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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment