I find that the nature of democracy as ‘majority rule’ poses some innate contradictions to the idea that democratic rule is backed by the public for the good of the public. For the American president to be elected this year, he needs to win at least 270 electoral votes out of 538. In the event that he should win by the slimmest margin, 268 votes to the contrary will have been overruled. To increase the percentage of votes required to win would also be to increase the risk of a deadlock between the supporters of the candidates. I wish to highlight what I think are two salient contradictions of democracy: The issue of majority rule, and the question of the public’s objectivity in certain decisions.
Victories in democratic processes, such as the election of presidential figures, often leave the views of significant minorities unrepresented in the final decision. This means that it is always the dominant groups in an electoral process that hold decision-making power, and although it is in the interest of the ruling group to account for the needs of minorities at times, there are certain areas where dominant groups eagerly make decisions in their own interest, exerting their power over minorities and those not included in the democratic process. Slavery in the United States of America carried on for about 200 years until 1865. A country that is supposedly synonymous with democracy entertained this practice, which modern society has for some time seen as grotesque, for slightly more than two centuries.
Furthermore, in democratic societies where popularity battles are publicised by many different forms of media, affluent people have more say as they have the resources to spread their message through advertising and to fund the causes they support. On the other hand, the disadvantaged poor in society generally have greater concerns in living day-by-day and in social welfare; people working two jobs at the same time are less likely to have time to think or even to rally to political causes outside their immediate concern. This also means that they inevitably become a stable source of votes to parties which offer more social welfare, as their fates are more closely tied to the success of such an outcome (Herbert J. Gans, 1971). Democracy provides one vote per person, but the amount of freedom a person has to use that vote is not necessarily the same for everyone.
The second issue is one the questions the public’s ability to make good decisions at all. This is an argument much favoured by the PAP government in Singapore, which has been known during certain times in history to chastise the public for what it calls ‘swing voting’, warning that the ‘illogical’ election of inadequate leaders would quickly lead to the country’s destabilization. These arguments generally favour governments. However, I accept the validity of it in questioning the objectivity of democratic populations in certain areas of life. Let us look at the Singaporean context. Debate over the repeal of laws constraining gays in Singapore was fierce, with a bulk of ethical arguments and a few pragmatic ones such as the attraction of the ‘pink’ dollar to Singapore. I would point out that this debate mainly concerned the plight of a relatively peaceful minority group and was steeped in ethical argument. It was easy for Singaporeans to be concerned and to argue fiercely over this. However, on another issue of the introduction of greater ERP coverage over the country, the vast majority of the public became incensed, and the need for such a program was questioned vehemently. At times, the government was accused of using taxpayers’ money unwisely. The argument from the proposition was that it was necessary to cut down traffic congestion in many areas before it slowed down work efficiency considerably. Furthermore, it was a decision coupled with other policies (such as the increase in COE prices) meant to discourage the use of cars and to encourage the use of public transport. It can be argued that the extreme reaction of the population was due to the extreme ‘unfairness’ of the policy. However, in this case, I would argue that the closeness of this topic to the lives of individual Singaporeans was a strong factor in understanding their reactions. Given that global issues have highlighted the problem of strained fuel dependency, as well as the more or less tangible benefit of less congested roads (the extent of this can be debated fiercely), I would characterize the average Singaporean’s reaction as ‘emotional’, although understandably so. Still, this highlights that when the issues become personal, more emotional elements are bound to come into play and this can affect the ability of democracies to make decisions effectively.
EDIT
The remarks on my paper asked if the points I was highlighting were problems with democracy or with states that did not practice democracy properly. I maintain that for the most part, what I've written is linked directly to democracy itself. Trying to give each citizen an equal vote does not reflect the reality of varying degrees of social inequality in all societies. My point about the objectivity of the people is also something that I feel applies universally, not just in Singapore. If people have to make choices by voting, it is inevitable that their judgment on some matters will be skewed, depending on their social contexts... Well, if I don't think I could propose offhand that some matters should be decided by the public and others decided by the government; deciding which matters those should be could take longer than the decisions themselves.
