The Short-Circuiting of Democracy
Saad Shafqat September 21, 1998
#25 Posted by shafqat on September 29, 1998 6:52:05 pm
Wasiq:
I appreciate your very lucid comments. Your argument is sound and, given your assumptions, I do not disagree. I was, however, coming at this from a different angle. Instead of minimum thresholds, I’m thinking of continuous variables. Here’s what I’m trying to say:
People differ in their ability to make the right electoral choices. Let’s call this ability X. At present, we have no good way to measure this ability - it may be a composite of intelligence, education, awareness, whatever. The point is that it exists and is measurable in principle. Like other human attributes, we can expect X to be distributed in populations as a continuous variable with, to use your construction, a mean and a standard deviation. So long as the standard deviation is greater than 0, a minority of individuals will have greater X than the majority. Moreover, we can expect this to ALWAYS be the case, because we can expect the standard deviation to ALWAYS be greater than 0. Since people with more X will make better electoral decisions, it will be best if the electorate was limited to these individuals, i.e., the right-tail minority a few standard deviations removed from the mean (we can choose any arbitrary cut-off, so long as a majority is excluded). Democracy is considered the ‘best’ system of government today but it is in reality an imperfect system predicated on a compromise. The compromise is that since we have no good way of measuring X, we decide not to worry about it and let the majority decide. But because of the existence of X with standard deviation greater than 0, we know the majority doesn’t make the best possible decisions. That is all I am saying.
Your remarks about the unfortunate misuse of Gaussian statistics by the authors of ‘The Bell Curve’ are right on.
saad shafqat
I appreciate your very lucid comments. Your argument is sound and, given your assumptions, I do not disagree. I was, however, coming at this from a different angle. Instead of minimum thresholds, I’m thinking of continuous variables. Here’s what I’m trying to say:
People differ in their ability to make the right electoral choices. Let’s call this ability X. At present, we have no good way to measure this ability - it may be a composite of intelligence, education, awareness, whatever. The point is that it exists and is measurable in principle. Like other human attributes, we can expect X to be distributed in populations as a continuous variable with, to use your construction, a mean and a standard deviation. So long as the standard deviation is greater than 0, a minority of individuals will have greater X than the majority. Moreover, we can expect this to ALWAYS be the case, because we can expect the standard deviation to ALWAYS be greater than 0. Since people with more X will make better electoral decisions, it will be best if the electorate was limited to these individuals, i.e., the right-tail minority a few standard deviations removed from the mean (we can choose any arbitrary cut-off, so long as a majority is excluded). Democracy is considered the ‘best’ system of government today but it is in reality an imperfect system predicated on a compromise. The compromise is that since we have no good way of measuring X, we decide not to worry about it and let the majority decide. But because of the existence of X with standard deviation greater than 0, we know the majority doesn’t make the best possible decisions. That is all I am saying.
Your remarks about the unfortunate misuse of Gaussian statistics by the authors of ‘The Bell Curve’ are right on.
saad shafqat
reply to this interact
write a new interact
add to favorites
flag objectionable content
#24 Posted by ferozk on September 28, 1998 7:56:54 pm
Re: Saad Shafqat
Thanks for the comments. I am sorry I could not reply sooner, but I was off camping hunting tracking deers with some friends. I joined them to go deer hunting. Did not see any deers, but I heard an elk and saw some black bear tracks. There is something to be said about wandering off in the wilderness with an Hechler & Koch rifle (Pakistani Army version G3) and killing something for the sheer hell of it. It is so primal and the blood lust is really intoxicating. Thank God for the Second Amendment !
As to your comments, I would like to reply, but the discussion has already moved on and there seems to be no point in revisiting it here. However, there seems to be a point of difference on our definations of the word ``citizen``. I will not play the Clinton game of defining everything here, but will say again, the feedback was appreciated. A word to the wise; you do not need to be enthused about politics, just indifferent to everything around you to succed in it. The Holy Trinty of politics is: I, Myself and Me and that is all you need to care about and the rest can just go to hell.
Thanks for the comments. I am sorry I could not reply sooner, but I was off camping hunting tracking deers with some friends. I joined them to go deer hunting. Did not see any deers, but I heard an elk and saw some black bear tracks. There is something to be said about wandering off in the wilderness with an Hechler & Koch rifle (Pakistani Army version G3) and killing something for the sheer hell of it. It is so primal and the blood lust is really intoxicating. Thank God for the Second Amendment !
As to your comments, I would like to reply, but the discussion has already moved on and there seems to be no point in revisiting it here. However, there seems to be a point of difference on our definations of the word ``citizen``. I will not play the Clinton game of defining everything here, but will say again, the feedback was appreciated. A word to the wise; you do not need to be enthused about politics, just indifferent to everything around you to succed in it. The Holy Trinty of politics is: I, Myself and Me and that is all you need to care about and the rest can just go to hell.
#23 Posted by wasiq on September 28, 1998 3:38:26 pm
Re: Saad
Actually I was talking precisely about the Gaussian (the bell curve), since you mentioned it in your reply. The Gaussian, as you well know, is characterized by its mean and its standard deviation. You state that the majority of the human population CANNOT qualify, absolutely, the basic requirements for the functioning of a democratic society. There are two reasons that you give. First, that the average person is not ``smart`` enough (let me call this the problem of ignorant masses). The second reason that you give is that the smartest people in the world are many time smarter than the average people (let me call it the problem of intellectual disparity). Now what I am saying is simply this:
Let`s say that at a given time a minimal ``intelligence`` (let`s call it A) is required by the society in order to have a ``successful`` implementation of democracy. Following your assertion, the ``intelligence`` of the society will be profiled by a Gaussian, say of mean B and standard deviation, dB.
It`s obvious, if B is greater than A, then, by definition, we should have a successful democratic society. What I am saying is that education pushes the mean of the population higher and higher. Universal education in a society, therefore, is the solution to the problem of ``ignorant masses``.
In addition, I think, that this also solves the problem of ``intellectual disparity``. This is so, because societies implement selection, and the inevitable outcome of a selection process is the emergence of a class of fit individuals. Sure, some are fitter than others, but they are all progressively fitter than their predecessors. Using the Gaussian analogy, this leads to a reduction in the standard deviation, dB.
In a society with universal education and awareness, not only will people be, on average, more intelligent, there will also be less disparity between the intelligence of an average person and the most intelligent people.
This is the process that I referred to as ``bunching``. In a limited sense we see it everyday in areas where the selection rules are clearly defined. Consider baseball for example. Babe Ruth was a great player, who towered above his peers. His batting average was, say, five standard deviations above the mean. For convenience let`s say that the mean batting average was 0.23 and the standard deviation was 0.02. This implies that Babe Ruth`s batting average was 0.23 plus 5 times 0.02, or 0.33. However, as one follows the evolution of baseball statistics over the years, one finds that not only do the batting averages increase with time, their spread also decreases. So the batting average today is say 0.28, and the standard deviation is 0.01. What that translates into is that the best baseball players of today, may still be, say five standard deviations away from the mean (with a batting average of 0.33), but the averages of their peers are not 10 points lower but only 5 points lower.
