'The trouble with Socialism is that it would take up too many evenings' - Oscar the grouch

Here's an edited rant on the general need for democracy, but not of the flagwaving Bu-shite kind.


The desirability of democracy

People are always in danger from those in power. Politicians mostly treat democracy as some sort of an ideal good, while acting as if people need a lot of guidance on how to be democratic. Most, if not all, are part of a ruling class. Whether a ruling class is based on money, nobility, popularity, or even intelligence does nothing to make it any the more justified.

It is immoral to expect people to maintain law and order, if they all do not have a role in making the law. If people just obey a ruling class with servility, they give up recognising themselves as moral persons. In the kingdoms, aristocracies and military juntas of history, people have been justified in rising up to change the political state and establish a civilised democratic situation. The means by which this was brought about is more of a moral dilemma.

Any other form of government than democracy is political rape, being inflicted on people without their explicit consent. Any political arrangement whatsoever which does not accept the principle of consent is essentially violent, even if the people subject to it have been dulled into political apathy by gluttonness consumerism. Such an arrangement would never result in a peaceful and just society, for there is no justice where people abdicate their responsibility to choose. The freedom to choose is what most distinquishes society as human.


The difficulty with democracy

There is of course an obvious difficulty with democracy in that majority-rule can become a ‘tyranny of the majority’ over minorities, as has been evident in the North. However, there is no reason to assume that minorities would act any differently if they were the ones in power. A tyranny of the minority is no more of a solution. If there is to be law at all and society not exist in a daily civil war, then we have to have some trust in the possibility of a good government, even if there is none actually present at the moment.

If we were to believe that good government was just not possible in practice, then civil war would be preferable to a tyrannical system of government. At least, we would be acting freely, acting in defence of our rights. But we’d often be infringing on the rights of others who hold conscientiously different beliefs. The right of a person to believe and to choose for themselves in life is the principle on which everyone’s rights are based. On a purely pragmatic level, even if we did pursue force to gain our ideals, as well as acting freely we’d also be dying freely. This being far from ideal, it forces us to strive for a good government peacefully for as long as possible for the sake of protecting and respecting the dignity of life.

We should use a genuinely peaceful process to develop a proper government, for creating a just consenus across political divisions is always morally preferable to simply getting your own way. A government must aspire to function with the consent of all, even if dissent is always systematically present, and good besides. An ideal state must allow for the possibility of disagreement, or it is not the ideal. It is one where we allow for the free will and aspirations of others, which are often very different to our own.


The drudgery of democracy

Government should be performed by ordinary human beings just like ourselves, and not any king, general, religious leader, or even some celebrity seen as being in some way special. Decisions and actions are our own individual moral responsibility or else life is robotic and meaningless, and so leaders should not be looked up to as idols to whom we submit our rational consent. They should be recognised to be limited human beings as capable of error as we are.

When the will of the majority is not actually reflected in the result of elections, a leader should be the more humble and cautious. The mismanagement of leaders is not the moral responsibility of a whole nation, but the nation has a responsibility to try to put good people into power and to ensure that power is shared out and is used in ways which people can accept. Liberal democracy operated on the principles of an inclusive utilitarianism is the desirable state. Such a society begins with what all people most need and want, but aspires to serve everyone equitably.

Universal democracy is the political situation worthy of human beings, as anything else does not respect the freedom that each individual possesses. Democracy should be as close as possible to being the expression of the collective will, even when this brings its own problems. These will no longer be problems with the system, but will be the problems associated with human nature itself; among which are the problems of identifying the moral thing, and wanting to do it.