Still, I think that it is a reality that needs to be addressed somehow. While I think that the study of political systems has practical use in terms of how we can refine and qualify our political system within its social context, I believe that when we talk about democracy or socialism, the fundamental question that we're asking is, "Who can be trusted?". Is it a socialist bureaucracy that holds centralized power (that corrupts)? Do they have the moral fiber to serve the people to the best of their ability, and will the people always be able to recognize that they are doing so? On the other hand,is it a democratic people who are not necessarily informed enough to make good decisions (although the argument is that democratic process is enough of a good in itself)? How do we bring about the growth of a good people and a good government, and what constitutes that good?
Reference list
Herbert J. Gans. (1971) Social Policy. “The Uses of Poverty”. Social Policy Corp.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Hs103 blog entry 6 (Response to 'War and Terrorism') Revised
Conflicts marked by terrorism have, unfortunately, a terrific shelf-life. The conflict between Israel and the various militant groups has ceased to end in any significant way since 1948. Conflicts between Indonesia and different separatist groups started as early as 1969, but have carried on till today. World Wars 1 and 2 lasted between 4 to 6 years. What element of terrorist conflicts enables them to persist for decades on end?
One reason is the access to means of conflict. Weapons manufactured in the past by Soviet and US industries were used by the respective countries they supported during civil wars and regional conflicts. It is speculated that there may even be 50 million AK-47 rifles still circulating in the world by both legal and illegal means (Sernau, 2006). It is an inexpensive rifle that can be purchased in large numbers. Beyond that, terrorists can also create carnage with even simpler means. Shrapnel-filled, home-made explosives and car bombs can be produced without the need for any kind of advanced technology. Furthermore, the civilians who are the targets of terrorists have little to no physical protection, unlike military personnel who wear protective vests and ride armoured vehicles.
Means are not enough to explain the prevalence of terrorist action. Suicide bombers do not give their lives up for a cause simply because they have the means to do so. Research has little to show about links between poverty and terrorist action (although the financial care of the suicide bomber’s family is one of the provisions made by some terrorist groups). It may be a factor, but I think that the deciding factor is one of religious indoctrination. Christian and Islamic literature has explicit accounts of holy wars. The Old Testament which the Jews (having no belief in the validity of New Testament books) use as their main religious text has several chapters where the Israelite nation was given a direct mandate from God to utterly annihilate every single person in the foreign lands they planned to move into.
I am not suggesting that this is the attitude of Jews today. However, the presence of such elements in religious doctrine can be, and are easily employed by terrorist groups to validate their ideologies. Suicide bombers are the best illustration of this; a great part of their motivation lies in the promise of a glorious afterlife which has been earned by their zealous devotion to their faith. Furthermore, it becomes even easier for them to take the lives of others as religious indoctrination objectifies foreigners, reducing them to one-dimensional ‘enemies of the faith’.
The targets that terrorists choose may be the most important factor of all. Terrorist attacks target people who have not consented to engage in any form of warfare, and unlike soldiers these civilians do not have the benefit of armoured vests or vehicles. Terrorist acts come without warning and it seems impossible for bereaved families to make sense of the deaths of their loved ones. The ruthlessness and blatant disregard for lives, combined with proud declarations made by the responsible parties, is only bound to engender a deep and pervasive hatred among the victims. It can be compared to the way criminals who target children are considered by their fellow criminals to be the worst human beings.
But is it really true that terrorists always choose violence over peaceful solutions? Is there a choice? I guess the answer is highly dependent on the context… hmm. I don’t know. Haha. I guess there are also other reasons for the perpetuation of terrorist violence, but these were the first few that came to mind…
Reference list
Scott Sernau. (2006). “Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and
Sustainability”. Chapter 6: War, States of Terror. Pearson.
