Mandy @ POLI 333D

While democracy can be simply defined by four words: “ruled by the people,” we all know it is more complex than that. I believe that such minimalistic definition of democracy is used to prevent contradictory interpretations of democracy resulted from different ways of conceptualization. As such, when we try to define democracy, we should keep in mind whether we are looking through the lenses of an ideal or doctrine, of certain kinds of behavior towards others, or of certain institutional and legal arrangements. [1]

In my view, democracy should neither be defined by certain kinds of behaviors nor institutional and legal arrangements, but by its ideal in protecting liberty and equality of citizens. Liberty, as Aristotle argues, includes the political liberty to participate in political decision-making and to speak freely in both public and private domains, as well as the private liberty to live more or less as one pleased. In terms of equality, which is the practical basis of liberty, people are expected to have an equal share of ruling. This means that democracy entails legal and political equality or even economic equality (if it can facilitate political equality).

My idea that democracy should be conceptualized by its ideal is derived from the fact that the practices of democracy have evolved over time from the classical Greek model to the contemporary ones. Yet, the principles of popular sovereignty, as well as of liberty and equality, have remained as the foundations of democracy along the time. I shall first introduce the basic practical differences between classical and contemporary democracy, so to illustrate that the ideal of democracy has remained constant.

To begin, classical democracy is defined by the Aristotelian idea that citizens should enjoy political equality in order to be free to rule and be ruled in turn. Classical democracy claims that all citizens could and indeed should participate in the creation and nurturing of common life. Thus, citizens are expected to commit to the principle of civil virtue, by dedicating themselves to their state and subordinating their private life to public affairs and the common good. This belief is confirmed by the fact that, in 510 B.C. ancient Greece, there was an assembly which was held every ten days in a room that could contain 6000 people, and that everyone could take part. To safeguard the principle of political equality, 500 citizens (50 x 10 tribes) were chosen by lot to be members of the Council, so that they could bring an idea to the Assembly, whose members would make the final decision. Because of the alternation of the Council’s membership, most citizens would have some time of governing in life.

Because of the expansion of the scale of ruled continent and the increased demand for citizens’ times in areas other than politics, contemporary democracy – in contrast with the classical one – is characterized by passive citizens’ role and representation. As citizens are supposed to delegate their political power to their representatives, their political participation is mostly defined by direct participation such as voting, and indirect such as protesting. Despite the minimalist idea of citizenship, the normative principle of political equality still entrenches to maintain equal formal political rights among citizens, as confirmed by the fact that each citizen would only accorded one vote in an election so to prevent wealth, power, or status from privileging any citizen.

From such comparison, we can see that although the practices of democracy have changed, its ideal has not. Furthermore, by conceptualizing democracy through its ideals rather than practices, we can also mediate the debate on the democratic deficit – that democracy has failed to function the way it should have. If we understand that at the outset democracy is an ideal which guides us toward more common goods, we will be more willing to seek ways to minimize the gap between reality and such ideal. Since minimizing the gap can be pursued by innovating institutional arrangements or other practices of democracy, conceptualizing democracy through practices is a constrained way to promote democracy.

Tags: 1 Comment

The functioning of democracy largely depends on the definition of citizenship, which has become vaguer as more western democracies become inclusive of different linguistic and cultural communities.

While democracy and multiculturalism themselves are not contradictory, their relationship can be complex.  In fact, little attention has been paid to the questions of whether democracy should support institutions that define and support multicultural identities, as well as how multicultural democracies should reinforce the core values of democracy, such constitutionalism, pluralism and tolerance.

Another issue raised by multiculturalism is representation. Should we adopt group representation or mirror representation in multicultural democracies? While mirror representation is highly impractical, group representation also fails to solve the problem that every group has sub-groups, which have different characteristics and hence different interests.