This leads me to another issue, which is of the application of mathematical models to societies. While the application of Gaussian statistics may seem to be reasonable, too much reliance on them and/or not understanding their limits, leads to inevitable fiascos like the book ``The Bell Curve``. That book, which also propogated the idea of a ``mathematical impossibility``, was absurd in its assumptions and conclusions, as any undergraduate conversant in the basics of statistics could have verified. However, in their eagerness to come to a certain conclusion, which it seemed they had arrived at before they started writing the book, they opened themselves to criticisms of the most basic level.
Actually I was talking precisely about the Gaussian (the bell curve), since you mentioned it in your reply. The Gaussian, as you well know, is characterized by its mean and its standard deviation. You state that the majority of the human population CANNOT qualify, absolutely, the basic requirements for the functioning of a democratic society. There are two reasons that you give. First, that the average person is not ``smart`` enough (let me call this the problem of ignorant masses). The second reason that you give is that the smartest people in the world are many time smarter than the average people (let me call it the problem of intellectual disparity). Now what I am saying is simply this:
Let`s say that at a given time a minimal ``intelligence`` (let`s call it A) is required by the society in order to have a ``successful`` implementation of democracy. Following your assertion, the ``intelligence`` of the society will be profiled by a Gaussian, say of mean B and standard deviation, dB.
It`s obvious, if B is greater than A, then, by definition, we should have a successful democratic society. What I am saying is that education pushes the mean of the population higher and higher. Universal education in a society, therefore, is the solution to the problem of ``ignorant masses``.
In addition, I think, that this also solves the problem of ``intellectual disparity``. This is so, because societies implement selection, and the inevitable outcome of a selection process is the emergence of a class of fit individuals. Sure, some are fitter than others, but they are all progressively fitter than their predecessors. Using the Gaussian analogy, this leads to a reduction in the standard deviation, dB.
In a society with universal education and awareness, not only will people be, on average, more intelligent, there will also be less disparity between the intelligence of an average person and the most intelligent people.
This is the process that I referred to as ``bunching``. In a limited sense we see it everyday in areas where the selection rules are clearly defined. Consider baseball for example. Babe Ruth was a great player, who towered above his peers. His batting average was, say, five standard deviations above the mean. For convenience let`s say that the mean batting average was 0.23 and the standard deviation was 0.02. This implies that Babe Ruth`s batting average was 0.23 plus 5 times 0.02, or 0.33. However, as one follows the evolution of baseball statistics over the years, one finds that not only do the batting averages increase with time, their spread also decreases. So the batting average today is say 0.28, and the standard deviation is 0.01. What that translates into is that the best baseball players of today, may still be, say five standard deviations away from the mean (with a batting average of 0.33), but the averages of their peers are not 10 points lower but only 5 points lower.
This leads me to another issue, which is of the application of mathematical models to societies. While the application of Gaussian statistics may seem to be reasonable, too much reliance on them and/or not understanding their limits, leads to inevitable fiascos like the book ``The Bell Curve``. That book, which also propogated the idea of a ``mathematical impossibility``, was absurd in its assumptions and conclusions, as any undergraduate conversant in the basics of statistics could have verified. However, in their eagerness to come to a certain conclusion, which it seemed they had arrived at before they started writing the book, they opened themselves to criticisms of the most basic level.
#22 Posted by Kafir on September 26, 1998 1:12:15 pm
Wasiq:
Good questions. You seem to have understood the Baha`i electoral process well, but let me sum it up again with some more specifics:
Every Baha`i locality in the world, Karachi for instance, holds annual elections in which every Baha`i 21 years of age or older votes for nine individuals in his/her locality to serve on the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA). The members of the Karachi LSA then vote for any nine individuals in the Pakistani Baha`i community to be elected to the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA). The NSA members also serve one-year terms and, every five years, the NSAs of the world vote for nine individuals in the global Baha`i community to serve on the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) located on Mount Carmel near Haifa, Israel. All Baha`i adults are eligible for election, whether they`ve served on assemblies before or not.
``Can the Electors elect themselves to be the Representatives?``
Yes, if they think they exemplify the ideals of assembly members and if they think their presence on the assembly would contribute to the diversity of the assembly.
``Who defines the spiritual, ethical, and other ideals of the society?``
These ideals are derived from Baha`i scripture which is very detailed and organized and clearly interpreted by the prophet Baha`u`llah, his appointed successor Abdul-Baha, Abdul-Baha`s successor Shoghi Effendi, and his appointed succssor, the first Universal House of Justice elected in 1963. Only the UHJ now has the authority of interpretation.
``Are there any basic scholastic or institutional requirements in order to qualify as a potential Elector, i.e. does a person need to have a degree in religion?``
No, this system is meant for all communities across the globe, from the small farming village in Papua New Guinea to intellectual powerhouses like Cambridge, MA, or Stanford, CA. Obviously, one couldn`t find degreed individuals in all rural third world villages. The scriptures recommend that those participating in the election should consider ``the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience.`` In practice, individuals with a recognized maturity, experience and humility tend to be elected - instead of simply those who might be bold or egotistical enough to run for office.
``How does such a system respond to new ideas, especially if it involves a change in the religious dimensions of the society?``
Tough question. Since this system is meant for Baha`is, it is assumed that all members agree to the spiritual teachings of the faith, and ultimate interpretation and jurisdiction over new ideas and issues rest with the Universal House of Justice.
For a secular society that would adopt the Baha`i administrative system, this question would of course be a bit thornier. I suppose a secular society, such as the US, would base its operational ideals on universally accepted humanistic principles rather than on a specific scripture (i.e., the US Constitution or the UN Charter). But the question arises, ``Who would set the rules and determine the principles?`` For a religious community, the answer is obvious: the Prophet and His successors. For a secular society, the answer isn`t so easy.
Saad:
I`m glad we agree for once :-). My only point, which perhaps I wasn`t clear about, is that the moral and intellectual elites shouldn`t _force_ their ideas on the People, but rather offer their views in a spirit of charity and compassion, letting the People ultimately decide whether to accept their guidance or not. This may sound idealistic, but I`d much prefer this to letting the elites _mandate_ their ideas and allowing their hubris to run wild.
Good questions. You seem to have understood the Baha`i electoral process well, but let me sum it up again with some more specifics:
Every Baha`i locality in the world, Karachi for instance, holds annual elections in which every Baha`i 21 years of age or older votes for nine individuals in his/her locality to serve on the Local Spiritual Assembly (LSA). The members of the Karachi LSA then vote for any nine individuals in the Pakistani Baha`i community to be elected to the National Spiritual Assembly (NSA). The NSA members also serve one-year terms and, every five years, the NSAs of the world vote for nine individuals in the global Baha`i community to serve on the Universal House of Justice (UHJ) located on Mount Carmel near Haifa, Israel. All Baha`i adults are eligible for election, whether they`ve served on assemblies before or not.