One reason is the access to means of conflict. Weapons manufactured in the past by Soviet and US industries were used by the respective countries they supported during civil wars and regional conflicts. It is speculated that there may even be 50 million AK-47 rifles still circulating in the world by both legal and illegal means (Sernau, 2006). It is an inexpensive rifle that can be purchased in large numbers. Beyond that, terrorists can also create carnage with even simpler means. Shrapnel-filled, home-made explosives and car bombs can be produced without the need for any kind of advanced technology. Furthermore, the civilians who are the targets of terrorists have little to no physical protection, unlike military personnel who wear protective vests and ride armoured vehicles.
Means are not enough to explain the prevalence of terrorist action. Suicide bombers do not give their lives up for a cause simply because they have the means to do so. Research has little to show about links between poverty and terrorist action (although the financial care of the suicide bomber’s family is one of the provisions made by some terrorist groups). It may be a factor, but I think that the deciding factor is one of religious indoctrination. Christian and Islamic literature has explicit accounts of holy wars. The Old Testament which the Jews (having no belief in the validity of New Testament books) use as their main religious text has several chapters where the Israelite nation was given a direct mandate from God to utterly annihilate every single person in the foreign lands they planned to move into.
I am not suggesting that this is the attitude of Jews today. However, the presence of such elements in religious doctrine can be, and are easily employed by terrorist groups to validate their ideologies. Suicide bombers are the best illustration of this; a great part of their motivation lies in the promise of a glorious afterlife which has been earned by their zealous devotion to their faith. Furthermore, it becomes even easier for them to take the lives of others as religious indoctrination objectifies foreigners, reducing them to one-dimensional ‘enemies of the faith’.
The targets that terrorists choose may be the most important factor of all. Terrorist attacks target people who have not consented to engage in any form of warfare, and unlike soldiers these civilians do not have the benefit of armoured vests or vehicles. Terrorist acts come without warning and it seems impossible for bereaved families to make sense of the deaths of their loved ones. The ruthlessness and blatant disregard for lives, combined with proud declarations made by the responsible parties, is only bound to engender a deep and pervasive hatred among the victims. It can be compared to the way criminals who target children are considered by their fellow criminals to be the worst human beings.
But is it really true that terrorists always choose violence over peaceful solutions? Is there a choice? I guess the answer is highly dependent on the context… hmm. I don’t know. Haha. I guess there are also other reasons for the perpetuation of terrorist violence, but these were the first few that came to mind…
Reference list
Scott Sernau. (2006). “Global Problems: The Search for Equity, Peace, and
Sustainability”. Chapter 6: War, States of Terror. Pearson.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Response to Lecture 5: 'Crime'
Singapore is a country with many characteristics that seem contrary to those seen as contributing to high crime rates. It has a low unemployment rate; 3.5% of the eligible population in 2006 was unemployed (Singstat on Key Household Income Trends, 2007)). Drug trading here is met with harsh legislation (Traffickers can easily face the death penalty) and law enforcement. There is a growing income inequality gap but only a small fraction of citizens here can actually be said to lack basic needs. In a country with 4 million people and a high population density, 2006 saw 17 murder cases, 118 rape cases, and 361 rioting cases (Singapore Police Force on Index Crimes, 2006), numbers that are small when taken from a statistical perspective. From 2005 to 2007, there have been reductions in the number of crime cases recorded by the Singapore police force. However, as good as this record appears to be, I feel that certain aspects of Singapore as a society continue to act as structural influences towards crime, and this is manifested in cases of outrage of modesty, and thefts by youths. I will elaborate using these two examples.
Reported outrage of modesty cases in 2006 amounted to 1280 cases. One in four of these cases took place at common HDB block areas such as lifts, staircases/staircase landings, and void decks. Except for void decks, these are small, confined areas out of immediate public view. All of these places share the characteristic of being unattended by adults for the larger part of the day. Girls who are schooling are likely to be targeted as they return home at hours where most adults are away at work, and this supports the idea that the increasing distances between work, leisure, and residence have created more opportunities for criminals to prey on lone individuals who have no passers-by to help them. There is also less security in the sense that the presence of a strongly-knit community is absent; adults working for most part of the day and resting in the night are unlikely to form strong ties with block mates, not even their next-door neighbors. People find themselves isolated in this way, in spite of the huge number of people living in their immediate vicinity.
