Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Democracy and Paternalism

We're The Great Old Ones Now

14:08 / 29.08.02

"We cannot speak of democracy if we are not ready to play by its rules. The main aspect of democracy is the right of people to change a government if they do not like it." Iran's president, Mohammad Khatami

Is he right? It occurs to me that this is only one half of the democratic bargain. The other is that the people have to behave like citizens of a democracy. Otherwise, the thing will vote itself out of existence, and becomes something less admirable - a sort of infant mob, ruled by unexamined desire rather than reasonable and reasoned requirements. Sound familiar?

That being the case, what is the role of the state? Should it yield to the democratic, but ill-advised demands for fattier foods, bigger cars, and cheaper air travel, or respond with un-mandated but possibly more democratic measures - what the people would want, if they were holding up their end of the bargain?

This latter, obviously, is paternalistic - yet is it not also the responsibility of any elected body to educate the populous towards the ideal of democratic self-expression and examination? Should not a government confronted with, for example, a popular sentiment which is racist, refuse to enact such a desire?

Khatami, quoted in the NYT, was talking about being held back by clerics who deny his moves to reform - precisely the same dilemma from beneath.

15:15 / 29.08.02

"It occurs to me that this is only one half of the democratic bargain. The other is that the people have to behave like citizens of a democracy."
Is there a deocratic bargain? Democracy at it's roots was no more than rule (usualy indirectly in someway) by the people. It is only relatively recently that the idea has turned up that this will in someway produce a more ethical government. I always assumed that part of the deal was that if the citizens of that country go stark raving bonkers then the government will to and that there is no theroretical reason why an undemocratic government cant run a country as well (or as badly) as a democratic one

15:54 / 29.08.02

So much talk about democracy by politicians, from Bush the Younger to the example given here, is cant. Invoking the "will of the people" makes as much sense as invoking the will of God. It's a smokescreen for the real mechanisms of government.

What are these real mechanisms? Well, countries in existance today that are classified as democratic are actually representative democracies, which is the step most people seem to forget. Instead of voting directly on an issue, citizens of a democracy delegate their power to a trustee. In effect, when you're voting, you're chosing your daddy. The tradeoff of democracy is that if you don't pick the best daddy for yourself, you have to live in his house until the next election. So, a certain amount of paternalism is built into the system.

Now, there are different types of Daddies, as we all know. There's the permissive daddy, the strict daddy, the neglectful daddy, Which daddy is right for your country?

15:56 / 29.08.02

(obviously, there's more than one Daddy in parliamentary democracies. But the daddy dynamics remain the same.)

16:21 / 29.08.02

I think President Khatami is right about the main aspect of democracy, especially the American ideal of democracy/republicanism. Yet it may be that this democracy is inherently flawed and needs to be buffered with undemocratic, yet still ethical practices.

Should it yield to the democratic, but ill-advised demands for fattier foods, bigger cars, and cheaper air travel, or respond with un-mandated but possibly more democratic measures - what the people would want, if they were holding up their end of the bargain?

Given the horror that we would all feel if a president stood up and said he intended to help buffer democracy with ethical, undemocratic practices, the government should try to avoid this. It sets a nasty precedent. On the other hand, in a situation described here, the position of government office carries with it some kind of authority with the people. At the very least, it provides a means of communicating with public. If I, as President, claim that I'm doing what the people would want if they were thinking with reason, then it isn't too much to ask of me to use my position of authority to plead my case to the people. If I can do this, then I don't have to go against the will of the public. If I cannot, I may have to accept that I'm wrong, and the public is right.

Other problems arise, though, when people demand giving up their rights. When they insist upon this, then democracy cannot logically prevail. Then, the choice is between two evils. This seems to be the case Pakistan's General is making. Of course, he doesn't refer to himself quite as the lesser of two evils.

17:59 / 29.08.02

Other problems arise, though, when people demand giving up their rights. When they insist upon this, then democracy cannot logically prevail. Then, the choice is between two evils. This seems to be the case Pakistan's General is making.

...not to mention the case George Bush is making.