I recall John Rawls’s claim that self-perception of citizenship determines one’s perceptions of social and political obligations. I agree with this statement and believe that any confusion over one’s identity and responsibility as a full citizen is detrimental to social development. Therefore, to promote harmonious cultural pluralism and diverse opinions, it is my view that inclusive democracies should encourage its citizens to pursue their identities. For the second question, I don’t have an answer yet (and I may even support substantive representation). However, I believe that the first step to a harmonious multicultural society is to affirm respectfully the different linguist and cultural heritages of citizens. If communication could lead to mutual understanding between fellow citizens, the matter of representation would not be a big issue.

Tags: No Comments.

Security Council mulls Syria Resolution

In almost all articles on Syria which I have read, foreign interventions are implied as a determinant of Syrian (democratic) future. At first glance, the idea of “self-determination” in democracy – that a community has the right to govern itself and determines its own future – appears to have been undermined as the international community grants authority to interventions (by either other state actors or intergovernmental organizations like the UN and the Arab League). While in a deeper level of thought, interventions would be legitimate if it was for the purpose of humanitarian relief, or for satisfying the desire for external help of the Syrian majority. The two levels of contrasting thoughts lead to the question that: Are foreign interventions in anti-humanitarian countries still congruent with democratic ideals?

Personally, I don’t have a stance on what the international community should do in Syria. I have long aware that the media has been biased towards the “pro-democracy activists”, who in fact are responsible for many killings in Syria. Although I feel disheartening when I knew many of Syrian civilians have been killed, part of me wonders that if civil conflicts (/wars) should better be solved by the nation itself. (I hate to say this, but from history we have learnt that it is how countries evolve to be civilized.)

I believe that to solve my ambivalence towards foreign interventions, one solution is to re-conceptualize the meaning of democracy. As it has become more acceptable that sovereignty is no longer demarcated by territorial boundaries, but shared by actors beyond national frontiers, it has also been more reasonable to rethink the proper form and scope of legitimate political power. Relevant questions simply include: when and how should the international community respond to inappropriate behaviors of a state. By rethinking these questions, it is believe that a new conceptualization of the meaning of democracy in a globalized world, and of the impact of the international framework of political order/ideology on both democracies and non-democracies, can be formed to accommodate more extensive and effective global democratization.

p.s. Despite all these discussions among external actors have been incessant, it seems that the influences of these actors are still marginal. First, to get Russian and China support the draft resolution proposed by the Arab League and the UN is difficult. Second, the power of a resolution that lack military intervention and economic sanction is questionable, especially in a state where the pressure from large scale of domestic protests and international condemnations does not work. In sum, besides international stigmatization, it is unsure about how the international community can impact the Syrian government.

Read more:

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/30/world/meast/syria-damascus-q-and-a/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

http://www.cnn.com/2012/01/31/world/meast/syria-unrest/index.html?hpt=wo_c1

Tags: No Comments.

This article argues that although Turkey has become more liberal than a decade ago, it is still an illiberal democracy, which is defined as a “political system in which free and fair elections take place, but civil liberties are not fully protected and governmental power is not limited with liberal principles.” The article comments that although an illiberal democratic regime is not the most desirable situation for Turkey, it is better than the authoritarian ones. It understandable why Turkey is called an illiberal democracy as its people can only vote for parties rather than candidates, and as the freedom of speech is high constrained through prosecutions by the state. It means that one crucial attribute of democracy, namely civil liberties, is absent from Turkey’s democratic regime.

In another article, the term “illiberal democracy” is used to warn India against stifling artistic expression. It argues that doing so is detrimental to India’s cultural and intellectual pluralism, hence the development of its democratic society. Again, India is a democracy with free elections, but it is obvious that the government’s action to constrain artists’ freedom of expression is anti-liberal/democratic.

The two articles’ definitions of illiberal democracy are both compatible with that of Collier and Levitsky, who identify illiberal democracy as belongs to the group of “diminished subtype”, as well as of democracy where “elections are reasonable free and competitive but civil liberties are incomplete.” By offering clear definitions of illiberal democracy and by having a seeming agreement on the  “the root conception (of democracy) used in deriving subtypes”, the authors of the two articles successfully avoid the problem – suggested by Collier and Levitsky – of reducing the value of the diminished subtype.

