual's position of power. Today, this might be one of the main reasons why it is an obligation to vote. The elite need to legitimize their control and power, yet the populous is so unmotivated towards democracy that they must be forced to fulfill the minimal characteristic of a democracy. With that in mind, the status of our democratic world is in such a deplorable level that imagining a prosperous, representative, and peaceful democratic state is only the reality of a very small portion of the world population. These are limited to the fortunate scandinavians, Canadians, Australians, the Kiwis, Icelandic, and maybe a few Western European citizens. Since I know some of you will like to see some numbers and since I love to please my readers, I will provide some statistics. The foundations of democracy can be traced back to the French Revolution and its iconic historical events. Samuel Huntington describes Three main waves of democratization or moments in history where we see an increase in democratic states. The First Wave can be traced back to the 19th century after the majority of white men were granted suffrage. At its peak, there where 29 democracies and the stability of these democracies lasted until 1922 and the arrival of Mussolini's Italy in which the following 20 years saw the number of democracies fall to merely 12 democracies. The Second Wave initiated right after the victory of the Allied forces in WWII. This Wave crested 20 years later with 36 recognized democracies. The Third Wave commenced in the late 1970's and extended throughout the 1980s where the world saw the democratization of Latin America, Asia, and later on the fall of the Berlin Wall and the democratization of the Soviet Union. What came in-between these Three Waves of democratization were periods of democratic backsliding. In other words, this is when new democracies end up going back to undemocratic regimes such as the case during the Great Depression and the rise of fascism and during the Cold War and the rise of Communism and Authoritarian Regimes. This last wave of democratization is said to have had a moment of backsliding after the terror attacks of 9/11 and the US intervention in many Middle Eastern countries. On the other hand, scholars argue that a Fourth Wave can be defined after the Arab Spring and the fall of various North African Regimes such as Libya, Tunisia, and Egypt. Unfortunately, the success of this last wave of democratization has been shadowed by a return to authoritarianism in Egypt and various of the other states involved in the Arab Spring..which is now coined by scholars as the Arab Winter. Yet, this is not remotely true to these North African countries. It seems to be that democracy all around the world is under threat. This year's Democratic Index reported that only 19 countries are considered full democracies. Fifty-Seven countries are considered to have flawed democracies-the US being one of them, while the remaining 91 countries are considered as Authoritarian or a mix of some other form of regime. Considering that the biggest advocate for democracy (the US) is now considered a flawed democracy, the current welfare of democratic governments has reached a level of uncertainty that leaves us to wonder what is next? However, before I try to answer that question, I must seek to make sense of why this is happening. One can only identify the root of the problem if one refers back to the great thinkers such as Socrates, Plato, and Machiavelli. If these three had anything in common, it was definitely pointing out the flaws in democracy. Due to shortage of time, energy, and knowledge, I will not go into a deep reflection of the philosophical literature found in the work of these three great thinkers. Instead, I will do an analysis of the current global situation. It is no secret to anyone that across the globe citizens are rapidly loosing their patience towards their leaders. However, the populous is unable to act upon this frustration because, more than ever, we have surrendered our political rights to those above us. In essence, those of us who live in democracies have entered that mediocre level of the such where we are only asked upon to participate when elections come around. This, however, is only a method to legitimize the control of the Trumps, the Putins, the Dilmas (Temers), Macris, Maduros., etc.. A bigger problem beyond this is that, as Plato argued, we have voluntarily positioned these power scavengers in positions that dictate the future of our lives. As Plato argued, there would come a time in human history that, due to individualistic, selfish, and untamed manners, we would indulge in our personal liberties and pleasures in such a promiscuous manner that our political conscious would become so distorted that we would be in no competence to make proper political decisions. In reality, Plato was just arguing that we would become so distracted by our personal liberties that all of our efforts would go towards fighting for the freedom to eat whatever we wished, own whatever we desired, and marry whoever we pleased. This would be ensured and protected by our political heads, but the important decisions would be made within a monopoly of power in the hands of the elite. We would eventually become political dummies. Socrates argued that voting and making part of a democratic society carried responsibilities that only an educated and willing society could fulfill. For example, citizens apt for voting would be those who could vote based on an educated decision and analysis of the options, and not simply a mechanized action. The consequence of this not being the case is illustrated by today's reality; an uneducated, misinformed, and incompetent populous. The result...Trump. The result...white supremacist leaders, the rise of Neo-Nazi parties, the rise of populism. No wonder Socrates hated democracy. The worst part is that we are not interested in changing this reality. We do whatever possible to continue misinformed and ignorant. We care about mainstream pop-culture more than our education system. We care more about animal rights than we do our health system. We care more about what type of phone we have rather than worrying about how our actual political system works. We are the ones to blame. Continuing with our ignorance and our limited rational of what truly matters, we have made the ridiculous decision to rely completely on individuals and single political figures to solve all of our political headaches. Recent election results in Turkey, the Philippines, and the US prove that we believe and think that hard-lined, extremist, and charismatic leaders can change the mediocre and deplorable condition of our society in one or two presidential terms. In return, these political leaders prove to be incompetent, unmerciful, and truly detrimental to our political future. They resemble the likes of Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, and all of the other brutal leaders throughout our history. The worst part of it all is that we were warned about making such decision in Machiavelli's 'The Prince'. Although "The Prince" may seem to be a piece of work where Machiavelli sympathized towards the brute leaders of Florence, the reality is that he was illustrating and describing evil so that we, as a society, could act upon the Good and avoid the Bad. One of his warnings was that of which we should never rely or depend completely on populist leaders in return for security, peace, or stability. In conclusion, it should come to no surprise when we observe the worrying state of our democratic institutions. Instead, we should reflect upon and realize that we have been warned and cautioned about these events. It is no coincidence that Socrates was hesitant towards democracy. It is no surprise that Plato was a supporter of an autocratic political system in which the autocrat was the philosopher who lived outside of the cave and had the knowledge, intelligence, and competence to make the decisions that favoured the whole. Simply put, Plato knew that the commoners would be too ignorant to make decisions on their own and that only the intellectually gifted could take on such responsibility. The problem is that the political figures of today aren't the intellectually gifted, but rather the corrupt, ambitious, greedy, and power-seeking hypocrites of society. It would be even more ignorant if we blame those who we have voluntarily and willingly surrendered our political liberties to, for it is our own responsibility to change the path of our history and determine the outcomes of our future.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Author
David Romero Archives
August 2019
|