Shop thefts make up roughly 29% of all youth crime cases (1,260 out of 4,280 arrests). Singaporean youths do not enter shops to steal bags of rice or other essentials for living; they often take small items that are non-essential to basic living, ranging from cheap items like stationery to expensive items such as bags or hand phones. If their reason for stealing is not one of economic need, then other factors must be considered. The personal thrill of the act of stealing is one reason, but in the larger context of society it can be suggested that a culture that connects material possessions with self-worth drives youths to take risks of breaking the law in order to possess the same things that their more affluent peers do.
Materialistic and individualistic orientations are strong influences on crime in Singapore; white-collar crimes are a growing phenomenon here, and often they are committed by people who are already in strong financial positions. Singapore may now be dealing with wider and more pervasive manifestations of its culture in crime as well as other forms, and that may be a challenge that the government is ill-equipped to deal with in the years to come.
Reference list
Singapore Police Force on Index Crime. (2006). Statistics on Index Crimes, 2006. Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.spf.gov.sg/stats/stats2006_youtharrests.htm
Statistics Singapore on Income Indicators. (2007). Key Household Income Trends, (2007). Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s14.pdf
Reported outrage of modesty cases in 2006 amounted to 1280 cases. One in four of these cases took place at common HDB block areas such as lifts, staircases/staircase landings, and void decks. Except for void decks, these are small, confined areas out of immediate public view. All of these places share the characteristic of being unattended by adults for the larger part of the day. Girls who are schooling are likely to be targeted as they return home at hours where most adults are away at work, and this supports the idea that the increasing distances between work, leisure, and residence have created more opportunities for criminals to prey on lone individuals who have no passers-by to help them. There is also less security in the sense that the presence of a strongly-knit community is absent; adults working for most part of the day and resting in the night are unlikely to form strong ties with block mates, not even their next-door neighbors. People find themselves isolated in this way, in spite of the huge number of people living in their immediate vicinity.
Shop thefts make up roughly 29% of all youth crime cases (1,260 out of 4,280 arrests). Singaporean youths do not enter shops to steal bags of rice or other essentials for living; they often take small items that are non-essential to basic living, ranging from cheap items like stationery to expensive items such as bags or hand phones. If their reason for stealing is not one of economic need, then other factors must be considered. The personal thrill of the act of stealing is one reason, but in the larger context of society it can be suggested that a culture that connects material possessions with self-worth drives youths to take risks of breaking the law in order to possess the same things that their more affluent peers do.
Materialistic and individualistic orientations are strong influences on crime in Singapore; white-collar crimes are a growing phenomenon here, and often they are committed by people who are already in strong financial positions. Singapore may now be dealing with wider and more pervasive manifestations of its culture in crime as well as other forms, and that may be a challenge that the government is ill-equipped to deal with in the years to come.
Reference list
Singapore Police Force on Index Crime. (2006). Statistics on Index Crimes, 2006. Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.spf.gov.sg/stats/stats2006_youtharrests.htm
Statistics Singapore on Income Indicators. (2007). Key Household Income Trends, (2007). Retrieved on 7 September 2008 from http://www.singstat.gov.sg/pubn/papers/people/op-s14.pdf
Individualism, Capitalism, Power of words
HS101: The Charon Chp7 readings mentioned individualism, but it's still a hazy concept to me. I can accept that individualism has some roots in undiscerning meritocracy (Recent meritocracy debate in Spore about what constitutes merit) and materialistic culture. I can visualize it as having (but not necessarily) some links to moral subjectivism. I think it can be partly characterized as a reduced sense of owing something to society (meritocracy can encourage the idea that my success is based on my work and talent alone, not the influence or contributions of my society), as well as a sense of belonging to, and having pride in one's society. Still, I feel there's quite a lot I don't understand about this concept...