``Can the Electors elect themselves to be the Representatives?``
Yes, if they think they exemplify the ideals of assembly members and if they think their presence on the assembly would contribute to the diversity of the assembly.
``Who defines the spiritual, ethical, and other ideals of the society?``
These ideals are derived from Baha`i scripture which is very detailed and organized and clearly interpreted by the prophet Baha`u`llah, his appointed successor Abdul-Baha, Abdul-Baha`s successor Shoghi Effendi, and his appointed succssor, the first Universal House of Justice elected in 1963. Only the UHJ now has the authority of interpretation.
``Are there any basic scholastic or institutional requirements in order to qualify as a potential Elector, i.e. does a person need to have a degree in religion?``
No, this system is meant for all communities across the globe, from the small farming village in Papua New Guinea to intellectual powerhouses like Cambridge, MA, or Stanford, CA. Obviously, one couldn`t find degreed individuals in all rural third world villages. The scriptures recommend that those participating in the election should consider ``the names of only those who can best combine the necessary qualities of unquestioned loyalty, of selfless devotion, of a well-trained mind, of recognized ability and mature experience.`` In practice, individuals with a recognized maturity, experience and humility tend to be elected - instead of simply those who might be bold or egotistical enough to run for office.
``How does such a system respond to new ideas, especially if it involves a change in the religious dimensions of the society?``
Tough question. Since this system is meant for Baha`is, it is assumed that all members agree to the spiritual teachings of the faith, and ultimate interpretation and jurisdiction over new ideas and issues rest with the Universal House of Justice.
For a secular society that would adopt the Baha`i administrative system, this question would of course be a bit thornier. I suppose a secular society, such as the US, would base its operational ideals on universally accepted humanistic principles rather than on a specific scripture (i.e., the US Constitution or the UN Charter). But the question arises, ``Who would set the rules and determine the principles?`` For a religious community, the answer is obvious: the Prophet and His successors. For a secular society, the answer isn`t so easy.
Saad:
I`m glad we agree for once :-). My only point, which perhaps I wasn`t clear about, is that the moral and intellectual elites shouldn`t _force_ their ideas on the People, but rather offer their views in a spirit of charity and compassion, letting the People ultimately decide whether to accept their guidance or not. This may sound idealistic, but I`d much prefer this to letting the elites _mandate_ their ideas and allowing their hubris to run wild.
#21 Posted by shafqat on September 26, 1998 7:55:23 am
Kafir:
You write: ``The answer lies not in curtailing the democratic process, but in educating the citizenry in what you (as an enlightened person) believe the best course of action or way of living should be.``
Well said. But ... `enlightened people` deciding how the rest of society should behave and live ? I agree with you, but I should point out that this is elitism, not democracy. My argument is simply that your `enlightened` people will always be in a small minority, way off to one side of the normal distribution. In a democracy, the hump of the curve - not the tails - decides what everyone should do.
Wasiq:
You valiantly make the point that the mean educational level of any people can be elevated to the point that the hump of the curve becomes more enlightened and starts making better decisions. But I don`t share your optimism and, besides, it may be a mathematical impossibility. If it is a mathematical certainty that the Gaussian distribution will apply to any large human population, then the right-sided tail will always be capable of making better decisions than the hump. The hump may become smart, but the right tail will always be smarter and have better things to offer for the overall good of that group. I think what you`re describing is not a bell curve but a rectangle - a flat and uniform `hump`, perpendicular drops at the edges and no tails. Like perpetual motion machines, such things may not exist in nature.
saad shafqat
You write: ``The answer lies not in curtailing the democratic process, but in educating the citizenry in what you (as an enlightened person) believe the best course of action or way of living should be.``
Well said. But ... `enlightened people` deciding how the rest of society should behave and live ? I agree with you, but I should point out that this is elitism, not democracy. My argument is simply that your `enlightened` people will always be in a small minority, way off to one side of the normal distribution. In a democracy, the hump of the curve - not the tails - decides what everyone should do.
Wasiq:
You valiantly make the point that the mean educational level of any people can be elevated to the point that the hump of the curve becomes more enlightened and starts making better decisions. But I don`t share your optimism and, besides, it may be a mathematical impossibility. If it is a mathematical certainty that the Gaussian distribution will apply to any large human population, then the right-sided tail will always be capable of making better decisions than the hump. The hump may become smart, but the right tail will always be smarter and have better things to offer for the overall good of that group. I think what you`re describing is not a bell curve but a rectangle - a flat and uniform `hump`, perpendicular drops at the edges and no tails. Like perpetual motion machines, such things may not exist in nature.
saad shafqat
#20 Posted by wasiq on September 25, 1998 1:03:40 pm
Re: Kafir
Actually the Baha`i system sounds very interesting. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding how it works:
First, the people (let`s call them Voters) elect a set of people (let`s call them Electors) who represent the ideals of the society. Then these elected people, i.e. the Electors elect the Representatives to the assembly. Finally, the Representatives elect the members of the international governing body (let`s call them Governers).
In current democracy, step two is missing, and Voters directly elect the Representatives. My questions are the following:
(a) Can the Electors elect themselves to be the Representatives?
(b) Who defines the spiritual, ethical and other ideals of the society?
(c) Are there any basic scholastic or institutional requirements in order to qualify as a potential Elector i.e. does a person need to have a degree in religion?
(d) How does such a system respond to new ideas, especially if it involves a change in the religious dimensions of the society?
regards
Wasiq
Actually the Baha`i system sounds very interesting. Please correct me if I am wrong in understanding how it works:
First, the people (let`s call them Voters) elect a set of people (let`s call them Electors) who represent the ideals of the society. Then these elected people, i.e. the Electors elect the Representatives to the assembly. Finally, the Representatives elect the members of the international governing body (let`s call them Governers).
In current democracy, step two is missing, and Voters directly elect the Representatives. My questions are the following:
(a) Can the Electors elect themselves to be the Representatives?
(b) Who defines the spiritual, ethical and other ideals of the society?
(c) Are there any basic scholastic or institutional requirements in order to qualify as a potential Elector i.e. does a person need to have a degree in religion?
(d) How does such a system respond to new ideas, especially if it involves a change in the religious dimensions of the society?
regards
Wasiq
#19 Posted by Kafir on September 24, 1998 7:07:58 pm
Re: Wasiq and Anita
Thanks for the clarifications. I understand your questions and positions better now.
Wasiq asks:
``Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?``
No, I agree that democracy is not a panacea ensuring justice for all and eternal sustainability, but I still think it`s better than any other alternative we have. It`s much easier for an all-powerful individual or a small group of unaccountable leaders (i.e., despots, tyrants, monarchs, mullahs, etc.) to commit acts of injustice and sanction those acts than it is for a majority of a population to do so. True, genocidal Bosnia and Nazi Germany are examples of democratic societies committing mass injustice, but these are rare exceptions. Injustice by self-serving despots or despotic groups like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Sultan Abdul-Aziz, the Saudi royals, Pol Pot, and their like is much more common. Democracy is the least of all evils.
