Ah democracy! That inspiring dream, that brave and elusive venture, that noble truth! Well, not quite. Democracy is just a form of government. It is based on the idea that people should be in charge of their own destiny. But democracy is not an idea or a principle, but a very real attempt to give ‘power to the people’. As such, it is always imperfect, intrinsically faulty, as human beings are, and bound to historical changes. It cannot escape the conflicts that have shaped human history. Indeed, democracies have been forged precisely by the clash between the pursuit of power and the quest for justice. They are not a gift of the gods, but the ugly and clumsy child born from the belief in equality and liberty for all. They might be the best form of government, but that is so because they are the slow and painful process of recognising human beings as equal. Democratic institutions are always 'work in progress'. This means that nothing of democracy can be taken as a given or as sacred.
Portillo's Power to the People
The UK has a form of representative democracy with some elements of deliberative (direct) democracy, such as referenda and petitions. There is no one single model to be followed. As the times change, democracies around the world are required to change to be relevant. The 21st century seems to be stirring people’s appetite for more and better democracy. In short, democracy is ‘up for grabs’. This seems to be the message of Michael Portillo’s Power to the Peopletarget="_blank". It is an interesting programme that shows the intricacies of devising a better way for people to be ‘in charge’. However, it doesn’t ask two fundamental questions: what is power and who are the people?
Is power the ability to influence decisions that affect us? Is it the acting together for the common good? Is it taking decisions? What decisions?
Who are ‘the people’? In our system, it’s those who are registered at an address in a specific locality. So if you live in Penarth but work in Cardiff and have elderly parents in Swansea, three different local authorities take decisions that affect you directly.
Where is Democracy?
According to the EU principle of subsidiarity, decisions need to be taken at the level closest to the people most affected. The other EU principle of ‘proportionality’ establishes that whatever is decided ‘in Brussels’ needs to be interpreted and adapted to the local situation. This is generally ignored by Westminster. Our unimaginative civil servants love following the rules to the letter regardless of their impact. It all gets blamed on Brussels anyway, as if UK politicians weren’t those taking the decisions in Brussels!
The implementation of these two principles is where democracy is to be found. It is an every day thing happening in Councils, Assemblies, Parliaments, but also residents’ meetings and, of course, in the media.
It seems to me that notwithstanding all the rhetoric, the politicians and the people of the media are too often the same type of people stuck together in a bubble. I watch Question Time with intense frustration at the lack of imagination and originality panellists show. I can understand why people feel turned off by politics and that their voice is not heard. I’d like more of a say too (and I’m elected!). I’d like to see local democracy strengthened rather starved of cash and stumped upon by other legislatures and bureaucracies. I’d like more direct forms of democracy, but this needs to be thought out thoroughly.
The Power of Populism
Portillo looks at the example of an elected Sheriff in the US. The Sheriff, with all his tough rhetoric and practice is an excellent example of populism. Portillo doesn’t like that but doesn’t reflect on populism and is left perplexed. After all, we are all part of the ‘populus’, so why is populism bad and democracy good? I believe populism is bad because it does not empower people. It plays on fears and easy solutions. It uses popular support to trump the idea of democracy.
As above mentioned, democracy rests on the ideas of equality and liberty. Democracy is not a stand alone idea or a principle. It’s an attempt at implementing equality and liberty. Thus, populistic democracy, by denying the rights and liberties of the minority, denies equality and liberty. Of course, it is impossible to find out what each one of us wants and needs or, indeed, values. Thus, we delegate decisions to the representatives of the majority (that’s why it’s important to have good electoral arrangements). However, the ‘majority’ is a compromise, it’s the imperfect expression of what most citizens want and need. It is not enlightened. It has no better understanding what is ‘good’.
Therefore, the democratic will is not above rights, because it is these rights that democracies need to pursue. Democracy is a means to an end. It is the process through which we, as a society, seek to recognise and uphold the rights and freedoms of every one whilst living together peacefully. Human rights, so often vilified by some UK politicians as a foreign imposition, are what democracies are all about. Without rights and liberties, democracies quickly become tyranny: the tyranny of the majority.
27 March 2010
23 March 2010
A B&B, a gay couple, and freedom of religion - A question of private morality
Rights and freedoms are not always straight forward, but the abuse of rights’ language really works me up. The latest example comes from Susanne Wilkinson who turned a gay couple away from her B&B on account of her religious beliefs. Here, freedom of religion is often appealed to with total disregard for what it actually stands for.
