Democracy - can we actually achieve it?

We consider democracy to be our holy grail, our flag that we wave to proclaim that we are enlightened and "have figured it all out". The unfortunate thing is that what I see occurring in our country today seems to be resembling democracy less and less each year.

We have a five party system - four of those parties resemble each other somewhat in terms of economic policies, social spending, and social policy. Of course they have major differences, but they are still closer to each other in ideology than any are to the fifth party. This was of course evidenced in the recent political debate where these four leaders essentially banded together in their attack on the policies (or lack thereof) of the fifth party.

Despite the fact that the most recent polls show that these four parties actually enjoy the support of 62% of the population, the fact is that the Conservatives (the "fifth party" described above) will likely win this election. Yes, the party that has the support of less than 40% of people in this country, will in a few days be "elected" to rule this country for four years.

Democracy?

Okay, so the above example is a flaw of our definition of what makes up a government, and a flaw in our riding system, our "first-past-the-post" system, etc. etc. So even if we change the system - can democracy actually exist in our country in any tangible way??

When I was going through medical school, we were taught that when talking to patients we must use a vocabulary equivalent to a grade 8 level, because this is what the average literacy and education level in our country has been shown to be. When the government publishes health-related literature they deliberately write it to a grade 5 or 6 level.

Clearly we are able to acknowledge that our education system is flawed in that we are churning out adults that have lower literacy (?and possibly lower critical thinking ability?) than that of our 10-13 year-old children.

How can democracy truly ever exist in such a scenario? How can someone with such a low education level possibly be able to sift through the nuances of political discourse? How can this person actually make an informed decision? After all, isn't democracy about informed choice? What is left then to sway voters is not any of things that make a good leader - it is not the leader's intelligence, it is not the leader's ideology, it is not the leader's ability to adopt useful models from other nations - simply put, it is how good the leader's marketing manager is.

We have turned our democratic process into a series of branding excercises - and he/she who can attract the best marketers in the business is more likely to win. So, you hire the GAP's branding team, and you rise 10% in the polls. You learn that wearing a sweater vest, kissing babies, and starting every sentence with "Let's be clear..." inspires confidence, and you win a majority government.

In this age of corporate messaging and branding, our children should surely receive some training in how to sift through these media messages and how to separate the truth from the image. If we truly believe in democracy, should we not also have available in schools courses on current issues that start from a young age? So that political awareness and critique of media messaging becomes ingrained from a young age, pushing out any space that apathy and intellectual vulnerability could take up.

I'll Give You Money If You Promise To Follow My "Religion"

Foreign aid organizations are well-known for linking their aid to ideological change. Usually this involves setting some stipulations upon which the aid money is contingent. These stipulations usually center around the promotion of various Western ideologies - democratic reforms, free-market reforms, women's rights, individual liberties, etc. etc. The IMF is well-known for this, however even smaller NGO's participate in such aid-linked ideological reforms - some explicitly and others more implicitly.

I personally find this strategy to be both ill-founded, and oppressive. I believe that development projects should not be linked to ideological changes for a number of reasons including:

1) it subverts local movements by linking them to western movements which often hold negative connotations in many parts of the world

2) it takes advantage of vulnerable people who need essential service and essentially holds them hostage to promote our own western political views

One example to demonstrate how the (well-meaning) promotion of ideologies by foreigners may paradoxically have the opposite effect of that intended follows below:

As many of you know, Canada has a Communist Party. Now, imagine that there is a Chinese NGO whose mandate is to support communist movements around the world in the hopes of "enlightening people to the joys of communism"(much as we Westerners do in our zeal to "enlighten people about democracy"). This NGO may well consider lending their support to the Canadian Communist Party. What effect do you think this endorsement would have? Do you think it would increase Canadian buy-in to communist values? Or do you think it would do the opposite?

Personally, I think that if such an endorsement were to occur, most people would develop increasingly negative feelings towards the Canadian Communist Party. Why? Because of all of the negative connotations that Chinese-style "communism" holds in most Canadian's minds. Their endorsement would backfire and ultimately subvert the Canadian communist movement.

Similarly, if western women's groups went into Pakistan to preach women's rights (as they do), I believe that it would do a similar disservice to the Pakistani women's movement. Because of the connotations of western women that exist in Pakistan (that we are "loose", "easy", and "lacking in morals") - endorsing a local women's rights movement would actually cause people who may have been sympathetic to move away.

Besides being wholly insulting to the legitimacy of another cultures' chosen world view, besides being an instrument of holding poor people (who need these essential services) hostage to ideological reforms, this ideologically-linked aid in fact has the possibility of having effects that are directly opposite to its intent. Much like Colonialism, these blatant neo-Colonial excercises will no doubt bring about more misery than development.

Herodotus and Relativism

I recently came across this interesting story by Herodotus and a corresponding comment by Mary Midgley (philosopher) in her book "Can't We Make Moral Judgements?" that I thought readers of this blog may enjoy.

Darius the Great, King of Persia "summoned the Greeks (who cremated their dead) who were with him and asked them for what price they would eat their fathers' dead bodies. They answered that there was no price for which they would do it. Then Darius summoned those Indians who are called Callatiae, who eat their parents, and asked them (the Greeks being present and understanding through interpreters what was said) what would make them willing to burn their fathers at death. The Indians cried aloud, that he should not speak of so horrid an act. So firmly rooted are these beliefs; and it is , I think, rightly said in Pindar's poem that custom is lord of all"

Mary Midgley states that the Persian King appears "in the role of the detached, sophisticated, neutral observer above the dispute who understands other people's difficulties. He is the one who can see through superficial symbols to the reality behind them. The Persians, after all, neither burned their own dead nor ate them. They knew very well that they had solved the problem of disposal in the only right way, namely by putting corpses on high towers and letting the vultures eat them"