``In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another?``
A very good question that a lot of people are concerned about today. The whole campaign finance reform initiative is a step in this direction, but always manages to get sidetracked by more sensational issues. Ideally, our elected representatives should be able to serve us without worrying about where the funds for their next election will come from. Some citizens have suggested that there be a small tax which would create a fund pool for prospective candidates who could run for office without corporate contributions.
One model to consider is the Baha`i system of elections and administration. In this view, all citizens of legal age vote annualy for representatives to their local assemblies. However, there are no nominations or campaigning. Citizens vote for a certain number of individuals in their community who exemplify high moral, spiritual, and intellectual standards and who, as a whole, would reflect the diversity of their community. These elected representatives
then, in turn, elect the rep`s to the national assembly through the same process, and the national rep`s elect the international governing body in the same way. This process works quite well, as it avoids the pitfalls of special interests and campaign fundraising. Once elected, the members of these assemblies are ultimately responsible to the spiritual principles of which they are stewards, not to the people who elected them. However, if the people decide that these representatives are not doing a good job, they can choose not to re-elect them the next year.
Of course, this system requires that the citizens remain involved in their communities and get to know all the members so that hey can make informed votes. It also requires the citizens to agree upon a set of values, beliefs, and principles by which the elected rep`s should operate. Still, it`s an intriguing concept...
Thanks for the clarifications. I understand your questions and positions better now.
Wasiq asks:
``Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?``
No, I agree that democracy is not a panacea ensuring justice for all and eternal sustainability, but I still think it`s better than any other alternative we have. It`s much easier for an all-powerful individual or a small group of unaccountable leaders (i.e., despots, tyrants, monarchs, mullahs, etc.) to commit acts of injustice and sanction those acts than it is for a majority of a population to do so. True, genocidal Bosnia and Nazi Germany are examples of democratic societies committing mass injustice, but these are rare exceptions. Injustice by self-serving despots or despotic groups like Saddam Hussein, Stalin, Sultan Abdul-Aziz, the Saudi royals, Pol Pot, and their like is much more common. Democracy is the least of all evils.
``In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another?``
A very good question that a lot of people are concerned about today. The whole campaign finance reform initiative is a step in this direction, but always manages to get sidetracked by more sensational issues. Ideally, our elected representatives should be able to serve us without worrying about where the funds for their next election will come from. Some citizens have suggested that there be a small tax which would create a fund pool for prospective candidates who could run for office without corporate contributions.
One model to consider is the Baha`i system of elections and administration. In this view, all citizens of legal age vote annualy for representatives to their local assemblies. However, there are no nominations or campaigning. Citizens vote for a certain number of individuals in their community who exemplify high moral, spiritual, and intellectual standards and who, as a whole, would reflect the diversity of their community. These elected representatives
then, in turn, elect the rep`s to the national assembly through the same process, and the national rep`s elect the international governing body in the same way. This process works quite well, as it avoids the pitfalls of special interests and campaign fundraising. Once elected, the members of these assemblies are ultimately responsible to the spiritual principles of which they are stewards, not to the people who elected them. However, if the people decide that these representatives are not doing a good job, they can choose not to re-elect them the next year.
Of course, this system requires that the citizens remain involved in their communities and get to know all the members so that hey can make informed votes. It also requires the citizens to agree upon a set of values, beliefs, and principles by which the elected rep`s should operate. Still, it`s an intriguing concept...
#18 Posted by Anita Zaidi on September 23, 1998 9:30:52 pm
Another example of American democracy not representing the will of the People:
Proposed legislation to increase minimum wage by one dollar to $6.15/hour was defeated by the Senate, thanks to intense lobbying by business interests.
Now don`t anyone go around telling me that this is in the best interest of the people - they just happen not to know it.
The truth, as many have alluded to, is that the American democratic system just represents the interests of a very select minority of profitable enterprises. And the media is not concerned with informing the people about the world, just in making consumers out of them. Its the revenue that drives the content, which has to be sensationalized to the nth degree to ensure a more marketable product.
Kafir: If we take the extreme reductionist view i.e. reducing democracy to its bare essence by saying that it is basically a method of implementing a set of ideals developed by a group of individuals who have as their goal, representing the ideals of the people they hope to govern, there is still nothing that ensures that the people will want equity and justice for all. Education certainly doesn`t ensure it. I will quote the Bosnian example again. Hitler is another glaring example, a democratically elected leader chosen by a fairly well-educated population.
I am not necessarily taking a uniformly antidemocratic view here. Just trying to point out that it isn`t really the panacea, the cure-all that we`ve all been led to believe.
I like Wasiq`a example of what do you do when all you`ve got is a bunch of rich robbers to choose between, who by the very fact of their wealth can afford to exclude the have-nots from being in the run. And there you have it. In the end all we are left with is, modern ugly politics.
Anita
Proposed legislation to increase minimum wage by one dollar to $6.15/hour was defeated by the Senate, thanks to intense lobbying by business interests.
Now don`t anyone go around telling me that this is in the best interest of the people - they just happen not to know it.
The truth, as many have alluded to, is that the American democratic system just represents the interests of a very select minority of profitable enterprises. And the media is not concerned with informing the people about the world, just in making consumers out of them. Its the revenue that drives the content, which has to be sensationalized to the nth degree to ensure a more marketable product.
Kafir: If we take the extreme reductionist view i.e. reducing democracy to its bare essence by saying that it is basically a method of implementing a set of ideals developed by a group of individuals who have as their goal, representing the ideals of the people they hope to govern, there is still nothing that ensures that the people will want equity and justice for all. Education certainly doesn`t ensure it. I will quote the Bosnian example again. Hitler is another glaring example, a democratically elected leader chosen by a fairly well-educated population.
I am not necessarily taking a uniformly antidemocratic view here. Just trying to point out that it isn`t really the panacea, the cure-all that we`ve all been led to believe.
I like Wasiq`a example of what do you do when all you`ve got is a bunch of rich robbers to choose between, who by the very fact of their wealth can afford to exclude the have-nots from being in the run. And there you have it. In the end all we are left with is, modern ugly politics.
Anita
#17 Posted by RanaRansher on September 23, 1998 5:36:57 pm
Saad:
While I agree with a lot your analysis, I see some assumptions you made which, in my opinion, are flawed. THese flawed assumptions render your conclusion about the short circuiting of democracy useless.
Assumption1- You feel that the election of releasing these videos has been determined democratically. In your article, you have said that people (majority at least) uniformly oppose the release. Isn`t that contradictory ?
Assumption2 - You assume that the release of these videos (which only serve as sexual titillation since we all know the facts already) is something that is not good for the people. You then use this assumption to justify your statement that ``sooner or later people would want something that is not good for them`` and that will be a ``tragic glitch`` in the system of democracy.
Who is to say that the showing of these videos won`t actually benefit the people ?
