Democracy in theory and practice

by Cliopatria

Eric Hobsbawm is uncertain about the future of democracy in the world [via Chapati Mystery], for good reasons. In particular, he sees the attempt to spread democracy as a rock against which we will dash ourselves if we run too hard. He also points out the non-democratic nature of much of modern life:

A growing part of human life now occurs beyond the influence of voters—in transnational public and private entities that have no electorates, or at least no democratic ones. And electoral democracy cannot function effectively outside political units such as nation-states. The powerful states are therefore trying to spread a system that even they find inadequate to meet today’s challenges.

And there are good reasons why that system is inadequate, including a paucity of real ideas and diversity [Thanks, Dad].

And David Neiwert has finished his seven-part series on"Pseudo-Fascism." His basic thesis is that fascism can arise in the US not as a new movement, but as an internal transformation of an existing party (and yes, he does have a particular party in mind), and that it will use distinctly American forms and tropes but follow some of the basic outlines of fascist movements elsewhere. I still have mixed feelings about some parts of his analysis: in this one, for example, he does not address the interaction between party leadership, crucial party support (particularly business interests) and party faithful, leaving unclear the mechanism by which the competing interests in the party could be overwhemed. But there is little doubt in my mind that US politics has been degraded (Cheney, in Honolulu last night, actually said"you can put lipstick on a pig...."), and that general apathy and fear could translate into a powerful fascistic revival of public life. It's not just that the potential exists, as it does in all democracies, but that those potentials are very strong right now.

I'm not saying that a vote for Bush is a vote for fascism, or a vote for Kerry is a vote against fascism. That's not fair, nor is it, I think really correct. Not voting may be a vote for fascism, as non-voting empowers radical minorities; though all accounts suggest this may be the best turnout we've seen in some time, and if voter participation tops sixty percent I'll probably have to retract most of what I said about the decline of democracy in America. What will make fascism untenable in the US is a broad committment to the healthy and messy process of democracy, vigorous debate, discussion and negotiation, a clear understanding of the extent and limits of politics (and increased engagement in non-political life). David Neiwert says that media reform, particularly a willingness to shift away from the 'he said-he said' reporting that passes for objectivity, is necessary. I think all sides need to reaffirm our faith, for it is never an entirely proven proposition, in majority rule without oppression, in free and fair elections, in the value of consensus and openness. And we need to be willing to speak out against not only our opponents' but also our own failings, lapses and wrongs.

comments powered by Disqus

More Comments:

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/2/2004

Emigration is the sincerest form of flattery.

George Carlin has his weaknesses as an historian. When I look back on the last hundred years of American history, I see great progress in womens' rights, in the defeat of legal separation by race, in child labor laws, and even in the environment -- all of it apparently achieved without the assistance of George Carlin. I'm glad to see that he feels he has found a productive use for his time. Who knows? Maybe practice makes perfect?

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/2/2004

We will continue to disagree, I'm afraid, on the question of democracy in apartheid South Africa. And no doubt my history still needs work. But then Hobsbawm's history needs work too. The Balkans debacle, worsened by the UN (which went even so far as to help the murderers, rather than content itself with failing to help the victims), was improved not by the action of stable nation states (as Hobsbawm would have it), but specifically by the action of NATO -- one of those transnational institutions that Hobsbawm claims have no democratic electorates. But then if you've read his The Age of Extremes you'll notice he's never had trouble trimming evidence to fit the Procrustean bed of his ideology.

Jonathan Dresner - 11/2/2004

Mr. Pettit,

You'd probably enjoy the libertarian discussions over on Liberty and Power; they've been flogging the question of the futility of voting for some time now. Start with this from Steven Horowitz, then root around a little.

I've argued here that Kerry's views are only a piece of the puzzle: the party and the people he appoints are what actually do most of the governing. Given issues like the Supreme Court (Rehnquist's not back at work yet?), given the damage that another four years of Bush, et al., would do to the environment, social programs, ideological environment, diplomatic world.... I really do believe that the differences are meaningful.

Not as meaningful as I'd like them to be: the Democratic party is both too dependent on too many narrow interest groups and too focused on power at the expense of principle to be truly representative of anyone. Kerry wasn't my first choice from the primary candidates, either. (Neither was Al Gore four years ago; I was a Bradley delegate in the Iowa caucus)

But the differences are real enough, and if you think it's hard pushing for things like human rights and peace and meaningful UN reform under a Republican now, just wait and see what happens after he's re-elected.

