Community and democracy

[french frank]

I think this is an interesting contribution to the debate (and I also recommend reading the link to Paul Mason's article, tied in with the release of his book on the protest movement).

Mason's piece is interesting, but is he right to say that in 1989 East Europeans chose individual freedom rather than communism? Or were they equally interested in the prosperity of the capitalist countries?

I'm not sure there would be many to deny - or even disagree about - the justified causes of protest. I think my dislike (in spite of its obvious effectiveness) of the social media is that it's a bit like Facebook in having 'Likes' but not 'Don't likes'. In other words, in a general sense (and I did say earlier I was not associating this with particular causes), it gives a voice to one side but not to the other, and one can see that Bieber can amass millions of 'followers' on Twitter and Facebook. Impressive. But in terms of 'democracy' the possibilities make me cautious: they are not accessible equally to all, since registering for Facebook or Twitter is not quite the same as registering to vote. Though it might be if not registering was punishable by a hefty fine ...

[amateur51]

Mason's piece is interesting, but is he right to say that in 1989 East Europeans chose individual freedom rather than communism? Or were they equally interested in the prosperity of the capitalist countries?

I'm not sure there would be many to deny - or even disagree about - the justified causes of protest. I think my dislike (in spite of its obvious effectiveness) of the social media is that it's a bit like Facebook in having 'Likes' but not 'Don't likes'. In other words, in a general sense (and I did say earlier I was not associating this with particular causes), it gives a voice to one side but not to the other, and one can see that Bieber can amass millions of 'followers' on Twitter and Facebook. Impressive. But in terms of 'democracy' the possibilities make me cautious: they are not accessible equally to all, since registering for Facebook or Twitter is not quite the same as registering to vote. Though it might be if not registering was punishable by a hefty fine ...

... but only if there is a 'Don't like' and a 'NOTA' option :winkeye:

[ahinton]

Permit me Mr. H. to respond to your query in the form of a question of my own!

Who on earth could or should be expected to decide which people ought to be charged with [government] piloting an aeroplane/building a bridge? That is [absurd] not absurd! It also ignores the question of for whose benefit the implementation of any such [government's policies] piloting activity/bridge-building might be intended. Also, who determines, monitors and regulates the qualification process, the subsequent [government] piloting/building of bridges or indeed any other process?

Think about it - is the oddity of your original query not now at once evident? Why should "good government" be treated differently from piloting an aeroplane or building a bridge?

No, it is far from evident. Pilots need to be trained and qualified to fly and bridge builders trained and qualified to build bridges in accordance with the plans laid down for them by trained and qualified architects, structural engineers and the like, just as planners for them have to be trained and qualified in the issues concerned. The situation with politicians is entirely different.

If you have doubts (as you appear to do) about who should be charged with running a government and/or about who should decide who those people should be, are you presuming that each MP and member of the House of Lords (as it is now constituted) should have a university degree in politics and that all those who elect them should likewise be qualified, in order to endorse the practitioners to practise and the electors to elect? If so, the former would be hard to achieve and the latter surely not only impossible but also undesirable, given that (a) all those without such qualifications have as much right to having their interests best served by good government as those who are so qualified and (b) it would be an absurd - not to say absurdly expensive and time-wasting - expectation that those not interested in entering the profession of politics should nevertheless be expected to acquire a degree in politics in order to entitle them to vote.

In addition to all of this, even those amongst the electorate who already have degrees in politics (whether or not they are practitioners in that profession) do not all share the same political views, so the conflict of political aims, aspirations and philosophies will not thereby be removed from a system such as that which you appear to advocate. Imagine, for example, a group of qualified political practitioners among whom one would find pro-democratic and anti-democratic viewpoints; what good would that do anyone and what might it be expected to achieve that the present system supposedly does not or cannot?!

[aeolium]

Mason's piece is interesting, but is he right to say that in 1989 East Europeans chose individual freedom rather than communism? Or were they equally interested in the prosperity of the capitalist countries?

I'm sure there was an element of the latter, but I think there was a powerful movement to press for rights and liberties - including properly democratic government - that were not available in the Eastern bloc countries and were in the West. The Polish revolution was initiated by a trade union, not your typical capitalist proponent; the East German revolution commenced with demonstrations centered around a Lutheran church; the Czech uprising resulted in the election as President of a dissident playwright for whom surely freedom was more important than capitalism. Put it like this: if what had been on offer as an alternative was Chinese-style authoritarian one-party capitalism (which has undoubtedly delivered impressive material improvement in the lives of many), I don't think it would have been acceptable.

I agree with your reservations about 'one-click democracy'. But it does offer a more compelling alternative to many who are dissatisfied with the old conventional means of articulating grievances to politicians who they don't feel are interested in their concerns or in any way representing their interests; such activities as writing to your MP ("le roi s'avisera") or attending an MP's constituency surgery are just seen as a waste of time by many. And where social media lead to community organisations or gatherings where there is at least the chance to debate problems and possible solutions, is that not evidence of active participation in democracy rather than the political apathy of which many are accused when there is low voting turnout in elections? Yes, it is messy, sometimes incoherent - people are usually clearer about what they oppose than what they propose - and not fully representative, but it seems to me to be a welcome kick up the backside of our existing sclerotic representative democracy.