Jussi generally disapproves when I 'go off on one' on this blog. But I can't resist this little ditty that I've thrown in to No Impact Man to stimulate some debate. What do you think?
So, to develop a theme I started in Rising from the Ashes:
There are three things I should expand upon:
1. Democracy promotes mediocrity. I mean that democracy naturally tends towards the middle way. Most of the time this is good - but when there is a real crisis, the middle way is often not enough. In the crisis we are in it's very difficult to see a middle way.
2. Democracy panders to the short term wants of the masses. Well it does. It's very rare to see the democratic process elect a Government promising to cut standards of living or even moderate increases in taxes.
3. Democracy lacks the courage to make difficult decisions. Politicians have to be looking ahead to the next election and so politicians defer difficult decisions.
I'm not saying that difficult decisions never get made - but it's rare, and there's a long lead time.
In the environmental catastrophe we are entering we don't have time to procrastinate. We don't have time for the majority to catch up on the need for urgent action. And they may well never catch up - in our world of free speech there are plenty of nay sayers denying climate change has anything to do with human activity - and some of these are backed by big money and therefore get a disproportionately loud hearing.
It's a tough dilemma - there are many examples of malicious non-democratic systems and I fear any diminution of the power of the people. But the thing about climate change is that we NEED to act really really fast or it'll be too late. And although all the little things like switching lights off help, we need a fundamental shift in value systems - away from 'stuff' and towards something else - probably something closer to the values of the worlds old religions - Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam,Judaism etc. We've existed on these values for centuries, and mostly without democracy.
In western democracies politicians are generally try to get elected on promises of more stuff.
And anyway, we shouldn't forget that many (if not most) democracies have substantial minorities who get overlooked and are condemned to real deprivation and suffering. Democracy is good for the majority - but does that make it the best system we can come up with?
Democracy is a relatively new experiment. It's worked very well - but are we now seeing its short-comings coming home to roost?
If democracy can't defeat climate change I suspect climate change will defeat democracy anyway. As populations migrate because of flooding, drought and food shortages and social cohesion collapses, 'democracies' will be forced to enact new powers of control and 'states of emergency'. If this is inevitable, maybe we should be planning now what we want, because I don't think martial law appeals to anyone.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
OK then. I 'disapprove', too (cringe, more like), but you got me this time. I think the problem is not democracy but capitalism, which is playing to the predominant greed behind all this. If people don't want more and more of everything anymore (or expect it, or think it's their right!), they might slow down and look sideways to see if they can help their neighbour for a change. Simplistic but the general idea.
Thanks Lulu!
I understand the cringe factor - but I'm not afraid of making a tit of myself and I want to encourage people to think about these things.
Greed is definitely the problem - and the capitalism we've seen in recent years has been wholly driven by greed. I hope we can build a new capitalism that has a greater sense of social responsibility.
But my point about democracy is that we need radical and probably painful action if we are to combat the worst ravages of climate change - and I severely doubt the capacity of democracy to deliver.
I can't offer any solutions, but I think there should be a debate about it and I'll do what I can to encourage that debate (mainly on other people's blogs - but occasionally I can't resist letting it bleed into mine). Maybe I should have another blog that's free to major on politics and social issues.
It's a challenging stance. I believe that true Democracy is a true representation of the People; its flaws are their flaws. If the Demos is shallow, pessimistic and self-interested then so is the Democracy. If we work to realise our potential as a whole, we can recycle those weaknesses into strengths; depth, idealism and generosity. Then the Democracy will reflect those strengths and be capable of making the decisions that are needed. Can we do it before we do too much damage?
Or do we want to go down this road?
"We recognize that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind’s own destruction and to the death of nations. Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger. That is the fundamental point of the biological tasks of our age. Humankind alone is no longer the focus of thought, but rather life as a whole . . . This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."
Ernst Lehmann, Biologischer Wille. Wege und Ziele biologischer Arbeit im neuen Reich, München, 1934
Holy shit Chris!!
Where the hell did you dig that up from?
But it's a great contribution to the debate and demonstrates how dangerous to is to dismiss democracy.
I fear the demos is being deliberately kept dumb. It needn't be so - but will things change in time?
"One theme is both familiar and clear: religion - in particular fundamentalist religion - makes you stupid. "
Good old George tells it like it is.
Post a Comment