“For all men cling to justice of some kind, but their conceptions are imperfect and they do not express the whole idea.”
We reached moon. So have our ideas – our ability to think, to visualize, to debate and to arrive at new original principles. Today, the fastest means of communications exist. We can talk to anyone across the globe on a real time basis. But what do we communicate? Why is that despite having to spend negligible energy, we have in recent times never reached the level of dialogues amongst us in our society as Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle reached in theirs? Why is it that every single idea that has ever crossed our minds is from the pages of age old philosophers’ works, who bothered to think centuries ago? Why is it that we have stopped mooting established conventions?
I take this opportunity to break the ice, if possible. Not a chunk, but a small piece at least. Let us moot democracy. Let us think!
The best argument that critics of democracy receive from the die-hard believers in it is that democracy always works, if you can make it do. They say – in a democratic form you get what you deserve. That means if the majority wants to elect a group not only incompetent but also corrupt and indifferent to the job of governance, it’s the problem of those who elect them.
Take this analogy and answer me. There has been since time immemorial a debate on whether suicide should be allowed. Arguments such as ‘a right to live carries with it a right not to live’ have been put forward. But despite everything, in the name of civilized society, we have in our penal codes prohibited suicide. Even inciting a person to commit suicide is a criminal offence.
That was talking about individuals. Electing a group incompetent and corrupt to govern us is a mass suicide. Does an act committed in a group become justified just because it has been endorsed by the majority?
Ibsen through his character ‘Dr. Stockmann’ in his play An Enemy of the People retorts:
“The most dangerous enemy of truth and freedom among us is…the solid majority! Yes, the damned, solid, liberal majority – that’s it!…The majority never has right on its side…never, I tell you! That’s one of the social lies that an intelligent, independent man has to fight against. Who makes up the majority of the population in a country – the wise men or the fools? I think you will agree with me that, all the wide world over, nowadays the fools are in a quite terrifyingly overwhelming majority. And how the devil can it be right for fools to rule over the wise men? …You can shout me down, but you cannot refute me. The majority is strong – unfortunately – but right it certainly is not! I am right – and a few others – the minority is always right!”
Nothing could possible justify this proposition better than the fact that today across the globe we see majority making a wrong choice- time and again.
My argument is not to discard democracy right away. That is, in my opinion, the greatest mistake most philosophical studies make: leave us with a choice between two extremes. My argument is that we need to shake away the complacency, the indifference that has crept into our collective life- the political life.
The immediate question asked would certainly be, “If not democracy, what?” Most people suppress their arguments against democracy because they do not have an answer to it. Today, even if I do not have an answer to that question, I have still decided to speak – so that we can arrive at an answer someday.
“Plato complains that whereas in simpler matters- like shoe-making- we think only a specially trained person will serve our purpose, in politics we presume that everyone who knows how to get votes knows how to administer a city or a state. When we are ill we call for a trained physician, whose degree is a guarantee of specific preparation and technical competence- we do not ask for the handsomest physician, or the most eloquent one; well then, when the whole state is ill should we not look for the service and guidance of the wisest and the best? To device a method of barring incompetence and knavery from public office, and of selection and preparing the best to rule for the common good – that is the problem of political philosophy”. Just because despite all attempts made since time immemorial and having arrived at a solution that is not finally working for us, should we conclude that there can not be a better solution to this problem? In my humble opinion, the conclusion that we need to draw is that; it indeed is a difficult problem which we need to keep straining our brains about and whatever solution we arrive at must be dynamic in nature. That is to say that it must be able to adjust to the fast changing human life. There is no place for rigidity in politics. That is precisely why it is my request to my colleagues of the present generation that the time has come when we need to eye the present form of democracy critically. You need not have an answer now, but you need to begin. Start with mooting democracy!
