Phil Paine wrote a provocative "Seventh Meditation on Democracy" during the last federal election in Canada. For this one, I'm reposting this excerpt (
or you can read the whole thing here):
A few days ago, I was in the subway, and I overheard a conversation about our current national election. Two boys who, from their appearance, could have been no further along in school than grade nine or ten, were discussing the televised debates between the leaders of the five major political parties. What struck me, as I listened in, was that the discussion was cogent and intelligent. One of the boys, who seemed the youngest, was particularly articulate, and his opinions were not the simple parroting of some adult he had heard, or the pursuit of a party line. In fact, his analysis of the debate showed keener observation and judgment than that of the professional commentators who dissected the debate after the broadcast.
Now, I’m sure that these were exceptional kids. It’s unlikely that there are many in their age group who share their interests and skills. But it’s a sign that there is something going on, under the surface of our society, that you would never guess by watching television or reading a newspaper. I grew up in a family where national and provincial politics were argued at the dinner table with gusto, and I have a clear memory of the issues in an election held when I was ten years old. That was probably an exceptional environment. But I did not have access to the wealth of information now available on the internet. No amount of cleverness is very useful if you have poor information, so my capacity to analyze was limited. I doubt that I could have matched the sophistication demonstrated by the kids in the subway. Many people, of any age, are still prey to the traditional tools of obfuscation, button-pushing and appeals to prejudice that politicians have successfully deployed for centuries. However, if someone is fairly sharp, and raised with the information tools now available, they have a good chance of seeing through these stratagems. So you can expect there to start appearing a layer of young people who are relatively immune to the kind of silly-ass campaigning that our current government relies upon. It will be very interesting to see what happens when that layer of people, who were born with the internet, grows up and walks into the poll-booth. They will be displacing a generation that grew up with the much more passive and homogeneous medium of television.
One of the results may be that the electorate does some growing up in a psychological, as well as a physical sense. One of the chief points that I’ve tried to put across in my “meditations on democracy” is that the core concept of democracy is self-respect. Self-respect is manifested, in a healthy mind, by a willingness to take on the responsibilities of an adult when one becomes an adult. The principal responsibility that an adult has is to govern themself. A child is born helpless, and must at first be controlled and guided by parents, in order to survive at all. But, as the child grows older, the caring parent relinquishes one aspect of control after another, until adulthood is reached, and the child becomes autonomous and self-governing. That is common sense, understood by most people on the individual level. However, on the level of collective action, on the level of society, that common sense lesson is rarely understood.
When people discussing politics talk about “leadership”, you know that they are encased in a primitive, pre-logical, and infantile state of mind. People who seek leaders are simply not grown up, and people who advance the claim of Leadership are attempting to keep adults in a state of perpetual childhood. If to be an adult means to govern oneself, then no adult should be seeking a “leader”. The purpose of democracy is not to “select a leader”. It is to select policies. The mechanism of democracy is not intended to choose someone to govern the people, but for the people to govern themselves. In rational democratic thought, office holders are not “leaders”, they are servants. The purpose of an election is to 1) choose a policy of administration and an overall plan, 2) assign people to the relevant tasks, and 3) make sure they do what they are told to do. “Leadership” does not come into it. Voters are not supposed to be “led”, they are supposed to be in charge. The last person I want to see hold public office is some strutting alpha-ape who claims the right to tell me what to do. If I see someone running for office who is flaunting dominance signals, claiming to have “vision” and telling me I need “leadership”, then my healthy, sane, adult response is to want to see such an asshole slapped down, humbled, and kicked out of public life. I want to see them replaced with some competent person who will faithfully carry out the instructions they are given by the people. I am an adult, and a free man, so anyone who dares to claim to be my “leader” earns nothing but my contempt. My fundamental heritage as a Canadian is that the only legitimate leader of me is me.
Canadians are supposed to know this. We are not some backward tribe of savages dancing around a golden calf and waiting for a crackpot Messiah to tell us what to do. We are supposed to be grown up enough not to be impressed by a tailored suit, a jutting jaw, or a manufactured publicity image. The political system we have built, slowly and prudently, out of disparate traditional sources — England’s slowly evolved parliament, New England’s town meetings, native Canadian councils, the long fight for universal franchise, notions of autonomy, individual rights, social equality, and self-rule — should not be permitted to lapse into some kind of mystical monarchy, after all our struggles. That is precisely why, in our system, the prime minister is not the head of state, and his or her government can be called to account at any time, or dissolved by a vote of no-confidence. In fact, the presence of a prime minister is a mere superstitious holdover, an artifact of primitive hierarchical thought that is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
The only valid function of a prime minister in our system is to “form a government”, i.e. to select a cabinet and oversee the administration of whatever laws the assembled parliament chooses to pass. Otherwise, he is merely a minister like any other, elected to represent his local riding. It is the assembled members of parliament who are supposed to be making decisions, not the prime minister. A parliament can function better without the office, and if we manage to evolve our system further, it will eventually be abolished.
People consistently confuse (because they have been encouraged to confuse) a political party with government. But a party is merely a private association of citizens, some holding office and some not, that supposedly shares some particular opinions about policy. Members of parliament may choose to belong to a political party, but their role in parliament is to propose, debate, and vote on legislation for the wellbeing of the country, as representatives of their constituents. They are not supposed to be cogs or functionaries of whatever party they belong to, and they are supposed to be answerable to the electorate, not to their party leadership. The fact that Stephen Harper, the current prime minister, is the leader of his party (a private organization) should never be confused with the fact that he has been instructed by the Head of State, Michaƫlle Jean, to select a cabinet and carry out public administration.
But what, in this system, actually necessitates there being a prime minister?
0 Comment to "A timely meditation on democracy"
Posting Komentar