Back to Democracy...

So where was I? Oh yes.

Drawbacks of democratic government so far
1. elections
2. instability
3. short-termism
4. majority versus plurality.

So onwards:

5. Government by the people?
This one's the sensitive one. Every vote is equal. Every man and woman (with certain exceptions) has a right to a vote and all are equal. But the way in which the individual arrives at the decision as to which way to vote is by no means equal. In an ideal democratic society the Voter, keen as s/he is to cast his/her vote to the greatest benefit to the country, reads all the manifestos, watches all the party political broadcasts, goes to public meetings to hear their constituency candidates speak and then, armed with all the policy information, makes an informed vote. And indeed I would guess that this may be what happens in infant democracies.

But not here. Here, the Voter reads their preferred daily paper - the Sun, the Mirror, the Express, the Telegraph or whatever and, because their opinions probably chime broadly with what the viewpoint these organs espouse on most issues, goes with what they say. And that makes the most important decision-maker in any election campaign... the Sun, with a circulation figure (as of June 2005) of 3,363,375. And we all know how reliable they are (see my post about tabloid editors running the country). So who are all the parties schmoozing and keeping onside? The editor of the Sun. Close on their heels is the Daily Mail with 2,405,499. Now don't get me started on the Mail, the most bigoted, prissy organ beloved of fearful people who think they're a great deal cleverer than they are. (I rather like this little collection of snits, which sums up most of my thioughts on the subject: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=daily+mail) It's worse, IMHO, than the Sun.

The sales of the broadsheets, Times, FT, Guardian, Telegraph, Independent, which actually feature in-depth analysis of issues and whose headlines are smaller and less strident; total little more than the readership of the Mail at 2,712,435.

So while that bit about democracy being a form of government ignoring hereditary class divisions is true, that doesn't mean that people are making up their own minds. The red-tops scream anecdotes about the state of the nation and never pause to consider the effect they will have long-term on the well-being of the country. Let's not forget that there is a vicious battle for market supremacy out there, and no one got poor by under-estimating the taste of the public. You might as well consult the Beano.

That Mme de Stael comment about democracy being "the triumph of the lowest common denominator" makes people all over the world spit with rage, but let's face it - the tabloid journalist reduces political analysis to precisely that. All opinions and policies are distilled down to the point where absolutely anyone with the most limited understanding can get what they're saying. It's their job and they're good at it, but a great deal of subtlety and boring analysis of long-term effects of social, political and econiomic effect is not going to make the cut.

There is more, but I'll save that for another day.

So what I am saying, for now, is that Democracy doesn't do what it says on the tin. That doesn't mean that it's not often the best compromise available, although I'm not even sure that that is always true, but let's not elevate it to some pseudo-religious crusade, because to pretend that it's ideal is at best disingenuous and at best criminally misleading. I would advance as further evidence of this the fact that George Bush, not known widely, I would suggest for his subtlety or incisive thinking, may disagree. There is a place in the world for feudal and tribal sociaties, although probably not in the western world where we have since the time of the ancient Greeks understood the concept of democracy. But can we at least consider the prevailing society before we try to shoehorn everyone in the world into an ill-fitting shoe?