People may realize that:
- regulation of electronic, print and TV media is wrong anyway. If there was enough erotica on TV, then maybe people wouldn`t want to see it on the news. People who seek sexual titillation would not need to do it at Bill/Monica/Hillary/Chelsea`s expense, they could just tune in to another channel and get it. They could walk down the street and buy better porn. This has happened in a lot of European countries and really questions whether it is right to determine what is appropriate/inappropriate for viewing. Why can`t the people decide ? This would leave the news channels for real news while people could get their sexual titillation via less intrusive (to others) means. As a society, the whole attitude towards sex, and material of sexual content would change.
- In any case, if you don`t want to see it, you don`t have to. Turn it off.
- Finally and most importantly, this is causing a lot of ``self-examination``. Questions like ``How would you react if it wasn`t Monica but Hillary doing all this in the Oval Office ?`` ``How would you react if it wasn`t Monica, but John Lewinsky ?``. These questions completely change the whole scenario and bring out the real prejudices/issues within you.
THere is also the question of punishment. A lot of people think all this humiliation for the parties involved is punishment for them. Something that will make everybody think twice before doing anything like this again. There is some merit to that argument too.
regards
RanaRansher
While I agree with a lot your analysis, I see some assumptions you made which, in my opinion, are flawed. THese flawed assumptions render your conclusion about the short circuiting of democracy useless.
Assumption1- You feel that the election of releasing these videos has been determined democratically. In your article, you have said that people (majority at least) uniformly oppose the release. Isn`t that contradictory ?
Assumption2 - You assume that the release of these videos (which only serve as sexual titillation since we all know the facts already) is something that is not good for the people. You then use this assumption to justify your statement that ``sooner or later people would want something that is not good for them`` and that will be a ``tragic glitch`` in the system of democracy.
Who is to say that the showing of these videos won`t actually benefit the people ?
People may realize that:
- regulation of electronic, print and TV media is wrong anyway. If there was enough erotica on TV, then maybe people wouldn`t want to see it on the news. People who seek sexual titillation would not need to do it at Bill/Monica/Hillary/Chelsea`s expense, they could just tune in to another channel and get it. They could walk down the street and buy better porn. This has happened in a lot of European countries and really questions whether it is right to determine what is appropriate/inappropriate for viewing. Why can`t the people decide ? This would leave the news channels for real news while people could get their sexual titillation via less intrusive (to others) means. As a society, the whole attitude towards sex, and material of sexual content would change.
- In any case, if you don`t want to see it, you don`t have to. Turn it off.
- Finally and most importantly, this is causing a lot of ``self-examination``. Questions like ``How would you react if it wasn`t Monica but Hillary doing all this in the Oval Office ?`` ``How would you react if it wasn`t Monica, but John Lewinsky ?``. These questions completely change the whole scenario and bring out the real prejudices/issues within you.
THere is also the question of punishment. A lot of people think all this humiliation for the parties involved is punishment for them. Something that will make everybody think twice before doing anything like this again. There is some merit to that argument too.
regards
RanaRansher
#16 Posted by wasiq on September 23, 1998 5:32:17 pm
Re: Saad
You`re right. I did not want to bring up the issue of implementation as an excuse though, just wanted to suggest that perhaps one could overhaul the implementation of democracy as it is to ensure a better resonance with its ideals. Anita has pointed out some good examples in her reply.
Also, you mentioned the infamous Gaussian ... as we all know, the Big-G is described by two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation. By uniformly educating the public, one may not only raise the mean, but also lower the standard deviation. Surely, we will always have outliers, but at least they would not be so far apart from the average.
This ``bunching`` must occur in the natural world because of competition and selection. With the appropriate selection criteria in a society, I see no reason why this should not happen also to the people....
Re: Kafir
I am sorry for not being clear in my reply.
What I meant by the first question was that democracy aims to establish a government that is in close accordance to the wishes of the people. I identified that to be the goal of democracy, i.e. to set up a people`s government. Now what I was asking was whether it can deliver on that goal in a real world?
The second question, is really contained in the first, but I was being too wordy... I think you have identified the principal goals, let me elaborate on them... I am just raising questions and not necessarily giving any answers.
1) ``citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare;``
I think the key words here are ``ability`` and ``welfare``. No person can be an ``expert`` in all fields, and therefore cannot make an informed decision/choice on the pros and cons of every particular policy. Also, what does one mean by the term ``citizens``? Are they perfect beings or are they real fallible human beings, who are driven by a medley of base as well as sublime motivations? For example, how can one expect a society of robbers to elect anyone but a robber? Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?
2) ``elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents;``
In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another? Elected leaders are humans, just like the people who are electing them, and therefore are susceptible to influence. Moreover, no person running for election can do so without support, material and moral. How does one dissociate the effects of that support on the views of the leader?
3) ``citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process;``
This ties in with the first two (all of them are interconnected I think). On what basis do the people decide whether the representatives are no longer serving their purpose? A bizzare exception could be: Is it better to have the current chaos in Pakistan or to have a stable government of a ``benevolent dictator`` who has the ability to lead Pakistan out of its morass? By this example, I am not condoning any undemocratic method, but just illustrating the complexity of issues involved.
You`re right. I did not want to bring up the issue of implementation as an excuse though, just wanted to suggest that perhaps one could overhaul the implementation of democracy as it is to ensure a better resonance with its ideals. Anita has pointed out some good examples in her reply.
Also, you mentioned the infamous Gaussian ... as we all know, the Big-G is described by two parameters, the mean and the standard deviation. By uniformly educating the public, one may not only raise the mean, but also lower the standard deviation. Surely, we will always have outliers, but at least they would not be so far apart from the average.
This ``bunching`` must occur in the natural world because of competition and selection. With the appropriate selection criteria in a society, I see no reason why this should not happen also to the people....
Re: Kafir
I am sorry for not being clear in my reply.
What I meant by the first question was that democracy aims to establish a government that is in close accordance to the wishes of the people. I identified that to be the goal of democracy, i.e. to set up a people`s government. Now what I was asking was whether it can deliver on that goal in a real world?
The second question, is really contained in the first, but I was being too wordy... I think you have identified the principal goals, let me elaborate on them... I am just raising questions and not necessarily giving any answers.
1) ``citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare;``
I think the key words here are ``ability`` and ``welfare``. No person can be an ``expert`` in all fields, and therefore cannot make an informed decision/choice on the pros and cons of every particular policy. Also, what does one mean by the term ``citizens``? Are they perfect beings or are they real fallible human beings, who are driven by a medley of base as well as sublime motivations? For example, how can one expect a society of robbers to elect anyone but a robber? Is it correct to say that a democratic society is necessarily the most just etc. or even the most survivable society?
2) ``elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents;``
In a realistic world how does one prevent the influence of one lobby or another? Elected leaders are humans, just like the people who are electing them, and therefore are susceptible to influence. Moreover, no person running for election can do so without support, material and moral. How does one dissociate the effects of that support on the views of the leader?
3) ``citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process;``
This ties in with the first two (all of them are interconnected I think). On what basis do the people decide whether the representatives are no longer serving their purpose? A bizzare exception could be: Is it better to have the current chaos in Pakistan or to have a stable government of a ``benevolent dictator`` who has the ability to lead Pakistan out of its morass? By this example, I am not condoning any undemocratic method, but just illustrating the complexity of issues involved.