Despite these authors have used “illiberal democracy” consistently to illustrate the absence of civil liberties, the idea of illiberal democracy itself raises the question if free elections alone can justifiably label a regime as democratic, when civil liberties – which include freedom of speech and discussion – are essential for citizens’ informed judgments in elections. Meanwhile, the idea of illiberal democracy appear to me as an excuse of a government for not fixing its flaws.  In my view, if a government cannot fulfill even the basic  standards of democracy, it will be better to just call it a non-democracy (maybe with elections).

Tags: No Comments.

http://www.ted.com/talks/michael_sandel_the_lost_art_of_democratic_debate.html

I get inspired by one of you guys to get insights from TED talks 🙂

According Mr. Sandel, central to Aristotle’s thinking on justice is the idea that, it is hard to debate what is justice, without being able to first decide the purposes of social institutions and what quality is worthy of honor and recognition. To illustrate his points, Mr. Sandel used the example of same-sex marriage to suggest that, whether same-sex marriage should be legalized is really a matter of what you think the purposes of marriage are. As such, Mr. Sandel argues that, in order to achieve productive democratic debates and more important, mutual respect in a society, citizens should engage directly with the moral and religious convictions of themselves and others, instead of shying away from these convictions before entering into the political and civic life.

I find My Sandel’s points compatible with my understanding of developmental democracy, which advocates the protection of political and civil rights by the law. These rights include the freedom of speech, expression, association, voting and belief.  Among the proponents of developmental democracy, John Stuart Mill in his Essay on Liberty (1859), emphasizes the importance of freedom of discussion and of crash of ideas, which are both regarded as stimulation for human development. I have no doubt that Mill would be disappointed if he had a chance to look at contemporary political discourses, in which not only citizens but also politicians actively take an accusatory tone against their opponents. Therefore, it is hard for anyone to disagree with Mr. Sandel that, the art of democratic debate, has really been lost.

I believe the revival of the quality of citizens and of democracy must be pursued simultaneously, and that one way to do so is to reeducate citizens the meaning of free speech and democratic debates. Citizens should learn that their freedom of speech only grants them the right to determine their positions with their convictions and to use reasons to debate with others, but not the right to disrespect other ideas which are incongruent with their convictions. It is my belief that, though respectful discussions and debates, people with different convictions would be more able to not only reach agreements which better serve without offending both sides, but also to enhance their individual development by enriching their understanding of fellow citizens.

Tags: No Comments.

In 2010, the U.S. Supreme Court passed the Super PAC (super political action committees), which sought to constitutionalize the right of individuals and corporations, whether for-profit or non-profit, to invest unlimited millions on election spending. In supporting their demand, the Super PAC advocates argue that free spending of candidates on elections is a means to protect the freedom of speech.

Just as many others, I not only find the Super PAC a ridiculous notion but also one of the best ways to induce corruption. Although the super PAC needs to be reported in time, and cannot coordinate with the candidate(s) or campaign(s) (because otherwise the donations would be considered as bribes), investigations are rare and there are loopholes for the Super PAC to conceal the identities of donors. With such a huge reward and relatively small risk, it is reasonable to believe that the Super PAC, soon or later, will cause corruption.

Meanwhile, despite I agree that free speech should be constitutionally protected, I have a hard time seeing the linkage between the freedom of speech and the freedom to spend (or the freedom to receive donations). To me, adding the idea of “freedom to spend” into the electoral system only means reinforcing the economic and hence political inequality in the United States. This is because candidates who lack the networks and whose proposals do not align with the interests of powerful interest groups, would now be disadvantaged by lacking the financial resources, but not competence, to compete with their Super PAC rivals.

Proponents of the Super PAC argue that although candidates may now have more money for their campaigns, it does not mean the election is biased towards the riches. This is because eventually the voters are the ones who decide whom to vote for. While this argument is logically correct, it fails to address the fact that long period of exposure to these campaigns, and particularly negative ads by the Super PACs, would undoubtedly impact one’s attitudes. Here, the question becomes: “Would such election still be considered as democratic if only its processes, but not means of competition, follow the democratic standards?”