Freedom of religion
Mrs Wilkinson has the sacrosanct right to profess her religion and belief, which means she can go to church, take sacraments, pray etc. I’m not being facetious; this is what ‘freedom of religion’ is. The gay couple staying at the B&B would have not prevented Mrs Wilkinson from professing her faith.
Freedom of conscience
Again, Mrs Wilkinson has the sacrosanct right to think that homosexuality is wrong and say so. Freedom of speech and conscience means that you have the right to say and believe what you want and should not be harmed for it by others or the state. There are limits (every right has a limit), but, in this case, Mrs Wilkinson could have voiced her opinion no problem. Equally, Michael Black and John Morgan, the gay couple, have the right to say what they believe. The parties should have exchanged arguments in the usual manner and tell each other where to go. No harm done.
B&B owners, of whatever type, haven’t got the right to pick and choose their guests on the basis of their beliefs. Let’s not forget that not so long ago, in the US, Italians, Irish and Blacks were not allowed in pubs. Then too it was a question of belief, a racist one. Freedom of conscience does not allow you to withdraw a service you provide to the public because you disagree on other people’s personal life.
I’ve argued previously about this matter, are these people who object so strongly on the basis of their morality checking what other things their guests get up to? Are they accepting adulterous couples? Are they running CRB checks?
If guests are drunk, behaved aggressively towards others or similar, one has the right to chuck them out or call the Police. However, one’s sexual morality is not the state’s nor anyone else’s business. It is private morality and that is protected by freedom of conscience. This does not mean that ‘everything goes’ as some people think, but that requires future posts.
The beauty of liberalism is that we can dislike each other. We can disagree and insult each other. At times, there seems to be a timidity of voicing one’s opinion (luckily, that doesn’t affect me). Some are too afraid of being controversial which is not helped by people who go to the Police because they have been offended by other people’s open views.
I’m concerned that my taxes are being wasted in this futile exercise in protecting a hurt ego. We seem to be slipping towards the American way of suing each other rather than having a good old fashioned row. Now feel free to leave insults on the comments section.
Freedom of religion
Mrs Wilkinson has the sacrosanct right to profess her religion and belief, which means she can go to church, take sacraments, pray etc. I’m not being facetious; this is what ‘freedom of religion’ is. The gay couple staying at the B&B would have not prevented Mrs Wilkinson from professing her faith.
Freedom of conscience
Again, Mrs Wilkinson has the sacrosanct right to think that homosexuality is wrong and say so. Freedom of speech and conscience means that you have the right to say and believe what you want and should not be harmed for it by others or the state. There are limits (every right has a limit), but, in this case, Mrs Wilkinson could have voiced her opinion no problem. Equally, Michael Black and John Morgan, the gay couple, have the right to say what they believe. The parties should have exchanged arguments in the usual manner and tell each other where to go. No harm done.
B&B owners, of whatever type, haven’t got the right to pick and choose their guests on the basis of their beliefs. Let’s not forget that not so long ago, in the US, Italians, Irish and Blacks were not allowed in pubs. Then too it was a question of belief, a racist one. Freedom of conscience does not allow you to withdraw a service you provide to the public because you disagree on other people’s personal life.
I’ve argued previously about this matter, are these people who object so strongly on the basis of their morality checking what other things their guests get up to? Are they accepting adulterous couples? Are they running CRB checks?
If guests are drunk, behaved aggressively towards others or similar, one has the right to chuck them out or call the Police. However, one’s sexual morality is not the state’s nor anyone else’s business. It is private morality and that is protected by freedom of conscience. This does not mean that ‘everything goes’ as some people think, but that requires future posts.
The beauty of liberalism is that we can dislike each other. We can disagree and insult each other. At times, there seems to be a timidity of voicing one’s opinion (luckily, that doesn’t affect me). Some are too afraid of being controversial which is not helped by people who go to the Police because they have been offended by other people’s open views.
I’m concerned that my taxes are being wasted in this futile exercise in protecting a hurt ego. We seem to be slipping towards the American way of suing each other rather than having a good old fashioned row. Now feel free to leave insults on the comments section.
10 March 2010
Slavoj Žižek, liberalism and religion
I went to hear Slavoj Žižek speak at Cardiff University last week. He was certainly interesting, albeit at his most incoherent. I must admit I found the ideas he put forward contradictory and the lecture inconclusive. I blame Lacan. He gave us a critique of the racist imperialism underpinning Avatar, which was good fun, but I can’t help thinking that his Marxism clouds his vision when the subject is liberal democracy. He’s all for protecting individual rights, but he’s scathing about liberalism, which he seems to conflate with extreme libertarianism.
