What are alternatives to Democracy?
Alternatives might be one-party government or multiparty government. Some forms of “one-party” government that are alternatives to democracy: despotism, autocracy, dictatorship, totalitarianism, Fascism, Communism, monocracy, autocracy, plutocracy. Several forms of “multiparty” government as alternatives are also noted: representative government, elective government; self-government, government by the people; republic, commonwealth.
The controlling difference is that in a “one-party” government the ruling person or group does not have to yield to the needs or wants of any other person or group. It has absolute power. No dialogue or compromise is necessary.
Whereas a “multiparty” government must constantly strive to reconcile what are often conflicting interests.
I have heard a quote something to the effect that “Americans are indentured servants to the state.” It suggests the view that the state, the government, in our country imposes a unique value system on everyone. Another view might be that “Americans are indentured servants to the market,” meaning that the market imposes a unique value system. Whatever validity there might be in either or both views needs to be clarified, unemotionally, because in truth, neither is desirable.
Neither the government nor the market is qualified to determine all standards for the lives of everyone.
Sunday, August 11, 2013
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Obviously, democracy is not perfect. It does not solve all problems. Why then do we consider it so important?
Because the alternatives are worse. Democracy means power shared between contrasting values, not power in the hands of a single idea. Value is lost when a single power imposes its will, and ideas about how to live become a system that never negotiates outcomes. When there is no dialogue, when compromise is refused, there is tyranny.
We are all humans, not perfect. To have a world in which each individual can work out a place, there must be limits to power: constraints. Some constraints are harmful, such as ignorance, lack of perspective, and inability to think conceptually. But other constraints: responsibility, discipline and authority, can be managed for the good. With constant vigilance!
These are lessons that have been learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, over and over again, in the course of human history.
Because the alternatives are worse. Democracy means power shared between contrasting values, not power in the hands of a single idea. Value is lost when a single power imposes its will, and ideas about how to live become a system that never negotiates outcomes. When there is no dialogue, when compromise is refused, there is tyranny.
We are all humans, not perfect. To have a world in which each individual can work out a place, there must be limits to power: constraints. Some constraints are harmful, such as ignorance, lack of perspective, and inability to think conceptually. But other constraints: responsibility, discipline and authority, can be managed for the good. With constant vigilance!
These are lessons that have been learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, learned and forgotten, over and over again, in the course of human history.
Friday, August 2, 2013
This observation made by Justice Brandeis can often be seen on the web; it is not unknown:
We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
(As quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.)
Is it true that we can’t have both? Why can’t we have both wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, and democracy?
Fundamentally it is a question of power. Wealth gives power, and power can be infinitely creative in finding ways to impose itself no matter how others are affected: the power to treat people justly or not, the power to make decisions about the community without community input, the power to create jobs or not, the power to influence “elected” officials, the power to refuse dialogue and compromise, the power to impose one’s beliefs, the power to, in many other ways, make life difficult for others through economic manipulation and disrespect for needs of others.
Nevertheless, power can be used to help others, and sometimes is.
Uncontrolled power is the opposite of dialogue and compromise. It refuses to respect the wishes and needs of others, it does not accept limits to self-centeredness. People count on the values represented by democracy for protection.
We must make our choice. We may have democracy, or we may have wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both.
(As quoted by Raymond Lonergan in Mr. Justice Brandeis, Great American (1941), p. 42.)
Is it true that we can’t have both? Why can’t we have both wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, and democracy?
Fundamentally it is a question of power. Wealth gives power, and power can be infinitely creative in finding ways to impose itself no matter how others are affected: the power to treat people justly or not, the power to make decisions about the community without community input, the power to create jobs or not, the power to influence “elected” officials, the power to refuse dialogue and compromise, the power to impose one’s beliefs, the power to, in many other ways, make life difficult for others through economic manipulation and disrespect for needs of others.
Nevertheless, power can be used to help others, and sometimes is.
Uncontrolled power is the opposite of dialogue and compromise. It refuses to respect the wishes and needs of others, it does not accept limits to self-centeredness. People count on the values represented by democracy for protection.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)