Vote for Nader if you want, for all the good it'll do. But don't say the differences aren't real, because they are.

chris l pettit - 11/2/2004

the choice is fascism versus fascism...in terms of our own nation...and the rest of the world. Being in Africa, it is fascinating to see that most of the world supports Kerry...until they find out his positions...and then ask how the hell the US could ever be allowed to get this oppressive and undemocratic...they wonder if we have democracy, morality, decency even...and I unfortunately have to tell them that as a nation we do not. There are plenty of good people, but the system is broken, needs to be blown up, and replaced with something actually resembling democracy based on human rights and peace...maybe we ought to base our new Constitution on that of South Africa...not a bad start. I for one lament the ignorance and miseducation of my fellow Americans...and it is not totally their fault. How many people do you actually do any sort of homework other than what the propaganda (oops I meant news) networks show them? 2%? In addition, why do we keep focusing on the "right to vote?" What does it matter if the choices are crap versus crap? The "right to vote" becomes meaningless...why don;t we work on actually providing representation before we start whining about the inability to vote for one piece of human excrement over another piece.

CP
www.wicper.org

chris l pettit - 11/2/2004

What a joke...

You actually believe we live in one? I guess it depends on your definition. For me, democracy is actually being able to be represented...and have all sectors of society represented...which has not been the case in the US in a long time. You guys have fun taking part in the useless exercise of your right to vote for one or the other of the supporters of the top 5% in an election where no change will be affected no matter who wins. Our nation and government is a disgrace. The sooner we accept institutions like the UN and change them for the better (get rid of the veto and the P5) the sooner we can be a true international community. The nationalism is laughable...we need to reject it and get over the polarising fators that are nationalism, ethnicism, religion, and other unsupportable idiocies...are you not human beings? Or are you a bunch of animals? A decisions should be made...

I'll stick with my pursuit of true peace and human rights while you continue to wallow in a flawed and ultimately futile form of academic existence.

As George Carlin so eloquently put it...I will be staying at home satisfying myself while you spend your ten minutes voting...in the end, at least I will have something to show for my efforts...

Richard...your narrowmindedness and lack of truly human qualities is staggering...how do you live with yourself knowing that ignorance and prejudice surrounds you?

CP
www.wicper.org

Jonathan Dresner - 11/2/2004

Mr. Morgan,

Your history still needs work. South Africa was a democracy even through the height of Apartheid, but it was, as I think Tim Burke put it in these pages not long ago, a National Emergency State. . . . Here it is. What it became was a multi-ethnic democracy, which is a very different transition, much like that the US went through. And though US guns were not involved, US money was....

I admit that Hobsbawm's formulation may be tautological (I almost elipsis'ed that sentence) and unnecessarily negative, but the fact is that there are a great many models of government other than the US that are both fair and functional, and that those, rather than some ideological yardstick, should be the measures of success.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/2/2004

Is it beyond belief that transnational institutions that Hobsbawm sees as currently beyond the reach of democratic electorates shall become more responsive to peoples' needs when they themselves become democracies composed of democratic states? Just wondering. Is it axiomatically true that "electoral democracy cannot function effectively outside political units such as nation-states"? Or is that just another brilliant Hobsbawmian take on history, like the triumph of the Soviet Union? And as I understand it, South Africa (among other states) has become a democracy without US troops. Will miracles never cease?

Ralph E. Luker - 11/2/2004

More of your history, Richard. Of course, if the United States sent its armies into each of those sovereign tyrannies, democracy could reign everywhere.

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/2/2004

Good point. Now let's look at one of those transnational institutions without a democratic electorate -- the UN. I'm not sure I buy his argument that an electoral democracy can't function outside of nation-states. In fact, I think it quite possible that the UN will only function well when it becomes an institution composed solely of democratically elected states. In fact, I think it entirely perverse that it currently exists as an institution where non-democratic states hold the majority. One need look no further than the UN Committee on Human Rights to see the problem.

Ralph E. Luker - 11/1/2004

Does your reasoning give us leave to dismiss what you say because of the history of what you have said?

Richard Henry Morgan - 11/1/2004

Hobsbawm's uncertainty about the future of democracy is an improvement -- he supported the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Soviet invasion of Hungary, and has been equally certain of the triumph of communism. That he is now uncertain about democracy, where once he was certain it would fail, is something of a modest improvement.