He referred to the recent ban of the burka in France. Žižek recounts that, although French intellectuals condemn the burka because they see it as a sign of the oppression of women, they let transpire that they are uncomfortable with it because it is also a rejection of integration and full participation in French society. I haven’t been following the debate and haven’t read anything ‘from France’, yet I feel Žižek puts the issue rather awkwardly and misses the fact that the two are related.
First of all, the veil has always been a symbol of resistance (not just in Europe). As previously mentioned, dress is never about one’s choice, but about our relationship with society and the customs present in society. Thus, we are not at liberty to wear a training suit at a formal dinner. Customs are not static, they develop, but we cannot pretend to live in a society without constraints. This doesn’t mean we need to follow customs without any criticism or attempt to change them. The burka has made its appearance relatively recently, although Muslims have been in Europe for a long time. This points to a socio-cultural change worth investigating, rather than playing political football with. That aside, in a liberal society, one should be allowed to say what one feels uncomfortable with, be it women wearing the burka or being scantily dressed, drunken people on the high street or ‘soft-porn’ on the gym channel! If that ‘offends’, let it offend and be the start of a debate. As argued previously (here and here), we seem too unwilling to discuss ‘controversial’ issues and let the BNP be the spokesperson for frustration, anger and racism.
Second of all, leaving dress aside and moving to the issue of ‘integration’, Žižek discounts the ‘rules of the game’ of liberal democracies. Democracy cannot allow undemocratic groups (e.g. the BNP had to change its constitution). ‘Integration’ seems to have become a dirty word, a byword for assimilation and subservience to the ‘host’ country. Integration only means acceptance of the ‘rules of the game’, which means a degree of respect for the laws and customs of the country, not blind allegiance. These, of course, can and ought to be changed when out of date, wrong, or simply not functioning. The fundamental principles of a liberal democracy are what safeguards our right to question and change laws and customs. The ‘rules of the game', however, imply that we can change a democratic society through democratic means, not armed struggle. Žižek doesn’t want any limit because he believes people don’t need prescription, they will respect limits ‘naturally’. Where’s the evidence for that? It might be true for some, not for all. Thus, the ‘rules of the game’ guarantee our rights and freedom by imposing a limit of the rights and freedoms of others.
That’s the problem with Marxists, they criticise liberalism without realising that it is liberalism that protects the freedom to criticise. It’s called freedom of conscience. Žižek ends up contradicting himself with his ‘limit problem’. He argues in favour of respectful distance, rather than this spurious call for understanding across cultures. That’s called liberalism as far as I’m concerned. However, that ‘distance’ Žižek proposes is the very limit we all need in order to live together peacefully without imposing on others our views, customs and beliefs. Žižek dislikes the endless celebration of the ‘Other’ forgetting that it doesn’t come from liberalism, but from postcolonial bad conscience. I believe we needed a positive valuation of the ‘Other’ to make us overcome our western cultural dominance; yet, we can respect people’s customs, beliefs and ideas without the need to understand them. In actual fact, some, in their attempt to celebrate ‘cultural diversity’, simply fall prey of hegemonic condescension. Tolerance is a liberal virtue.
Finally, Žižek is strongly opposed to religion because it imposes limits. He stated that without religion ‘good people do good and bad people do bad’, and with religion good people can do bad, because a religious moral imperative can move people to go beyond their nature. This is tosh. Undoubtedly, we all have a moral sense regardless of beliefs, but to reduce morality to ‘natural disposition’ is preposterous. It is human interactions that develop morality through customs and laws. This ‘natural’ sense of limit is developed by religion (and philosophy). This is what Greek religion and philosophy were all about. Religion is not just about following somebody’s instruction, but about reflecting on morality and habituating ourselves to do good rather than evil.
He referred to the recent ban of the burka in France. Žižek recounts that, although French intellectuals condemn the burka because they see it as a sign of the oppression of women, they let transpire that they are uncomfortable with it because it is also a rejection of integration and full participation in French society. I haven’t been following the debate and haven’t read anything ‘from France’, yet I feel Žižek puts the issue rather awkwardly and misses the fact that the two are related.
First of all, the veil has always been a symbol of resistance (not just in Europe). As previously mentioned, dress is never about one’s choice, but about our relationship with society and the customs present in society. Thus, we are not at liberty to wear a training suit at a formal dinner. Customs are not static, they develop, but we cannot pretend to live in a society without constraints. This doesn’t mean we need to follow customs without any criticism or attempt to change them. The burka has made its appearance relatively recently, although Muslims have been in Europe for a long time. This points to a socio-cultural change worth investigating, rather than playing political football with. That aside, in a liberal society, one should be allowed to say what one feels uncomfortable with, be it women wearing the burka or being scantily dressed, drunken people on the high street or ‘soft-porn’ on the gym channel! If that ‘offends’, let it offend and be the start of a debate. As argued previously (here and here), we seem too unwilling to discuss ‘controversial’ issues and let the BNP be the spokesperson for frustration, anger and racism.