HS102: Reading all this conspiracy theory material about the power of discourse makes me think that the way the government shapes its language and discourse to its own ends is kinda cool, in a sick and twisted way.
HS103: Capitalism. I have a lot of unresolved thoughts about this, whether or not it is greatly responsible for social inequality, or whether or not it has evolved to encompass things once considered as externalities (factors that are ignored by market forces e.g. environment, social costs... They are not externalities if they become factored in). However, I think I can safely conclude that Capitalism has generated a lot more production volume, and has taken that production volume and applied it to the mass production of an unreasonably large pile of non-essential crap. Luxury cars, mp3s, clothes... I'm not saying I don't like these things but seriously, A LOT of these things are produced. We don't even use half of them. Think of all the commercially dominant Ipods being bought off the shelves. Now think of all the mountain-high piles of 'inferior' mp3s (cough c r e a t i v e cough*) left unsold. Hmm... I guess I'm being a bit biased but I'm sure there's some truth in this statement...
HS102: Reading all this conspiracy theory material about the power of discourse makes me think that the way the government shapes its language and discourse to its own ends is kinda cool, in a sick and twisted way.
HS103: Capitalism. I have a lot of unresolved thoughts about this, whether or not it is greatly responsible for social inequality, or whether or not it has evolved to encompass things once considered as externalities (factors that are ignored by market forces e.g. environment, social costs... They are not externalities if they become factored in). However, I think I can safely conclude that Capitalism has generated a lot more production volume, and has taken that production volume and applied it to the mass production of an unreasonably large pile of non-essential crap. Luxury cars, mp3s, clothes... I'm not saying I don't like these things but seriously, A LOT of these things are produced. We don't even use half of them. Think of all the commercially dominant Ipods being bought off the shelves. Now think of all the mountain-high piles of 'inferior' mp3s (cough c r e a t i v e cough*) left unsold. Hmm... I guess I'm being a bit biased but I'm sure there's some truth in this statement...
Non-assignment thoughts: Ethnocentrism
Thoughts about ideas brought up during school have been piling up in my head.
HS101's topic about ethnocentrism got me thinking. Ethnocentrism is defined as 'the tendency to use our own cultural values, ideas, and rules as a starting point for thinking about and judging other people.' It can often lead to the condemnation and punishment of others who have differing values. It tends to lead to the dehumanizing of outsiders within our own perception; this attitude makes it hard for us to see other people's points of view.
Ethnocentrism is admitted to be a natural tendency of human beings, but at the same time it is unambiguously characterized as a lack of awareness, a negative trait... I think that it's important to objectively question our beliefs and ideals, but assuming that we find resolutions to these questions, there comes a point when you either cease to question or you simply doubt for the sake of ritual.
To avoid the pitfalls of ethnocentrism, we should actively discern between matters of preference and matters that require complete adherence to, so that irrational conflict does not occur over pointless matters. As much as is feasible, the boundaries of our shared values should extend to include as many people as possible, recognizing whatever may be universally common between human beings. Shared values can theoretically fall into two categories:
- Values that are discovered to be shared in some form or another by the vast majority of civilizations in the world.
- Values that we choose to agree upon, regardless of whether a 'universal mandate' has been proven to exist or not.
After we've thought hard about these questions and come to conclusions, there ought to come a time when we embrace these ideas in a most ethnocentric manner. Ethnocentrism has often encouraged the rationalization of inhumanity and oppression, but leading a life in constant doubt of the concreteness of values is only going to encourage debased humanity and reckless freedom. There is a fine line between sincere searching for answers and rationalization, not by value judgments but by the lack of them.
