Why do you think democracy is the best method known at this time?
Not all methods known have been tried.
Also, would limited democracy be better than universal suffrage?
__________________
Dear Smidgey,
I make this assumption that democracy is the best political system for humans (at this time mind you, I have no crystal ball and clearly understand the way something very useful today can be archaic in 500 years or less) based on the fact that I have studied, researched, taught, argued, published, and worked political science for quite a while now. I am not saying that because I have an ok amount of experience and knowledge that I am right, but just that historically we have tried and or theorized about different polities but have always been coming back to democracy from the very beginning of human governance (the archeo-anthropological argument). Please consult Jared Diamond to gain of better grasp of what that is.
It is possible in the future that we could devise a new form of governance, but I still think it will resemble democracy. Please see the post to Aardvark that I made for a better understanding of what I mean. If I were to try and predict the future, I would think that governance would become more accessible and more decentralized (only due to a much more refined central body and local government). I am not sure whether an oligarchy of states or personages or some form of global dictatorship will arise unless some kind of global catastrophe occurs and security takes over democracy.
I honestly can say that limited democracy has been tried over and over again and it does not work. Nobody likes inequality, especially socio-political. Universal suffrage has been a struggle for well over three thousand years, I think it’s safe to say that’s the way things should be going.
I agree with you that not all methods have been tried. There are lots of techniques to improve the expression of the sovereignty of a plural citizenry – especially due to improvements over how we communicate. But like previously stated, these techniques won’t be alien to democracy, they will most likely serve to improve it. And they will be the new cutting edge techniques, not historical oppositions to more inclusive democracy.
Could you please specify a bit more about what other methods you are thinking about? Plato’s Republic is something I am familiar with and he recommends an aristocratic style of government. Democracy, that is rule by the masses, was not something he looked kindly upon (nor did any of the Sophists and the majority of Greek and Roman philosophers). Aristocratic government was tried in Poland from around the 16th century to about the 1800s. The powerful barons met in assembly style (Sejm) with the Church and Monarch, townsmen were effectively suppressed (see Keane, 2009), but were swallowed up due to what I call ‘intellectual inbreeding’. Because the barons viewed themselves to be superior to the “masses”, they did not have a heterogeneous enough opinion and missed a lot of growth opportunities (such as improving military techniques and acting on new technologies). The Polish-Lithuanian Empire (once the strongest in Europe, defender against the Ottoman Empire) was subsequently wiped off the face of the map for several centuries by a combination of different polities. Limited democracy does not work.
Would you be referring to James Mill by chance? J.S. was more radical than his father but you must understand that progressive ideology for that time was lowering the franchise to males below 21, and lowering minimum property qualifications – not removing them, and even more radical was to include women (I think JS and J both thought women should get the franchise). We cannot apply these historical arguments today as they are retrograde: they were progressive then and applicable to the political situation of that era. They do not apply in that form to what we are experiencing now. If we practiced limited democracy or Plato’s republican version there would be insane riots for the simple fact that we have more educated people on Earth than we have ever had. Many people would not tolerate retrograding social, civil, and political rights.
Thanks for your post and I look forward to any rebuttals you may have,
Jean-Paul
Post a Comment