k-punk
Spectres of Mark
There are two hidden, superficially contradictory, premises in the arguments of those who defend democracy.
The first is that democracy is the best that we can expect. This, in turn, depends on further unstated premises: that human beings are basically venal and self-centred, so that any attempt to build a system based on justice and equity will inevitably fail. This is further based upon the view that there is a fixed and invariant human nature, a view for which there is no evidence, scientific or othwerwise.
The second is that democracy is the endpoint of a history that is progressive. John Gray has showed that, for all its protestations of secular commonsense, the west treats this an article of faith, even though it is no better supported than the most 'irrational' religious beliefs. The racial, if not to say, racist, underpinnings of the belief that non-western societies will inevitably progress to 'become like us' ought to be obvious.
But how can these two beliefs - the one suggesting that nothing can develop, the other arguing that development is inevitable - be held simultaneously?
To answer that, we have to get to grips with the structural delusion at the heart of the Progressive view. The Progress that is pointed to has not already achieved, but always ABOUT TO BE achieved. Yes, things are 'imperfect' now - i.e. deeply corrupt, unrepresentative, dominated by vested interests and the superwealthy - but they will, at some unspecified time in the future, improve. This thought legitimates any amount of violence, since such violence, whilst ostensibly deplorable, is part of the current state of 'imperfection', and will fade away once the Progress it helps to bring about is achieved.
So, the apparent optimism of the Progressive view offsets the bleak nihilism of the view that human nature is fixed and final. It functions psychologically, not logically. The current mess and inequity can be tolerated because it is only temporary. But of course this 'temporary' period lasts indefinitely.
And if there is any direction to the development of democratic cultures, it is not 'Progressive'. The pious moralising about 'apathetic Britons' not voting whilst 'brave Iraqis' go the polls shows the real tendency in democracy, which is towards popular disengagement. Needless to say, there are very good reasons why many Brtions won't vote in the upcoming election. They know perfectly well that voting makes no difference. As Robin Cook wrote in the Standard on Monday - in a few honest paragraphs before returning to party political chaunvinism - most people are NOT apathetic. They just recognize that capitalist parliamentarianism has little to do with politics in any meaningful sense.
The first is that democracy is the best that we can expect. This, in turn, depends on further unstated premises: that human beings are basically venal and self-centred, so that any attempt to build a system based on justice and equity will inevitably fail. This is further based upon the view that there is a fixed and invariant human nature, a view for which there is no evidence, scientific or othwerwise.
The second is that democracy is the endpoint of a history that is progressive. John Gray has showed that, for all its protestations of secular commonsense, the west treats this an article of faith, even though it is no better supported than the most 'irrational' religious beliefs. The racial, if not to say, racist, underpinnings of the belief that non-western societies will inevitably progress to 'become like us' ought to be obvious.
But how can these two beliefs - the one suggesting that nothing can develop, the other arguing that development is inevitable - be held simultaneously?
To answer that, we have to get to grips with the structural delusion at the heart of the Progressive view. The Progress that is pointed to has not already achieved, but always ABOUT TO BE achieved. Yes, things are 'imperfect' now - i.e. deeply corrupt, unrepresentative, dominated by vested interests and the superwealthy - but they will, at some unspecified time in the future, improve. This thought legitimates any amount of violence, since such violence, whilst ostensibly deplorable, is part of the current state of 'imperfection', and will fade away once the Progress it helps to bring about is achieved.
So, the apparent optimism of the Progressive view offsets the bleak nihilism of the view that human nature is fixed and final. It functions psychologically, not logically. The current mess and inequity can be tolerated because it is only temporary. But of course this 'temporary' period lasts indefinitely.
And if there is any direction to the development of democratic cultures, it is not 'Progressive'. The pious moralising about 'apathetic Britons' not voting whilst 'brave Iraqis' go the polls shows the real tendency in democracy, which is towards popular disengagement. Needless to say, there are very good reasons why many Brtions won't vote in the upcoming election. They know perfectly well that voting makes no difference. As Robin Cook wrote in the Standard on Monday - in a few honest paragraphs before returning to party political chaunvinism - most people are NOT apathetic. They just recognize that capitalist parliamentarianism has little to do with politics in any meaningful sense.