Democracy as the magnum opus of the ordinary
October 25th 2007 00:57
Hey all,
this one will be quite controversial..
Democracy is maybe the most important foundation for western societies. From social France to capital America, in one thing they all agree. And they defend it as the best way to deliver freedom to people.
Well, it is true that it's a better system than oblying womem to stay at home and raise children (hummm...), but it has it's limitations. Democracy is the system where the ordinary is most valued: anyone in the society can speak, and has to be heard.
This leads to a big problem. The ordinary, mediocrity in general, is valorizated more than it should (on this Nietzsche was right). We see this all around: in art, for example, no one consumes what is good. And we know we're buying shit (at least most people do). We don't give a shit listening to jazz, we want 1,4,5 pop-rock.
Nowadays, when someone wants to get out of the crowd and be recognized, it is not by doing something better; we just want to be known, even if it's just as an idiot example of mediocrity. mediocrity mate, is in.
You might be thinking i'm talking nonsense; "democracy has nothing to do with this mindless consumer's society". But give it a thought: in a place where everyone can speak (and has to be heard), what's the point of wasting your time thinking of what you'll say?
Imagine this situation: you and a group of friends have to choose where to travel next summer. Some of you have already travelled around and know the best things to do. Nevertheless, you choose to listen to each one of the group, dispite their knowledge about the places they've been.
To make it worse: would you take advice about which car to buy from your 12 year-old brother, or from your 35 year-old work colleague, who has already bought a few cars in his life?
I think you see where i wanna get: no one, in a normal situation, takes into account the opinions of people who don't understand a thing on the matter. That's why you ask for advice. Ok, you can listen to your younger brother to decide about your car, maybe he will have an interesting opinion, but it will sure have less influence on you than the opinion of someone who understands cars.
The same should be applied in society. "Why?" Because everyone wants to speak - and that's great - but we should make people think before they can speak. "Again, why?" Because this would stop the ordinary to be considered so special, and knowledge will have more value than it has on these days.
In Europe, some years ago, the French decided that the european constituition should not be applied to their contry. Ask the average frenchman if he/she undertands anything that is written in this document, and you'll see that they don't.
Would you ask your 15 year-old daughter about which job should you take?
It's maybe time to evolve, and obly people to think about what they're saying..cheers.
this one will be quite controversial..
Democracy is maybe the most important foundation for western societies. From social France to capital America, in one thing they all agree. And they defend it as the best way to deliver freedom to people.
Well, it is true that it's a better system than oblying womem to stay at home and raise children (hummm...), but it has it's limitations. Democracy is the system where the ordinary is most valued: anyone in the society can speak, and has to be heard.
This leads to a big problem. The ordinary, mediocrity in general, is valorizated more than it should (on this Nietzsche was right). We see this all around: in art, for example, no one consumes what is good. And we know we're buying shit (at least most people do). We don't give a shit listening to jazz, we want 1,4,5 pop-rock.
Nowadays, when someone wants to get out of the crowd and be recognized, it is not by doing something better; we just want to be known, even if it's just as an idiot example of mediocrity. mediocrity mate, is in.
You might be thinking i'm talking nonsense; "democracy has nothing to do with this mindless consumer's society". But give it a thought: in a place where everyone can speak (and has to be heard), what's the point of wasting your time thinking of what you'll say?
Imagine this situation: you and a group of friends have to choose where to travel next summer. Some of you have already travelled around and know the best things to do. Nevertheless, you choose to listen to each one of the group, dispite their knowledge about the places they've been.
To make it worse: would you take advice about which car to buy from your 12 year-old brother, or from your 35 year-old work colleague, who has already bought a few cars in his life?
I think you see where i wanna get: no one, in a normal situation, takes into account the opinions of people who don't understand a thing on the matter. That's why you ask for advice. Ok, you can listen to your younger brother to decide about your car, maybe he will have an interesting opinion, but it will sure have less influence on you than the opinion of someone who understands cars.
The same should be applied in society. "Why?" Because everyone wants to speak - and that's great - but we should make people think before they can speak. "Again, why?" Because this would stop the ordinary to be considered so special, and knowledge will have more value than it has on these days.
In Europe, some years ago, the French decided that the european constituition should not be applied to their contry. Ask the average frenchman if he/she undertands anything that is written in this document, and you'll see that they don't.
Would you ask your 15 year-old daughter about which job should you take?
It's maybe time to evolve, and obly people to think about what they're saying..cheers.
| 57 |
| Vote |
Subscribe to this blog
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Since there is no clear definition of democracy it is nearly impossible to compare it with anything.
We can take the majority decision as democracy but that discounts minorities. You can take the minority view but that discounts majorities.
Nietzche is probably one of the worst touchstones for democracy as he seemed fixated with supermen and mediocaty. (Stumbling in the Bog and such)
Who says that Jazz is better than Pop? Can it be proven? What yard stick are you using to make this judgement about something so subjective?
Total decentralization and consultation is the dream of an ideal democracy but it is also competing with other dreams of more centralized power.
Yet the definition of democracy recognizes both as valid.
Comment by Uula Limanski
Thinking The World
For example, Schwarzenegger should never be able to present himself to a place in the exectuive power of a government, because he doesn't have any formation that prooves that he's able to do the job. This is not a "government by the people".
thanks for the comment! helps to develop the subject
Comment by Damo
For the Sake of Argument
My Apologetics
Panels of experts do exist in many democratic processes and systems. Senate committe system etc.
Yet the question of accountability always arises. Educated does not always translate into honest. Ultimately everything needs to be answerable to the parliament and then in turn to the people through elections.
So goes the theory, but in practice short cuts are taken due to competing agendas and time constraints.
Go speak to the CEO of a few comapanies and you will find many are people who are much less educated than yourself. Yet the company functions and turn profit. They rely on advice from experts but take reponsibility for the decision.
That is basically what I want in government:
Responsibility and Accountability back to the electorate.