Bryan's Argument through analogy seems to work like this,
A chariot like a society needs direction and speed to be competitive.
Which can be only provided when the horses do not fight the charioteer.
This however makes the assumption that society is at its functional best when there is a single leader in power. This however contradicts mainstream historical precedent as it breeds dynastial mindsets and associated problems like nepotism, power grabbing and assassinations. Not to say this is nonexistent in democracies but because incumbents subject themselves to term limits in most cases such power grabbing habits are less likely to occur.
A society that is able to achieve understanding between the people and the governments is the most effective state. As efforts taken during the emergency that Bryan supposes will cripple the government taken without populist consent will only breed resentment which often leads purely to instabillity which they tried to curb.
A people willing to elect a government that has emergency powers will not be able to have any legitimate dissent against actions taken mandated by the people. Therefore a democracy is truly the system better able to deal with crisis.
Nick Quah
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Monday, July 7, 2008
A Reply
My good friend,
It is an axiom of democracy not to make the people most happy and satisfactory, but the majority of the people. There is the key difference, of in favouring the majority instead of the totality of society, the "optimal" or "maximum" happiness and stability may not be achieved.
Utilitarianism is a matter of the totality of a state, not in statistical majorities.
Will you value the opinion, opinion by the way and not necessity, of the majority over the necessities of the totality? Will you for the sake of the part, however large it may be, neglect the needs of the whole? Democracy is essentially a compromise, a compromise that favours the majority, ironically by claiming to favour and be partial to no one. Whether such a compromise is truly and eternally stable is anybody's guess, but remember that as it is a compromise, democracy is not perfect. If something imperfect persists in a state of by definition temporary stability forever, then I would say that it is not an imperfect thing.
And yet it is.
You give me the example of America, granted then. But it might be a little ad hoc to say that "America is successful because its people voted for their leaders", for there are definitely other, perhaps more important factors.
Will you subscribe to a compromise forever?
~Bryan~
It is an axiom of democracy not to make the people most happy and satisfactory, but the majority of the people. There is the key difference, of in favouring the majority instead of the totality of society, the "optimal" or "maximum" happiness and stability may not be achieved.
Utilitarianism is a matter of the totality of a state, not in statistical majorities.
Will you value the opinion, opinion by the way and not necessity, of the majority over the necessities of the totality? Will you for the sake of the part, however large it may be, neglect the needs of the whole? Democracy is essentially a compromise, a compromise that favours the majority, ironically by claiming to favour and be partial to no one. Whether such a compromise is truly and eternally stable is anybody's guess, but remember that as it is a compromise, democracy is not perfect. If something imperfect persists in a state of by definition temporary stability forever, then I would say that it is not an imperfect thing.
And yet it is.
You give me the example of America, granted then. But it might be a little ad hoc to say that "America is successful because its people voted for their leaders", for there are definitely other, perhaps more important factors.
Will you subscribe to a compromise forever?
~Bryan~
I shall make a bold attempt to defend democracy here.
With democracy being a very people-reliant system of government, the people of a society are the crux in anywhere democracy is being practised. This does not only work for democracy, but for any style of government in fact, the people are an extremely important, if not the most important, factor in any existing society. And in order for systems of government such as democracy to work, the people have to be supportive of their government, and the presence of potential to rebel/go against the rulers has to be eliminated, if not kept minimum.
In democracy we see a system that empowers the people with rights to vote for their government, to voice out their opinions, and that basic choice every human ought to have. We have been going on and on in the past few comments looking at instances in which Democracy has failed but we have not looked at examples of successful democracy. For example,
The United States of America, who have the highest GDP in the world and rank highly on all human devlopment indexes. Its government is acknowledged to be one of the most democratically able and competent. The US has also done well in other facets, such as its militrary development and its economy, both of which are still hugely relavant in this day and age. And the people of USA have definitely had a part to play in this. They have stood supportive of their government, keeping faith in them, and with the country's competent democratic process, there has not been any large scaled reason for rebel or riot in recent history.
And so in this instance, democracy can be deemed the best existing system of governance, due to its active citizen participation. When the people are equipped with the right to vote, it allows them to choose their leaders for themselves, and despite there always being a presence of a minority party whose preferred political parties do not get chosen, it is the one system that guarantees the most amount of support and satisfaction in the people.
With democracy being a very people-reliant system of government, the people of a society are the crux in anywhere democracy is being practised. This does not only work for democracy, but for any style of government in fact, the people are an extremely important, if not the most important, factor in any existing society. And in order for systems of government such as democracy to work, the people have to be supportive of their government, and the presence of potential to rebel/go against the rulers has to be eliminated, if not kept minimum.
In democracy we see a system that empowers the people with rights to vote for their government, to voice out their opinions, and that basic choice every human ought to have. We have been going on and on in the past few comments looking at instances in which Democracy has failed but we have not looked at examples of successful democracy. For example,
The United States of America, who have the highest GDP in the world and rank highly on all human devlopment indexes. Its government is acknowledged to be one of the most democratically able and competent. The US has also done well in other facets, such as its militrary development and its economy, both of which are still hugely relavant in this day and age. And the people of USA have definitely had a part to play in this. They have stood supportive of their government, keeping faith in them, and with the country's competent democratic process, there has not been any large scaled reason for rebel or riot in recent history.
And so in this instance, democracy can be deemed the best existing system of governance, due to its active citizen participation. When the people are equipped with the right to vote, it allows them to choose their leaders for themselves, and despite there always being a presence of a minority party whose preferred political parties do not get chosen, it is the one system that guarantees the most amount of support and satisfaction in the people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)