Tags: 1 Comment

Christa Bicego

http://vet-games.myanimalgames.com/

This is such a cute site! You can play “vet games” and other animal games on it. I know you probably won’t want to play these games, but I hope knowing their existence will put a smile on your face.

Jairus Yip

http://www.tourismvancouver.com/dine/dine-out-vancouver-2012/

For our classmate from Singapore and others who love food! Dine Out Vancouver 2010 is happening from January 20 – February 5! Just pay $28 you can get your appetizer, entree(s), and dessert at famous and decent restaurants! YUM!

Niel Chah

http://www.arthousecoop.com/projects/sketchbookproject

Knowing that you like watercolor painting excites me! 🙂 Sketchbook project is something I have always wanted to participate, but couldn’t because of the limited time on hands (sad face)…….. I hope this project will also interest you!

Tags: 2 Comments

Related to my previous analysis on Taiwanese election and democracy, this article argues that because the Taiwanese election outcome was likely “manipulated” by powerful business leaders, Taiwanese democracy is flawed. The article slightly amazes me because it seems to argue that freedom of speech should be constrained by the concept of “corporate responsibility”, which does not seem to me a democratic element.

One of the scholars in the article claims that, “the essence of democracy lies in the people and their free will to vote for the candidate of their choice.” This statement however, does not contradict with the thinking of democracy. First, these business leaders are included in “the people”, therefore they are also entitled to the freedom of speech. This is especially true when diverse opinions from different actors (i.e. business leaders, working classes and etc.) in a democracy are valued. Furthermore, if the idea of “corporate responsibility” should be used to constrain the freedom of speech of businessmen, doesn’t it imply that we should also impose some ethical standards on the speeches and behaviors of the public? If so, how should we measure whether an action or a speech is ethical or not? Second, although these business leaders might have substantially influenced the public opinion, on the election day, the public was still the one who decided whom to vote, with no gun pointing to their heads by these business leaders (sorry I can’t think of a better way to illustrate my point….). Therefore, the public is easily influenced by these businessmen simply because they also concern about the economic interests of Taiwan, but not because they are irrational or the democratic system is flawed. As such, one can argue that the election result is legitimate because it reflects the view of the majority.

On the other hand, while those business leaders can be described as “irresponsible” because of their disregard of their influence in politics and hence public interests, it is unreasonable to condemn their behavior as against democracy. At most, one can argue that Taiwanese government is short of ethical constraints on its members, but not of democratic elements. To conclude, the article, or these scholars, should only claim Taiwanese democracy as flawed if these business leaders had “manipulated” not the public opinion but the electoral procedures. For example, if these businessmen happened to have bribed the officials involved in the election and have made their favorite candidate(s) win, then Taiwanese democracy can be justifiably argued as flawed. However, there is no such evidence (at least at the time being) about this kind of corruption or other undemocratic practices. Therefore, the argument made by these scholars appears to be ill-found.

p.s. The influence of agents other than political parties/elites on public opinion reported here, reveals another limitation of most minimalist accounts in addressing the importance of political and social institutions.

Tags: No Comments.

In the light of making my post relevant to our lecture, I have tried to analyze US presidential election through Schumpeter’s model of competitive elitism.

So I read this article, whole headline basically concludes the whole story. In fact, I find this article to be a bit tedious as it records the accusations back and forth between these Republican presidential candidates. As first glance, the situation appears to have confirmed Schumpeter’s model of competitive elitism, which emphasizes the role of competition between rival political elites and parties. However, at a deeper level, the fact that the capabilities of these candidates are evaluated not only by the campaigns between these rivals but also by empirical evidence – for example, Gingrich challenged Romney’s capability to create jobs because during Romney’s years as Massachusetts’s governor, the state was rated the 47th in the nation in job creation –  illustrates that popular political views are not as easily manipulable by the elites as Schumpeter suggests.

