Why democracy is wrong

[thearabchildren]

Discuss:

The first and most important component of the democratic ethic is so obvious, that it is rarely explicitly named. It is the principle of ethical and political legitimacy: "a democratic government should not be overthrown". In the normal course of affairs, democratic states rely on legitimacy to preserve their own existence and cohesion. Overthrow of the government is totally off the political agenda: it is taboo to even discuss it. There is no large army to suppress armed revolts, because there are no large armed revolts - and no small ones either. The United States is a nation of gun-owners, but despite a month of political feuding over the Gore-Bush election result in 2000, not a shot was fired for political reasons. That was a remarkable achievement, in a country with a history of secessionism, Civil War, and military conquest of ethnic minorities. The 'normal course of affairs' is historically not normal at all.

What would happen if legitimacy disappeared completely? In principle, you could hold free and fair multi-party elections in an open society - and then overthrow the democratically elected government, after each election. That could happen every week, but it would not be considered 'democracy'. This emphasises the formalism and proceduralism of democracy: once followed, the democratic procedures are claimed to produce legitimacy. The government which is elected by the democratic procedures becomes the absolutely legitimate government. If legitimacy is strong, then it becomes culturally taboo to overthrow it. It even becomes taboo not to see it as 'our government'. Because US citizens think this way, the United States is politically stable.

To be a democrat means, that you think this should happen: you believe that the democratically elected government is legitimate and must be accepted as legitimate (unless it is itself anti-democratic). The procedures are not an ornament, they are the essence. This legitimacy claim is a major ethical defect of democracy - because procedure is no substitute for morality. Most democrats go much further, and would claim explicitly that a democratically elected government, which has acted on a decision made in accordance with democratic procedures and the rule of law, should not be overthrown, even if the action is morally wrong.

At the heart of democracy is something which is morally unacceptable. What democrats are saying, is that no value may override democracy. In terms of regime preference, they are saying, for instance, that a democracy which tortures, is preferable to a dictatorship which does not. Now, all states claim political legitimacy - that their laws should be obeyed, that their judges are entitled to judge, that they may raise taxes. However, the claims of democrats imply ethical legitimacy, a claim to moral authority. It is more like the infallibility claim made by the Catholic Church, which asserts that certain declarations by the Pope are the absolute moral truth.

[...]

The second important component of the democratic ethic is the prohibition of secession. Unlike the legitimacy claim, the democratic principles concerning secession are often discussed - for instance in Canada, in connection with Québec secessionism. Unlimited secession would make democracy pointless. If free and fair multi-party elections are held in an open society, but anyone who disagrees with the result can set up a separate state, no democrat would accept that as a democracy. For democrats there must be a unit, beyond which secession is not permitted: this unit is the 'demos'. Again, its modern expression is the democratic nation state. The indivisibility of the demos is as important as legitimacy, because legitimacy collapses in the face of secessionism. Secessionists see the existing government as 'foreign', and they no longer feel any obligation to its laws, institutions, and policies. So a democratic government ultimately depends on military power to sustain itself in office, and to prevent the unlimited secession of minorities. This aspect of the democratic ethic brought democrats into a long-term alliance with nationalism. No guns,no democracy.

[jjmuneer]

I have to say I disagree slightly, I didn't understand the article towards the end. Was it saying democracy is no different to a dictatorship? In a way true, I mean both rely on fear, democracies in un-stable times are un-stable themselves and kind of feed on the fear of a dictator coming to power. Anyways it also depends on what forum of democracy you persue, I think the current democracy we have i Kurdistan, is the best option. Then again I didn't really get the article fully.

[Azamat]

Okay, I may be completely missing something here, but I didn't quite understand the last alinea. The article states that in a democracy, secessionism is imcompatible with legitimacy. But I cannot see what grounds this statement has. As with the Kurdish case, the area of secessionist aspirations is usually isolated from the rest of the country; the secessionists are not trying to impose their goals or ideology on the remaining population, and instead try to decentralize the democracy which to me actually seems more like democracy in practice than a central 'demos' having to maintain order over large sections of unsatisfied population. I cannot understand the rationale behind preserving the inefficient 'demos'.

[talsor]

If you dig deep enough , you will find that there is nothing wrong with any ideology or system whether it is socialism , communism , capitalism , democracy , even a dictatorship . They all work fine and bring different results if it is implemented properly . like my teacher used to say "The problem is not the system , it is the idiot(s) behiend the keyboard" .

[jjmuneer]

If you dig deep enough , you will find that there is nothing wrong with any ideology or system whether it is socialism , communism , capitalism , democracy , even a dictatorship . They all work fine and bring different results if it is implemented properly . like my teacher used to say "The problem is not the system , it is the idiot(s) behiend the keyboard" .

What if the idiots are the system? In capitalism the rich are the ones who've stolen and are greedy. Capitalism in itself is a stupid idea, of every man for himself.

[thearabchildren]

Agreed with the last two comments.

As with the Kurdish case, the area of secessionist aspirations is usually isolated from the rest of the country; the secessionists are not trying to impose their goals or ideology on the remaining population, and instead try to decentralize the democracy which to me actually seems more like democracy in practice than a central 'demos' having to maintain order over large sections of unsatisfied population. I cannot understand the rationale behind preserving the inefficient 'demos'.

I didn't say I could understand it, nor did the author. The author's point was that in a democracy, there are no serious minority protections, because from the (misinformed, but democracy's job is NOT to inform people) perspective of the majority in the Kemalist state, secession IS an imposition on the remaining population in terms of changing "their" borders (which are theirs because democracy says they are). If it is decentralised, it loses its democratic character: 1. It's no longer about the will of "the people" but about the conflicting wills of several peoples (again, not saying this is wrong, just saying it's incompatible with democracy), which get to define themselves, theoretically infinitely 2. It's certainly not about majority rule either because then minorities are given disproportionate power (again, not saying I don't want minorities to have disproportionate power, just that it is logically inconsistent with majority rule)

Any way you slice it, the West's conception of democracy is incompatible with the rights of minorities. It has been asserted by Islamists (repeatedly and correctly, as though this validates their constant need to appeal to religion) that Kurds were treated better by the Ottoman state (which was not only dictated by Islam, contrary to their conception of it, it was a complicated autocratic feudalistic structure) than by the Kemalists. It is because the Kemalists are imitating the Western idea of the nation state. Now naturally, if Turks get a nation state, Kurds should also have one. It is well known that I don't wish anyone to have one, but so long as the nation-state exists, Turks can not be surprised that Kurds would want their own, nor can Kurds be surprised that democracy doesn't get them what they need. Turkey's elections get freer and freer with each generation, but the likelyhood of these elections resulting in a Kurdish state get smaller and smaller, due to the assimilation of large portions of the Kurds and due to the fact that democracy states that it is moral for Turks to impose their will on the Kurds, just as democracy states it is moral for the white Anglo majority in the United States of Pork Chops to impose its will on the Hispanic and Black minorities.

[thearabchildren]

To fall in line with Talsor's provocative declarations against the libral pieties of educated white people (I know your style Talsor), better a dictator arranges a coup against Turkey's democratically elected government which (through whatever means) brings peace and human rights (NOT included "elections") to Kurds AND Turks than that legal restrictions on the Kurdish language and Kurdish parties are further lifted but Turkey's current definition of democracy (crassly copied from the horrible and culturally genocidal French model) be maintained.