Second of all, leaving dress aside and moving to the issue of ‘integration’, Žižek discounts the ‘rules of the game’ of liberal democracies. Democracy cannot allow undemocratic groups (e.g. the BNP had to change its constitution). ‘Integration’ seems to have become a dirty word, a byword for assimilation and subservience to the ‘host’ country. Integration only means acceptance of the ‘rules of the game’, which means a degree of respect for the laws and customs of the country, not blind allegiance. These, of course, can and ought to be changed when out of date, wrong, or simply not functioning. The fundamental principles of a liberal democracy are what safeguards our right to question and change laws and customs. The ‘rules of the game', however, imply that we can change a democratic society through democratic means, not armed struggle. Žižek doesn’t want any limit because he believes people don’t need prescription, they will respect limits ‘naturally’. Where’s the evidence for that? It might be true for some, not for all. Thus, the ‘rules of the game’ guarantee our rights and freedom by imposing a limit of the rights and freedoms of others.
That’s the problem with Marxists, they criticise liberalism without realising that it is liberalism that protects the freedom to criticise. It’s called freedom of conscience. Žižek ends up contradicting himself with his ‘limit problem’. He argues in favour of respectful distance, rather than this spurious call for understanding across cultures. That’s called liberalism as far as I’m concerned. However, that ‘distance’ Žižek proposes is the very limit we all need in order to live together peacefully without imposing on others our views, customs and beliefs. Žižek dislikes the endless celebration of the ‘Other’ forgetting that it doesn’t come from liberalism, but from postcolonial bad conscience. I believe we needed a positive valuation of the ‘Other’ to make us overcome our western cultural dominance; yet, we can respect people’s customs, beliefs and ideas without the need to understand them. In actual fact, some, in their attempt to celebrate ‘cultural diversity’, simply fall prey of hegemonic condescension. Tolerance is a liberal virtue.
Finally, Žižek is strongly opposed to religion because it imposes limits. He stated that without religion ‘good people do good and bad people do bad’, and with religion good people can do bad, because a religious moral imperative can move people to go beyond their nature. This is tosh. Undoubtedly, we all have a moral sense regardless of beliefs, but to reduce morality to ‘natural disposition’ is preposterous. It is human interactions that develop morality through customs and laws. This ‘natural’ sense of limit is developed by religion (and philosophy). This is what Greek religion and philosophy were all about. Religion is not just about following somebody’s instruction, but about reflecting on morality and habituating ourselves to do good rather than evil.
05 March 2010
Generation Jihad
It’s pretty good, after all it’s in the capable hands of Peter Taylor. There are many issues that come up in the interviews. An interesting and difficult one is the imprisonment of ‘would-be’ terrorists, young people (some very young) who have been planning terrorist attacks or, at least, gathering and sharing detailed information in order to carry out attacks. Obviously, they cannot simply get a slap, but it is also difficult to draw the line clearly between holding extreme views, which should be allowed in a free society, and planning criminal acts. Being responsible for planning criminal acts should also be treated differently from being responsible for carrying out attacks. It seems to me that the best sentence should include a de-indoctrination programme and the time spent in prison should be reviewed accordingly. I’m also concerned that, as mentioned in the programme, the prison sections for convicted terrorists can become a place of further radicalisation rather than challenge. The problem with fundamentalism (any fundamentalism) is that it doesn’t get challenged thoroughly. Our free and diverse society is too often governed by platitudes rather than by tolerance and respect. Thus, controversial views are dismissed instead of being put to the test. This results in extremists gaining power (BNP, Geert Wilders etc.).
This aspect was evident in Generation Jihad. Youngsters resort to the internet and fall for the vile propaganda of violent jihad because very few are willing to discuss it and challenge such a distorted view of Islam. Yes, it is a most unpalatable topic, a very difficult subject, but by avoiding the issue, violent jihad does not get scrutinised. This is linked to my comments on the Virtual Revolution. The internet gives people access to all sorts of information. A lot of it is biased, fabricated, propagandistic; it is misinformation and, without critical judgement, it can be simply accepted as ‘truth’. The other side of the coin is, of course, the ability of getting information previously available only to a selected few, the possibility of making our own mind up about its meaning rather than accept the authority’s interpretation of it. Information is a double-edged sword, but this is why it’s important that we are aware of the dangers, as well as the benefits, of the free flow of ideas and take responsibility. It is essential that we discuss and question controversial views.
