Is Democracy an Illusion?

Introduced by Rose Allender

Notes on the 30/10/02 meeting of HKPC's Kowloon Branch

Reported by Steve Palmquist (moderator)

Rose introduced the topic by going through her handout. The main dilemma she posed was whether it is better to view democracy in a highly idealistic way, even though we may never be able to reach that goal, or to set our aims low so that they are at least reachable.

The first half of the question time was dominated by the problem of democracy’s many definitions. One person claimed that, according to Rose’s definition of democracy (as voting plus the feeling that one’s views have an impact on policy), Hong Kong is still not democratic. Rose preferred a more moderate stance, saying it’s not as democratic as the Chief Executive would like us to believe, but that it is partially so. Another person suggested that the key to democracy is not “majority rules”, but rather, the freedom to have and to express a minority opinion. Others cited representative government and the rule of law as key factors. On the latter point, someone argued that rule of law is democratic only when “we the people” determine the law. And that is not true in Hong Kong. The danger of this method of determining law, of course, is that it can give rise to unethical decisions, sometimes even policies that violate some people’s basic human rights.

About half way through, I asked Rose which side of her dilemma she prefers to come down on: embracing reality or preserving the ideal? Rose replied that, although preserving the ideal has a tendency to make us unhappy (because it is never actually realized), we should not abandon it altogether, because it serves an important function. When an ideal is totally lacking, bad policies are much more likely to be implemented; but the ideal needs to be tempered so that it does not depart too much from the real situation. One participant asked whether real democracy can be improved by democratic means, or whether it must be imposed upon the people. Rose responded that the former works in theory, but does not always seem to work in practice, due to the apathy of many people. The questioner responded that he actually likes it when there is an election where very few people vote, because it seems to indicate that the people are satisfied! But Rose retorted that it could also indicate that both (or all) candicates are bad! Along these lines, I noted that my personal approach is always to vote for the candidate who is genuinely the best, even though he or she never has any chance of winning.

At this point I suggested that the 19 attendees divide up into three or four small groups and focus on the problems of how to define democracy and/or how to resolve the conflict between the real and the ideal. In the small group I joined, several interesting views were expressed on the former problem: democratic societies tend to produce more laws, which actually restrict freedom rather than increasing it; true democracy should above all be “open”, so that there is less need for restriction; laws that do exist should be “blind”, not targeted to any specific group; democratic governments should not interfere with the market economy; “democracy” should not be identified with the view that the majority is always right; only when people realize that democracy requires mutual respect can it lead to a perfectly ordered society; and lively debate is a key to making a democratic society work well. On the problem of the ideal and the real, I pointed out that Aristotle preferred a system with low ideals, because it is less likely to cause harm when corrupted: e.g., a corrupt king becomes an intolerable tyrant, whereas a corrupt “polity” becomes a tolerable democracy (understood as the “least bad” of all the bad political systems, in Aristotle’s view). This sparked a discussion of whether or not ordinary people want democracy. One person cited the “trailer park child” who wants a better education as a good example of the positive answer, while another mentioned the poverty-stricken people in Bangladesh who are nevertheless happy as evidence of the negative answer. Clearly, there is no universally correct answer here, yet we generally agreed that what usually causes democracy (which literally means “people power”) not to work very well is that many of the people in a given society simply do not want to have the power!

After reconvening in a large group, one participant summarized her group’s view of the proper function of an ideal by stating that ideals are very important because they give meaning, yet they can be dangerous; we therefore need to form ideals that can shape the way we live our lives, but without becoming fanatical (i.e., without being treated as if they were concrete goals to be realized here and now). For this reason, democratic societies must always remain open to a flux of ideals. Or, as another person put it: diversity of definitions is essential to prevent the ideal from being oppressive. (Presumably, this insight also applies to our view of ideals in general, as well as to our understanding of what democracy itself is.)

A representative of another small group reported several definitions of “democracy” (or “democratic”) they had come up with: majority vote; acknowledging diversity in people; informed voters affecting government’s policy; clear-headed and non-manipulating; protecting the minority; a myth; everyone is free and has an equal say; decisions based on facts, not hearsay; and respecting individuals. The last point, someone observed, explains why we cannot achieve democracy: people do not, in general, practice universal respect for all other people.

One person noted that the desire for democracy (or “more” democracy) is often taken as an indication that one is a traitor or wants to challenge those in power; those who are willing to submit to authority and work toward consensus sometimes portray democracy as unnecessary or even detrimental, leading instead to chaos and anarchy. This comment elicited several responses: we should be able to disagree and yet still respect each other; anarchy and rebellion are not the same as democracy; in order for democracy to succeed, the people must have knowledge. The first person then pointed out that Hong Kong has quite a strong government, so perhaps this is why Hong Kong is undemocratic. One of the respondents replied that the question is: where does the strength come from? In a democracy, it comes from the people; justified opposition (even rebellion) is possible; indeed, the people have a right to revolt. Here I summarized an interpretation of Lincoln’s presidency that has been growing in popularity in the USA: the turning-point in US history came when Lincoln took away from the Confederate states their constitutional right to withdraw from the union; in fighting the civil war, Lincoln over-stepped the US Constitution, took away the basis for the democratic society that had been formed up until that point, and used slavery as a moral “cover” for what was really going on; some claim that he intended to reinstate the Constitution after the war, and may have been assassinated by forces that opposed that move.

We then spent some time discussing the idea (raised by the small group I participated in) that happiness is inversely proportional to democracy. One group member added that the freest persons seem to be those who are either extremely wealthy or extremely poor. One response warned that democracy should not be identified with living standards; another, that we have no right to judge the happiness of others and should take care to avoid romanticizing the poor; and another, that the issue is not whether poor people do or do not desire to be as they are, but rather, whether their way of life is “desirable”. I concluded by agreeing that we must be careful not to generalize, but adding that happiness does seems to depend (for everyone) on mental assumptions relating to how much our ideals allow us to accept reality.

++++

In a very brief time for collecting topics, the following suggestions were given:

- What is success? (Or “Success as toxic”)

- Intelligence

Return to the home page of HKPCâs Kowloon Branch.

Return to the main map of Steve Palmquist's web site.

This page was uploaded on 16 December 2002.