|
I’m a little late, but this comes from a recent thread on “small-d democracy.” One respondent expressed opposition to “small-d democracy” on the grounds that it means mob rule. That claim has been a right-wing talking point since the time of Pisistratus, so it was a little shocking to read it on this board! But, on the positive side, what does “democracy” mean? Here’s my take.
First (contrary to some recent guff coming out of the establishment) democracy is not about “freedom.” Democracy and liberty are distinct values – yes, interdependent, but distinct.
Democracy is about equality. Democracy is about equal say.
It seems to me that democracy is about everybody having a say in decisions that affect them. In an ideal democracy everybody affected has equal say. Of course, that is an ideal, and ideals are only approximated in reality, but it is helpful all the same, because we can say that one system is more or less democratic than another, and give reasons for saying it. For example, a system in which women have the vote is more democratic than a system in which women are denied the vote, because the vote is one way that a person can have a say, and denying women the vote means that they have even less say than they would have when they cast a vote. I am not saying the female suffrage made the world perfect, or even perfectly democratic – only that it made the world more democratic than it had been, and that’s reason enough for any small-d democrat to support it.
And we can say that a system in which all adult men have the franchise is in turn more democratic than a system in which only rich white men have the franchise. Manhood suffrage is still less democratic than universal suffrage, but more democratic than a franchise limited by property and race.
What about protection of minorities? Notice that “equal say” may or may not be a matter of counting heads. From the viewpoint of equal say, majority voting has some advantages. Those advantages are strongest when everybody is about equally likely to be on the losing side of the next issue. When there is a permanent minority – like Catholics in Northern Ireland, to take just one example of many – they will have little or no say, even if the votes are counted ever so carefully. In a case like that, deviations from majority rule to protect minorities improve the standard of democracy.
Similarly, no-one can have an equal say when she is dominated by a colonial overlord, padron, commissar, gauleiter, or male lord and master. Liberty and democracy reinforce one another.
Probably most small-d democrats will agree with much of that. But now I am going to get a little more controversial.
Class systems are antidemocratic. Concentrations of wealth are antidemocratic. When money talks, democracy is undermined, because the voice of money can never be equal. A society with huge concentrations of wealth (capitalist) can never be as democratic as a society without class distinctions (socialist) can be at its best.
Every decision made by the organization that employs me is of concern to me, but I have little say in any of them. A society in which the workplace is divided between bosses and workers is less democratic than a society in which the employees cooperatively run the business.
Taking the last two together, cooperative socialism is more democratic than “democratic” capitalism.
Unfortunately, I am going out of town and do not expect to be able to respond to comments on this post. If copies are sent to me at mccainra@drexel.edu, I will try to make some responses in a couple of weeks.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
