Democracy and Freedom
Posted: Sat Sep 30, 2017 8:55 am
Democracy and Freedom
The problem for debate is language with its vast weight of history.
What was called the 'West' has politicians that constantly refer to their countries as Free and Democratic. Other values hang from these prime values according to rhetorical need. Demos is the people, and freedom is naturally that of people. Government of - by - for. In fact it is often said with much justification that our whole culture is based on the individual ego. So much so that we forget everything else. But the difference between freedom and democracy is that the latter is really two values combined, and when used with freedom specifies a particular kind of freedom. If we go back to simple values then democracy is not one of them, nor any other ideology or philosophy or end-game.
This has relevance today with several regions that happen to be within other countries, but looking for independence. We tend to look at a country like Spain, and satisfy ourselves that it is a democracy with free elections by its citizenry. Catalan people are outvoted and the constitution does not [perhaps] allow for secession. Imagine the situation if the whole EU were a single polity, based on an aggregate of free citizens. It would be majority rule and mass rule with a vengeance.
There are indeed many who have long recognised that democracy has to be qualified. The rights of minorities have been recognised, when convenient. Even so they can still be thought of an aggregate of individuals, which may be true if they are simply a pressure group of people spread through the whole country. An ethnic community with local historical roots is not simply a pressure group of opinion. Such communities represent the other wing of freedom, in which societies themselves are members of the whole regional or global polity. Freedom from the grass roots of society. Diversity is at the grass roots of social groups.
Which is not to forget Pragmatism. A polity has to be viable, and not make other unviable. The Federal state was of course invented for this purpose, and such unions may be regional and global. The problematic art is to make both the whole and the parts work 'democratically',
The problem for debate is language with its vast weight of history.
What was called the 'West' has politicians that constantly refer to their countries as Free and Democratic. Other values hang from these prime values according to rhetorical need. Demos is the people, and freedom is naturally that of people. Government of - by - for. In fact it is often said with much justification that our whole culture is based on the individual ego. So much so that we forget everything else. But the difference between freedom and democracy is that the latter is really two values combined, and when used with freedom specifies a particular kind of freedom. If we go back to simple values then democracy is not one of them, nor any other ideology or philosophy or end-game.
This has relevance today with several regions that happen to be within other countries, but looking for independence. We tend to look at a country like Spain, and satisfy ourselves that it is a democracy with free elections by its citizenry. Catalan people are outvoted and the constitution does not [perhaps] allow for secession. Imagine the situation if the whole EU were a single polity, based on an aggregate of free citizens. It would be majority rule and mass rule with a vengeance.
There are indeed many who have long recognised that democracy has to be qualified. The rights of minorities have been recognised, when convenient. Even so they can still be thought of an aggregate of individuals, which may be true if they are simply a pressure group of people spread through the whole country. An ethnic community with local historical roots is not simply a pressure group of opinion. Such communities represent the other wing of freedom, in which societies themselves are members of the whole regional or global polity. Freedom from the grass roots of society. Diversity is at the grass roots of social groups.
Which is not to forget Pragmatism. A polity has to be viable, and not make other unviable. The Federal state was of course invented for this purpose, and such unions may be regional and global. The problematic art is to make both the whole and the parts work 'democratically',