Ethnocentric thought and relativistic thought should each have their seasons in our lives. The value of ethnocentrism is not just social cohesion/sense of belonging, nor is it simply a way for us to feel anchored or make sense of things; ethnocentrism provides a sort of moral energy that propels us to action. The Charon readings emphasize the relations between ethnocentrism and destructive conflict. However, it should be accepted that ethnocentric expectations of oneself can be beneficial to others. If one's ethnocentrism demands charity and personal sacrifice, the results can be food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and encouragement for the destitute.
My personal view is that successively better-educated generations are becoming more interested in questioning the basic assumptions of their social lives and ideologies. However, if you take a look at the key ideas in Charon's text, one of them is, "Values are matters of preference, and it is impossible to prove that certain ones are the true ones for all to follow." This statement is being pronounced as an intellectual, enlightened, and objective viewpoint; the trouble is that statements like this discursively shape the idea that real, universally held values are not substantial, and they can be easily be misinterpreted as, "There isn't really such a thing as right or wrong."
I believe that the assumption should always be held that, somewhere within collective mess of this world's clashing values, there are values that are innate (waiting to be discovered). Objective observation and questioning is the way that we can work towards discovering these values, and ethnocentric adherence to what values we have on hand should be what takes place when it becomes unreasonable to question further.
HS101's topic about ethnocentrism got me thinking. Ethnocentrism is defined as 'the tendency to use our own cultural values, ideas, and rules as a starting point for thinking about and judging other people.' It can often lead to the condemnation and punishment of others who have differing values. It tends to lead to the dehumanizing of outsiders within our own perception; this attitude makes it hard for us to see other people's points of view.
Ethnocentrism is admitted to be a natural tendency of human beings, but at the same time it is unambiguously characterized as a lack of awareness, a negative trait... I think that it's important to objectively question our beliefs and ideals, but assuming that we find resolutions to these questions, there comes a point when you either cease to question or you simply doubt for the sake of ritual.
To avoid the pitfalls of ethnocentrism, we should actively discern between matters of preference and matters that require complete adherence to, so that irrational conflict does not occur over pointless matters. As much as is feasible, the boundaries of our shared values should extend to include as many people as possible, recognizing whatever may be universally common between human beings. Shared values can theoretically fall into two categories:
- Values that are discovered to be shared in some form or another by the vast majority of civilizations in the world.
- Values that we choose to agree upon, regardless of whether a 'universal mandate' has been proven to exist or not.
After we've thought hard about these questions and come to conclusions, there ought to come a time when we embrace these ideas in a most ethnocentric manner. Ethnocentrism has often encouraged the rationalization of inhumanity and oppression, but leading a life in constant doubt of the concreteness of values is only going to encourage debased humanity and reckless freedom. There is a fine line between sincere searching for answers and rationalization, not by value judgments but by the lack of them.
Ethnocentric thought and relativistic thought should each have their seasons in our lives. The value of ethnocentrism is not just social cohesion/sense of belonging, nor is it simply a way for us to feel anchored or make sense of things; ethnocentrism provides a sort of moral energy that propels us to action. The Charon readings emphasize the relations between ethnocentrism and destructive conflict. However, it should be accepted that ethnocentric expectations of oneself can be beneficial to others. If one's ethnocentrism demands charity and personal sacrifice, the results can be food for the hungry, shelter for the homeless, and encouragement for the destitute.
My personal view is that successively better-educated generations are becoming more interested in questioning the basic assumptions of their social lives and ideologies. However, if you take a look at the key ideas in Charon's text, one of them is, "Values are matters of preference, and it is impossible to prove that certain ones are the true ones for all to follow." This statement is being pronounced as an intellectual, enlightened, and objective viewpoint; the trouble is that statements like this discursively shape the idea that real, universally held values are not substantial, and they can be easily be misinterpreted as, "There isn't really such a thing as right or wrong."
I believe that the assumption should always be held that, somewhere within collective mess of this world's clashing values, there are values that are innate (waiting to be discovered). Objective observation and questioning is the way that we can work towards discovering these values, and ethnocentric adherence to what values we have on hand should be what takes place when it becomes unreasonable to question further.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)