#15 Posted by TAHSAN on September 23, 1998 12:35:15 pm
The Clinton sex scandal is contributing towards the erosion of the superstitious awe and the mystique surrounding the U.S. presidency. This is good for the prospect that democracy in the U.S.
will broaden, and more power will seep to local grassroots representative organisations, and away from oppressive and corrupt institutions like the
the Congress and the presidency.
tariq ahsan
will broaden, and more power will seep to local grassroots representative organisations, and away from oppressive and corrupt institutions like the
the Congress and the presidency.
tariq ahsan
#14 Posted by shafqat on September 23, 1998 12:44:28 am
I appreciate all the comments.
Farrukh & Afrasiyab:
Thank you for sharing Iqbal’s wisdom with us.
Rehan:
Thanks for your input. You’re right about the poll numbers, but not the TV ratings. Americans continue to complain about all the coverage yet still keep tuning in (for example, look up the article ‘Monicanomics 101’ by John Cassidy in the Sept. 21 New Yorker). I also disagree with your faith in the American democracy and would argue that you are taking things too much at face value (see, for example, SR’s comments in this thread - he’s said it better than I).
Kafir:
I was careful not to say that democracy wasn’t the best ‘system’. I confess I don’t have a better alternative. Still doesn’t mean it’s flawless, though.
BTW, it seems ironic that a lover of democracy like you would recoil from elitism. Everybody with an IQ over 70 either wants to be an elite or thinks of themselves as an elite of some sort or another. At last count, that’s close to six billion people. Why, elitism’s the most democratic thing in the world, J, J.
Saeed:
Thank you. I respect your opinion. However, whatever now happens, I feel certain that the nature of politics in America has been damaged in a major way. You need people with stature to ensure an optimal democracy, but the political divide over the Clinton scandal has become so bitter, all the major players are starting to look like streetfighters. If Clinton remains in office, the bitterness will only escalate. If he is removed from office, it will trivialize the institution of the presidency. If you ignore the per capita income and the material wealth in this country, this is starting to look like a Third World democracy.
Feroz:
Thank you for your response. I wish you all success in your political efforts, but cannot share your enthusiasm for it. I would argue that your vision of the American democracy but scratches the surface. As SR has brilliantly said in his insightful remarks, nobody’s a citizen anymore, they’re all consumers. Sure freedom of speech is protected in this country, but look what that has led to: the Starr report in all its vulgar glory on all channels, all the time. Point is, people love trash. If you offer it, they’ll take it. They’ll prefer more trash over less trash. It’s what humans do. Because it is now possible to feed the people trash all the time, in effect the US Constitution has ensured the trashing of political dialogue in America for the remainder of its natural life. It’s free speech, I agree, but it’s also worthless.
Amin Saleh:
Thanks for your comment, but please yaar. You don’t really think the Republicans want to impeach Clinton because he committed perjury in a deposition ? They just want his blood for what he stands for and espouses. They couldn’t care less about the perjury, that’s just an excuse to snare him. They’re going, ‘Since Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate drew blanks, let’s try this.’ It’s all a petty, partisan, political vendetta. There’s nothing legal or high-minded about it. It’s at the level of a street brawl.
Wasiq:
Thank you for weighing in. The appreciation is completely mutual, I assure you! I feel that the question of implementation, while germane to the argument, remains an imponderable. This excuse has been the refuge of all ‘systems’ has it not ? There may be no way to know.
I couldn’t agree more with what you say about investing in human beings but, I fear, the nature of the Gaussian distribution ensures that mediocrity will always be in the majority. To paraphrase SR yet again, democracy works in an informed populace, with people of stature and wisdom elected to high office. It worked well in America for a while, I think because not everyone could influence the political process. Now that there is an information short-circuit and everyone has been elevated to being a ‘consumer’ and everyone counts, mediocrity rules. It isn’t pretty.
Anita:
Excellent points. The question of preserving minority rights in democracies is all too-important and proves that majority view isn’t the correct one simply because the most people believe in it. Thought experiment: if put to a vote, the majority of Pakistanis may feel that Ahmadis should be regarded as non-muslims - doesn’t make it right, does it ?
SR:
Sohail, brilliantly said! I agree with everything and couldn’t have said it better myself. We live in the second Jewish homeland, Boston’s suburb of Brookline, and our daughter’s school was closed for Roshashanah (L’Shona Tovah!). It was my turn to stay home and watch her. I did tune in to the Clinton video but had to switch to Little House on the Prairie after 10 minutes.
saad shafqat
Farrukh & Afrasiyab:
Thank you for sharing Iqbal’s wisdom with us.
Rehan:
Thanks for your input. You’re right about the poll numbers, but not the TV ratings. Americans continue to complain about all the coverage yet still keep tuning in (for example, look up the article ‘Monicanomics 101’ by John Cassidy in the Sept. 21 New Yorker). I also disagree with your faith in the American democracy and would argue that you are taking things too much at face value (see, for example, SR’s comments in this thread - he’s said it better than I).
Kafir:
I was careful not to say that democracy wasn’t the best ‘system’. I confess I don’t have a better alternative. Still doesn’t mean it’s flawless, though.
BTW, it seems ironic that a lover of democracy like you would recoil from elitism. Everybody with an IQ over 70 either wants to be an elite or thinks of themselves as an elite of some sort or another. At last count, that’s close to six billion people. Why, elitism’s the most democratic thing in the world, J, J.
Saeed:
Thank you. I respect your opinion. However, whatever now happens, I feel certain that the nature of politics in America has been damaged in a major way. You need people with stature to ensure an optimal democracy, but the political divide over the Clinton scandal has become so bitter, all the major players are starting to look like streetfighters. If Clinton remains in office, the bitterness will only escalate. If he is removed from office, it will trivialize the institution of the presidency. If you ignore the per capita income and the material wealth in this country, this is starting to look like a Third World democracy.
Feroz:
Thank you for your response. I wish you all success in your political efforts, but cannot share your enthusiasm for it. I would argue that your vision of the American democracy but scratches the surface. As SR has brilliantly said in his insightful remarks, nobody’s a citizen anymore, they’re all consumers. Sure freedom of speech is protected in this country, but look what that has led to: the Starr report in all its vulgar glory on all channels, all the time. Point is, people love trash. If you offer it, they’ll take it. They’ll prefer more trash over less trash. It’s what humans do. Because it is now possible to feed the people trash all the time, in effect the US Constitution has ensured the trashing of political dialogue in America for the remainder of its natural life. It’s free speech, I agree, but it’s also worthless.
Amin Saleh:
Thanks for your comment, but please yaar. You don’t really think the Republicans want to impeach Clinton because he committed perjury in a deposition ? They just want his blood for what he stands for and espouses. They couldn’t care less about the perjury, that’s just an excuse to snare him. They’re going, ‘Since Whitewater, Travelgate and Filegate drew blanks, let’s try this.’ It’s all a petty, partisan, political vendetta. There’s nothing legal or high-minded about it. It’s at the level of a street brawl.
