Next Thursday we will be discussing democracy, the process of allowing the majority opinion to rule over the minority.
I think most of us will agree that cooperation among the human species is beneficial to our progress and superior to a solitary existence while seeing the other humans as threats. Order is needed for this cooperation especially in areas of disagreement. Hobbs’ idea that a monarch imposes an order is still better than the solitary individual sums it up well.
Democracy is merely the next step in forming that ruling order with a better way of selecting that order.
Who can argue that this ruling order should be chosen based on the majority’s preference?
In our modern form of representative democracy, we choose the representative that we send to our central legislative body to make the rules that bind us. Sounds like such a good system that makes us wonder why Churchill lament that democracy is the worst system except for the rest.
But how is our representative chosen? How are our political leaders chosen by their political parties to enter our narrowly defined ballot at voting time?
Why all the polling for public opinion when our leaders are supposed to lead rather than follow the masses?
The core of democracy is to let people have what they want. To be chosen as our representative and our leader, they have to respond to what we want.
We therefore have this circular relationship where leaders cannot lead too far ahead of the masses and ideas need to be simple or simplified enough for it to catch on with the masses.
Worse still, the masses are vulnerable to emotional responses to fear, pride, envy, and a long list of other cognitive dysfunctions.
This is when demagoguery comes in.
While the word in its original meaning is just to listen to the people, it now describes the practice of taking advantage of the crowd’s emotional reaction for political gains.
Though the First World War may be seen as feuding among the royal families, the Second World War has a solid democratic base. The leaders of Germany, Italy, and Japan were either elected or widely supported by the people.
It shows how the masses can be persuaded to embark on a course of action that is both ruinous to themselves and others.
The Wikipedia entry for demagogue is
A demagogue /ˈdɛməɡɒɡ/ (from French “demagogue”, derived in turn from the Greek “demos” = people/folk and the verb “ago” = carry/manipulate thus “people’s manipulator”) or rabble-rouser is a political leader in a democracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population.
What can we do to rectify this?
A meritocracy based system over the simplified one person one vote? How do we define the merit system and can we always trust the expert to do the best for all of us?
Search for the elusive benevolent dictator?
More education for the masses? Perhaps against their will? How much can we stuff in their brains before voting age?
Have a Senate like body of sober second thought to provide checks on the masses? How do we choose senators to the satisfaction of the masses?
Other ideas? or are we doomed to live with demagoguery in our democracy?
What are some examples of demagoguery in modern times?
Zero tolerance………
War on………
Terror…….
Evil…….
Pro life, pro choice
Should we always be vigilant when issues are simplified to a black and white dichotomy?
Can the masses be engaged without rousing their emotions?
ideascafenet 
It has been a long time since the people had any real say in political, or governing matters. Not since a time when Kings were concerned with what people thought.
I suppose being concerned about who’s going to vote for you is somehow similar but being overthrown by peoples seems out of the question now a days as a term lasts at least four years. A true anarchist could threaten those in power, but I am certainly not suggesting that type of violence would help matters.
There’s little wonder that the educational system does little to foster inquiry into politics or systems of power. Being satisfied with the status quo is something to strive for and I get it, how people want to live a good life, and want to have a system that helps them to do so.
Question everything and there will certainly be less tyranny in the world!
But nothing is ever all that simple. I am many things, an activist, an anarchist and a unofficial Buddhist. So I believe there is never any one right way, but many ways. People then need to think about peace, tolerance, and have getaways in nature where they can be alone and think for a bit. Original thought is rare, and social change even rarer.
peace
Vanessa
Thanks for your comments Vanessa. It does seem hopeless from time to time but then we have to ask ourselves if there is somewhere else or some other time that we rather be.
The answer may be back to Churchill’s remark that democracy is the worst system except for all the rest.
While we should continually search for improvement, we perhaps should also be reminded that we are blessed compared to some of the other regimes that other world populations are living under.
Thanks for your comments and reactions to the blog. It is very welcomed!
Oliver…..