The most legitimate accusation I found in the article is the fact that Romney, a multimillionaire, paid only a ~15% tax rate, rather than the supposedly ~35% tax rates for top incomes (because his income was generated mostly from investments but not workplaces, he was not charged with the higher tax rates on incomes from work). Despite Romney’s admission of his low effective tax rate, the public and rival politicians continue to demand him to disclose his tax returns, arguing that such disclosure is conformity to the democratic ideal of transparency.  Meanwhile, there has been a tradition for presidential candidates to disclose their tax forms (Ironically, the tradition was started by Romney’s father). Accordingly, the standards imposed by the democratic system and the tradition have both triggered Romney’s rivals to depict him as an dishonest candidate. The article also suggests that Romney has been attacked for being “disconnected from the middle class realities” because of his unfair tax payment. This accusation implies the high value of economic equality in a democracy, especially in the United States against the backdrop of Wall Street Occupation. Although the influence of these quarrels between the candidates on popular political attitudes can hardly be measured, the fact that these candidates have been trying to criticize their rivals’ morality appear to have aligned with Schumpeter’s emphasis – that the electorate is emotional and can be easily affected by emotive information of candidates over the evaluation of their political competence.

Despite the similarity between reality and elements in Schumpeter’s model, the model has been criticized for holding lots of problematic accounts. Above all, the failure of Schumpeter to see democratic models as a benchmark rather than a method or a reflection of reality, had led him to underestimate the rationality and influence of the electorate in a democracy. As such, Schumpeter’s argument that his model is a substitution for “the classical democratic theory” (which at the same time does not exist) is invalid.

Tags: No Comments.

One of the topics on democracy which interests me is the debate on democratic workplace. Scholars have argued that in aspiring to the highest democratic ideals, democracy should be extended to the workplace and that employees should have the right to self-governor their workplaces.[1] Emphasizing the importance of equality in economic resources, Robert Dahl gives a convincing argument for workplace democracy. Dahl argues that the ownership of economic enterprises should be handled be caution because it affects “the economic order for the distribution of resources, strategic positions, and bargaining strength, and hence for political equality.” [2] In other words, to ensure equal distribution of political power, economic arrangements should be seriously determined. Dahl assumes that because an advanced democracy would seek to strengthen its democratic process through achieving economic equality, it would aspire to extend democracy to economic enterprises.[3]

Undoubtedly, there are shortcomings of the centralized management style in current workplaces. For example, employees who are not responsible for decision-making are sometimes burdened by the poor decisions made by higher management. However, the disadvantages of workplace democracy are worth equal attention.  First, I am concerned about the wishes of the employees, who have other legitimate interests besides their work and may not want to participate in their companies’ management. In fact, it can be argued that demanding employees to manage their companies regardless of their will is an undemocratic practice. In addition to the problem of wishes, the problem of limited information for management should also be noted, especially in the cases of contract and part-time employees, who are more likely to concern about information about their tasks more than that about the company. Consequently, the competence of their capability to make relevant judgments raises the question of how to balance economic efficiency with democratic equality.

The conflict between economic ownership and democratic rights is described to be a result of capitalism. One solution to this conflict is to remove management rights from the shares in publicly-traded companies.[4] While this suggestion is legitimate because sometimes shareholders are less competent than employees in making efficient and effective decisions, its application is limited to publicly-traded companies but not to privately-owned companies, whose management is composed of owners themselves but not of shareholders.

Despite the difficulty to implement workplace democracy, the practice is not destined to be unrealistic. Indeed, progresses have been made since 1980s. In British Columbia, the province instilled democratic elements into the workplace through its privatization of road maintenance in 1987.[5] The government not only encouraged employee groups to present proposals, but also provided incentives for them to create their own companies, which could lease infrastructures from the government if they were approved by the according criteria.[6] Although such privatization was aimed for improving economic efficiency than democratic equality, it reflects that the extension of democratic processes into the workplaces is practical.

Tags: No Comments.