Gustible - under the rubric of [$_SELF]

I wonder about democracy, about the will of the people. Today it is virtually sacrilege (at least in the West, and also in large parts of the East) to question the validity of democracy as a governmental system. (I should say – Democracy, capitalised).

Democracy is built on the idea that every person who is considered to meet the criteria for being able to cast a vote, can have a direct say in how they are represented in government.

Is this a fair description of democracy ? Let’s assume it is.

I believe there are certain problems inherent in the idea of a democracy – the first of which is that the group of people who are considered to be able to directly participate in a democracy, i.e. cast a vote, generally qualify by virtue of attaining a certain age. Yes – the sole criterium in most democracies is the ability to survive till you turn 18 (or 21 in some cases). This does not seem a particularly onerous requirement, especially in societies that have both the will and the means to ensure that every member of the society is safeguarded from physical, mental, and other threats. And surviving to the age of 18 does not, in itself, qualify one for anything other than the ability to take advantage of what society offers.

Let me interject here – criticising something, does not imply that I have a ready-made alternative available. I do not have an alternative to democracy at hand that will solve the problems of democratic government – nevertheless: criticism may lead to awareness, which may lead to improvement.

Continuing on the issue of being “qualified” to participate in a democracy, of being qualified to vote. A voter should be able to demonstrate that she understands exactly what she is voting for, i.e. understand the full consequences of her vote. (This supposes that the voter has all the relevant, and true, information at her disposal – which is a different issue from being qualified to vote, and we will pursue it further under the heading of “Accountability”.) So – how does one demonstrate an understanding of the issues at hand ? Not an easy question to answer at all. In a first world society, it is possible to envision a short questionnaire being displayed on the electronic voting booth’s screen – if the voter does not answer the questions correctly, her vote is discounted. In a third world scenario this is somewhat harder to picture – consider that 50% or more of the voters may be unable to read. There are other issues apart from literacy: infrastructure, logistics, and a host of problems related to these.

Am I suggesting that illiterate citizens of third world countries should not be able to participate in a democracy ? Not directly, no. But part of what I am considering, is that democracy may not be the best solution in certain countries, given the history and state of current affairs in these countries.

I will explore these issues in further posts:

• Are the citizens of first world countries able to realise the ideals of a democracy, i.e. representation in government and influence of its policies ?
• Does war change the picture ?
• How does one enforce accountability ? How can we make them keep their promises ?
• What about religion – does it have anything to do with this ? And science ?
• Does democracy require continuous feedback from the people ? How can this work ?
• Are politicians to be trusted ? Why ?
• And patriotism – is it anyone’s democratic right to be unpatriotic ?

I may get bored discussing these topics…but we’ll try and make some progress at least.