Wasiq:
Thank you for weighing in. The appreciation is completely mutual, I assure you! I feel that the question of implementation, while germane to the argument, remains an imponderable. This excuse has been the refuge of all ‘systems’ has it not ? There may be no way to know.
I couldn’t agree more with what you say about investing in human beings but, I fear, the nature of the Gaussian distribution ensures that mediocrity will always be in the majority. To paraphrase SR yet again, democracy works in an informed populace, with people of stature and wisdom elected to high office. It worked well in America for a while, I think because not everyone could influence the political process. Now that there is an information short-circuit and everyone has been elevated to being a ‘consumer’ and everyone counts, mediocrity rules. It isn’t pretty.
Anita:
Excellent points. The question of preserving minority rights in democracies is all too-important and proves that majority view isn’t the correct one simply because the most people believe in it. Thought experiment: if put to a vote, the majority of Pakistanis may feel that Ahmadis should be regarded as non-muslims - doesn’t make it right, does it ?
SR:
Sohail, brilliantly said! I agree with everything and couldn’t have said it better myself. We live in the second Jewish homeland, Boston’s suburb of Brookline, and our daughter’s school was closed for Roshashanah (L’Shona Tovah!). It was my turn to stay home and watch her. I did tune in to the Clinton video but had to switch to Little House on the Prairie after 10 minutes.
saad shafqat
#13 Posted by Kafir on September 22, 1998 6:26:11 pm
Re: Wasiq
You raise good questions:
``Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself? ``
IMHO, democracy is not goal-oriented system of belief, but rather a methodology or a process of governance (as Parvez Mansur argued in his article ``Is Islam Undemocratic?``). Thus, different democratic societies may have different goals based on their particular worldviews or ideals. Some may be lofty, according to our individual perception, and others may not.
``Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified? ``
Perhaps you could delineate these underlying assumptions. Some that come to my mind: 1) citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare; 2) elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents; 3) citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process; 4) others??? Are these valid assumptions?
Re: Anita
Thought-provoking comments, as usual :).
IMHO, the problems you address regarding Bosnia, Algeria, Israel, and California stem from racism, religious intolerance, and ideological clashes, not from a flaw in the democratic process itself. The democratic process can be used to whatever ends its citizens choose. If they want to kill eveyone who`s not like them, or persecute others on their different religious beliefs, then they can do so. The answer lies not in curtailing the democratic process, but in educating the citizenry in what you (as an enlightened person) believe the best course of action or way of living should be. When the enlightened, morally astute citizens of a democratic society withdraw from public discourse and action, then the vultures set in and try to usurp the process for their own selfish ends (i.e., Big Business taking over the legislature, the military-industrial complex perpetuating the proliferation of weapons and conflict, racists and xenophobes lashing out against immigrants, etc.) Of course, education is a very long and arduous process, but it`s the only sustainable one, since it preserves individual rights and the process itself. Media regulation, censorship, and the like would eventually lead to tyranny.
As for the intellectual elites, of course they have an obligation to direct the course of a democracy, but they should do so by enlightening the People, not through mandate. The People ultimately have to decide their own fate. And the elites should abide by the People`s decision, whether they agree with it or not. It`s a test of their humility and dedication to the democratic process.
You raise good questions:
``Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself? ``
IMHO, democracy is not goal-oriented system of belief, but rather a methodology or a process of governance (as Parvez Mansur argued in his article ``Is Islam Undemocratic?``). Thus, different democratic societies may have different goals based on their particular worldviews or ideals. Some may be lofty, according to our individual perception, and others may not.
``Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified? ``
Perhaps you could delineate these underlying assumptions. Some that come to my mind: 1) citizens have the right and ability to make decisions that affect their welfare; 2) elected leaders should represent the will of their constituents; 3) citizens have a right to replace their representatives through due process; 4) others??? Are these valid assumptions?
Re: Anita
Thought-provoking comments, as usual :).
IMHO, the problems you address regarding Bosnia, Algeria, Israel, and California stem from racism, religious intolerance, and ideological clashes, not from a flaw in the democratic process itself. The democratic process can be used to whatever ends its citizens choose. If they want to kill eveyone who`s not like them, or persecute others on their different religious beliefs, then they can do so. The answer lies not in curtailing the democratic process, but in educating the citizenry in what you (as an enlightened person) believe the best course of action or way of living should be. When the enlightened, morally astute citizens of a democratic society withdraw from public discourse and action, then the vultures set in and try to usurp the process for their own selfish ends (i.e., Big Business taking over the legislature, the military-industrial complex perpetuating the proliferation of weapons and conflict, racists and xenophobes lashing out against immigrants, etc.) Of course, education is a very long and arduous process, but it`s the only sustainable one, since it preserves individual rights and the process itself. Media regulation, censorship, and the like would eventually lead to tyranny.
As for the intellectual elites, of course they have an obligation to direct the course of a democracy, but they should do so by enlightening the People, not through mandate. The People ultimately have to decide their own fate. And the elites should abide by the People`s decision, whether they agree with it or not. It`s a test of their humility and dedication to the democratic process.
#12 Posted by ferozk on September 22, 1998 6:26:11 pm
Re: SR
Just a comment on your observations about the media, television, being hostage to commercial interests.
You`re right, but if you get all your information from tv, you are indeed going be misinformed. There is alot of information available out there and it is up to you to get it. It is not the function of a democracy to spoon feed you to the information. Democracy is about choices and given the present financial heavy nature of the American political system, those with the money get the votes. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is about the ability to influence decisions and money is merely a tool of that decision making process.
You don`t need a war chest to be politically involved. The majority of the Americans involved in the political process are volunteers and through their time and commitments, they can excersie a lot of influence on the candiates.
As to the perfect nature of democracy; idealism does not exist in the real world. The American democracy is not perfect, but it has the ability to change with time and amend itself. It is far better than a lot of other systems out there and in the words of Winston Churchill, ``democracy is the worst form of government known to man, but the alternatives are not better either.``
If the American democractic system is so bad, troubled, uneven and unfair to women and minorities, then why is the rest of the world trying to get to its shores ?
The one indeliable lesson I learned from working for the US Congress was it is an arena of ideas and you have to fight like hell to get your ideas across and you have to, in order to succed, compromise your positions and learn how to swallow hard without your knee pads ! There are two kinds of operatives in the American political system: those that screw and those who get screwed. Everyone picks a side and fights. Just like an arena, you have to pick your fights and you fight for realistic goals and not philosophic idealism.
Sorry SR for this rant, but I have been in the trenches too long.
Just a comment on your observations about the media, television, being hostage to commercial interests.
You`re right, but if you get all your information from tv, you are indeed going be misinformed. There is alot of information available out there and it is up to you to get it. It is not the function of a democracy to spoon feed you to the information. Democracy is about choices and given the present financial heavy nature of the American political system, those with the money get the votes. There is nothing wrong with that. Politics is about the ability to influence decisions and money is merely a tool of that decision making process.