Responsibility seems to be missing from our society. The extreme ease with which these teenagers have fallen into terrorist propaganda is shocking. Youngsters are groomed into it, no questions about it. The compulsive watching of atrocities committed against Muslims around the world creates a reaction similar to post-traumatic stress disorder. It is addictive and makes one an easy prey to the exploitative methods of jihad ideologues. It is serious and these people need help, but that’s not the responsibility of the Special Branch.
Quite frankly, I’m struggling to understand how a teenager cannot see that violence (any violence) is wrong. This goes beyond terrorism but the lack of parental responsibility applies in all cases, even more so when we are talking about violence that is highly symbolical, that is infused with transcendent and political meanings, such as terrorist violence. Families, but also communities, need to be more proactive. Some complain that Muslim communities around the country feel under suspicion. I’m sure there are many cases where the Police have been heavy-handed, where they did not approach the community tactfully. However, it is to be welcomed that the Police seek a relationship with local communities (all local communities, not just ethnic minorities). Providing information needs to be facilitated, or, at least, demystified. If you’re in contact with the Police, have a relationship with them, things are much easier. This is not just for terrorism but any crime. The police depend on our information. The local religious community might feel under scrutiny, but shouldn’t we all feel under scrutiny? Shouldn’t we all be under scrutiny? In what kind of society people become terrorists and carry out violent attacks against fellow citizens and everybody turns the other way??
It seems that today we are relinquishing responsibility over our children. We don’t want to ‘impose’, we want to respect their freedom, no questions asked. This indifference only excludes children from grown up society. It turns them into a problem or into invisible people with no stake in this world. We lament the loss of authority of parents and teachers, the loss of respect and discipline, but fail to see that it is our indifference that pushes children away. Shall we stop whingeing and start caring?
This aspect was evident in Generation Jihad. Youngsters resort to the internet and fall for the vile propaganda of violent jihad because very few are willing to discuss it and challenge such a distorted view of Islam. Yes, it is a most unpalatable topic, a very difficult subject, but by avoiding the issue, violent jihad does not get scrutinised. This is linked to my comments on the Virtual Revolution. The internet gives people access to all sorts of information. A lot of it is biased, fabricated, propagandistic; it is misinformation and, without critical judgement, it can be simply accepted as ‘truth’. The other side of the coin is, of course, the ability of getting information previously available only to a selected few, the possibility of making our own mind up about its meaning rather than accept the authority’s interpretation of it. Information is a double-edged sword, but this is why it’s important that we are aware of the dangers, as well as the benefits, of the free flow of ideas and take responsibility. It is essential that we discuss and question controversial views.
Responsibility seems to be missing from our society. The extreme ease with which these teenagers have fallen into terrorist propaganda is shocking. Youngsters are groomed into it, no questions about it. The compulsive watching of atrocities committed against Muslims around the world creates a reaction similar to post-traumatic stress disorder. It is addictive and makes one an easy prey to the exploitative methods of jihad ideologues. It is serious and these people need help, but that’s not the responsibility of the Special Branch.
Quite frankly, I’m struggling to understand how a teenager cannot see that violence (any violence) is wrong. This goes beyond terrorism but the lack of parental responsibility applies in all cases, even more so when we are talking about violence that is highly symbolical, that is infused with transcendent and political meanings, such as terrorist violence. Families, but also communities, need to be more proactive. Some complain that Muslim communities around the country feel under suspicion. I’m sure there are many cases where the Police have been heavy-handed, where they did not approach the community tactfully. However, it is to be welcomed that the Police seek a relationship with local communities (all local communities, not just ethnic minorities). Providing information needs to be facilitated, or, at least, demystified. If you’re in contact with the Police, have a relationship with them, things are much easier. This is not just for terrorism but any crime. The police depend on our information. The local religious community might feel under scrutiny, but shouldn’t we all feel under scrutiny? Shouldn’t we all be under scrutiny? In what kind of society people become terrorists and carry out violent attacks against fellow citizens and everybody turns the other way??
It seems that today we are relinquishing responsibility over our children. We don’t want to ‘impose’, we want to respect their freedom, no questions asked. This indifference only excludes children from grown up society. It turns them into a problem or into invisible people with no stake in this world. We lament the loss of authority of parents and teachers, the loss of respect and discipline, but fail to see that it is our indifference that pushes children away. Shall we stop whingeing and start caring?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)