Just Finished Reading: Democracy and Its Crisis by A C Grayling (FP: 2017) [208pp]
With the double whammy of the pro-Brexit vote and Trump’s presidential victory the so-called intellectual elite kind of lost their minds for a while and talked about the end of Democracy. Although Trump is mentioned here in passing – for context I’m guessing – most of this short book focuses on the Brexit vote. Naturally I talked to ‘the Guys’ seemingly endlessly about Brexit both before, during and after the decision(s) along the way. The author shadows some of those discussions and I agreed with quite a bit of his reasoning and arguments on the subject. He quite rightly stated that the referendum itself (much trumpeted at the time) was supposedly ‘advisory’ only and then, as if by magic, turned into the ‘Will of the People’ overnight. Or, as I liked to state, the will of 52% of the people who actually voted. That was another problem that the author and I could agree on – the fact that a large chunk of the potential voting population didn’t vote. Does that mean they were happy with the Status Quo or did they consider the question too difficult to answer or where they simply uninterested? It’s hard to tell. What I didn’t agree with was the author’s idea of making the vote – at least in this case – compulsory. That's something I’d never likely agree on. NOT voting is as much a right as voting. CHOOSING not to exercise your right is, indeed, your right. He did make an interesting statement which I’m still musing over – the idea that, in the Brexit Referendum at least, that voting should have been allowed to everyone over 16 instead of the usual 18. I can see the argument for this in this instance – as the future repercussions would be mostly felt by the younger citizens going forward – but I’m not wholly convinced. Dropping the voting age to 16 longer term might be an idea to consider but only, I think, if there was a concerted effort at political education in schools (which should already exist to be honest!).
But does any of this actually constitute a ‘crisis’? Personally, I’d say not. The election of Trump or the ‘No’ vote in the Brexit Referendum does not, in and of themselves, mean that Democracy is in Crisis. Indeed, I do not believe that Democracy is in crisis at all across the globe. It is certainly under renewed scrutiny – in how to protect it from outside interference - and steps to ensure that it is not interfered with should be enhanced but that’s achievable, I think. Other steps, especially with the influence of social media can, likewise, be tweaked to enhance the robustness of democracy. Things can, and should, certainly be learnt from the last 5-6 years in politics which will make democracy in general stronger. But was the Brexit vote anti-democratic? I’d say no. Was it undemocratic? I’d have to say that parts of it could/should have been more democratic. It was pushed through and had to be pulled back from the edge of illegality more than once. It most definitely ruined the political careers of a number of politicians and tarnished the reputation of Parliament for years to come. It was not, overall, a very edifying process. I also don’t think the Trump election itself to be anti-democratic. Of course, the resulting 4 years in office and the subsequent activities of Trump and his supporters are another story. Was it undemocratic? I’d have to say yes on that one. Afterall Trump failed to win the popular vote which is, in my mind anyway, the whole point of democracy. Trump ‘won’ in 2016 and became President because of the Electoral College and not the actual ‘will of the people’. I’m not the only one to find that whole process as passing strange.
So, where does that leave us? Is democracy in crisis as the author maintains? On balance I would say no. Western democracies are, generally I think, reasonably healthy. They’re certainly messy but democracy IS messy by nature. Politicians across the world’s democracies are too complacent and too ready to assume that we, the electorate, either don’t know or don’t want to know what they do or what they should do but, as they found out recently here with the loss of a Conservative seat for the first time in 200 years with a swing away of 32% people ARE paying attention. About the only place I know of where democracy seems under particular strain is, rather ironically considering the usual boasting on the subject, is the United States. After the Capitol riot (I hesitate to call it an actual insurrection) and Trump’s refusal to concede that he lost the system is being put under a lot of stress. It’s not at crisis point yet but I do think it’s headed in that direction if nothing changes soon. For the first time since the Civil War it’s actually legitimate to ask the question of whether or not the United States will still be a democracy in the next 10 years. The consequences, both in the US and around the world, of the failure of American democracy are difficult to contemplate. About the only thing that most people would agree upon is that generally they won’t be good. Interesting times...
3 comments:
interesting. as a so-called american i have to agree with a lot of that. what i'm more worried about is the climate crisis: it might be too late to do anything about it, but i, in truth, see the deaths of millions coming up in the future and untold suffering from the mindless activities of the money lords and their unconscionable exploit of natural resources... (but i'm only a geologist, so what do i know, haha)
I think much of the problem is central states and mass democracy. Too much power is in two few hands and instead of running our own lives, we're fighting each other to keep them from controlling our lives. If states weren't so centralized that would not by the problem.
@ Mudpuddle: Climate is THE issue ATM. When the world is literally falling apart everything else kinda takes 2nd place really. Unfortunately, the way the 'system' operates and the way people think it'll take 2-3 big disasters to wake people up to reality. I don't think its too late - but the longer we leave things the way they are the more effort will be needed to fix things and the more pain (and death!) will happen before things start getting better.
@ Stephen: Is it just a size problem then? That nation states are simply too big to function well? How big is too big? From anthropology and other avenues it seems that we operate best in groups of about 150 or less. It's difficult to get your head around a population of 60 million or 360 million! A decentralised federation of small(ish) population centres might be a viable way of doing things. It'd definitely be a very different world than we have today. I'm not sure if it would work practically though. If a single country did something like that I think it would make itself very vulnerable to any of its potential enemies. Even if it wasn't directly attacked it could be nibbled away at. Even taking that off the table I think that other strong centralised states would simply out perform decentralised ones economically/technologically because they could throw much more resources at them. After years/decades the decentralised state would become progressively 'out of date' and weaker and weaker. It might get away with that if it wasn't strategically important or rich in resources to fight over. The best it could hope for is to become a forgotten about backwater...
Post a Comment