You don`t need a war chest to be politically involved. The majority of the Americans involved in the political process are volunteers and through their time and commitments, they can excersie a lot of influence on the candiates.
As to the perfect nature of democracy; idealism does not exist in the real world. The American democracy is not perfect, but it has the ability to change with time and amend itself. It is far better than a lot of other systems out there and in the words of Winston Churchill, ``democracy is the worst form of government known to man, but the alternatives are not better either.``
If the American democractic system is so bad, troubled, uneven and unfair to women and minorities, then why is the rest of the world trying to get to its shores ?
The one indeliable lesson I learned from working for the US Congress was it is an arena of ideas and you have to fight like hell to get your ideas across and you have to, in order to succed, compromise your positions and learn how to swallow hard without your knee pads ! There are two kinds of operatives in the American political system: those that screw and those who get screwed. Everyone picks a side and fights. Just like an arena, you have to pick your fights and you fight for realistic goals and not philosophic idealism.
Sorry SR for this rant, but I have been in the trenches too long.
#11 Posted by SR on September 22, 1998 12:31:03 pm
Saad I never think of you as a pessimist. Your conclusions regarding the future of democracy in America may be a bit extreme. There is, however, a kernel of truth in your assertion that this democracy is in trouble.
The trouble is that there are very few, if any, citizens left in America. No one ever hears about the `citizen` any more; they`ve all become `consumers`. Everyone speaks of, and pays attention to, the consumer.
Contrary to what the champions of American democracy have said in the other replies, the truth is that in the present system it is not one-person-one-vote, rather, it is a system of de facto one-dollar-one-vote. Of course, I am being a little cynical, but the point has considerable merit. In order to have a true democracy you need an educated and informed populace. In the present cacophony of 30-second-sound-bit overload and shrinking attention spans, sensationalism has won over serious news. TV, unfortunately, is the most powerful medium that sets the pace and tone of all main stream media. And TV today has lost the original purpose of what the role of `free press` was supposed to be in a democracy. Today TV has ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to SELL MERCHANDISE. If they cannot sell merchandise, the advertisers will not pay. Any educational or informational content is entirely incidental to the primary purpose of getting higher ratings.
Indeed, as things stand the process of elections itself is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that congress should be `` a portrait in miniature `` of the people of the United States. If that were true, Congress should have had 52% women, 12% blacks, etc. etc. Instead we see over 95% white men, and 43% lawyers.
If instead of having the two-yearly travesty that is known as elections, public officials were drawn from a pool of all qualified adults, at random, by a supercomputer, then you would see a much more representative Congress. (Of course, the election commission would have to weed out mental retards and criminals, etc.) Those who thus get selected would have to go perform `congress duty` for one term only, just like they go do jury duty. These people would get a100 thousand dollars a year plus benefits and would have a staff of professionals helping them do their job. There is no reason to assume that such a congress would do any worse a job than the present three ring circus.
SR
PS: You should have known better than to stay at home to watch the scandlous tapes on TV. I normally do stay at home during market hours most week days, yet I made it a point to take off and go sailing. There wasn`t a soul there (all watching TV, I guess) and I had the lake all to myself. :)
The trouble is that there are very few, if any, citizens left in America. No one ever hears about the `citizen` any more; they`ve all become `consumers`. Everyone speaks of, and pays attention to, the consumer.
Contrary to what the champions of American democracy have said in the other replies, the truth is that in the present system it is not one-person-one-vote, rather, it is a system of de facto one-dollar-one-vote. Of course, I am being a little cynical, but the point has considerable merit. In order to have a true democracy you need an educated and informed populace. In the present cacophony of 30-second-sound-bit overload and shrinking attention spans, sensationalism has won over serious news. TV, unfortunately, is the most powerful medium that sets the pace and tone of all main stream media. And TV today has lost the original purpose of what the role of `free press` was supposed to be in a democracy. Today TV has ONLY ONE purpose, and that is to SELL MERCHANDISE. If they cannot sell merchandise, the advertisers will not pay. Any educational or informational content is entirely incidental to the primary purpose of getting higher ratings.
Indeed, as things stand the process of elections itself is incompatible with the notion of democracy. Thomas Jefferson said that congress should be `` a portrait in miniature `` of the people of the United States. If that were true, Congress should have had 52% women, 12% blacks, etc. etc. Instead we see over 95% white men, and 43% lawyers.
If instead of having the two-yearly travesty that is known as elections, public officials were drawn from a pool of all qualified adults, at random, by a supercomputer, then you would see a much more representative Congress. (Of course, the election commission would have to weed out mental retards and criminals, etc.) Those who thus get selected would have to go perform `congress duty` for one term only, just like they go do jury duty. These people would get a100 thousand dollars a year plus benefits and would have a staff of professionals helping them do their job. There is no reason to assume that such a congress would do any worse a job than the present three ring circus.
SR
PS: You should have known better than to stay at home to watch the scandlous tapes on TV. I normally do stay at home during market hours most week days, yet I made it a point to take off and go sailing. There wasn`t a soul there (all watching TV, I guess) and I had the lake all to myself. :)
#10 Posted by wasiq on September 22, 1998 10:49:48 am
Saad, this was a thought provoking possible course of democracy in America. I enjoyed your article very much, as always. Since you have a lot of long replies to the article, I want to add only a few words of my own.
Maybe, in this process what we are witnessing is a possible flaw in the IMPLEMENTATION of democracy.
Two questions arise:
(1) Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself?
(2) Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified?
Not that one should reject the ideals of democracy but maybe one should reform the method through which it is implemented.
I think the problem of reduction of issues to the basest possible level arises naturally if one invests everything in the dissemination of information but not enough in the human being who has to interpret that information.
Maybe, in this process what we are witnessing is a possible flaw in the IMPLEMENTATION of democracy.
Two questions arise:
(1) Can the democratic process, in the real world, deliver the lofty goals it sets for itself?
(2) Are all of the underlying assumptions of the democratic process justified?
Not that one should reject the ideals of democracy but maybe one should reform the method through which it is implemented.
I think the problem of reduction of issues to the basest possible level arises naturally if one invests everything in the dissemination of information but not enough in the human being who has to interpret that information.
listing 1-16
1 2
Interact Index
Similar Articles
- Pakistani-Americans or American-Pakistanis? Feroz Qutabshahi
- The Marriott Bombing: ‘Pakistan’s 9/11’? Beena Sarwar
- Musharraf's Resignation and Beyond Beena Sarwar
- Why is Karachi Turning Into a Sell-Out? Ahmer Muzammil
- Democracy is the Best Revenge? Ehtisham Iqbal
US Elections 2008 Primaries
Get Chowk RSS FeedLatest Interacts
- sadna: Yeah kaalchakra, multiple bar... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: Sadna, what is the... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: Look, its like telling... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: corr: To have legal... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- sadna: nb I agree with you... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- morni: A word is dead... Fathers and Daughters
- nb: Sadna, Mushirul Hasan has... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
- KaalChakra: The key to supporting... Terrorism Accused: Is Legal
