India's secret civil wars - OR: does democracy always work?

[aelf]

Democracy, rule by the people, has certain logical implications. "Rule by some of the people" clearly doesn't cut it, even if "some" is "most". A country where only Hindus could vote, for example, wouldn't be democratic, even if it might be "close" to a democracy in a purely numerical sense. But voting isn't the only right that's essential, by definition, to democracy. There's also free speech, and the right not to be arbitrarily killed, without either of which your remaining democratic rights become worthless.

That's again an assumption that you have within your semantic conception of democracy. It's essentially predicated on liberal arguments. It's certainly logical and I think quite right, but it's important to see that this isn't necessarily true. Rule by the people has not always translated into rights for the minority, which is obvious from historical precedents. It would be a bit of a stretch to call such societies undemocratic. At worst you could call them flawed democracies, but the people living in it probably wouldn't. Herein lies the rub - is it more democratic to let the people decide whether their society is democratic to begin with and carry on, or to tell them that some kind of natural law (based on logic or whatever) trumps their absolute sovereignty? My impression is that the second does not conform to Classical ideas about democracy. Again, we find historical precedent for something different to what you're saying, and this time it's in the conceptual realm.

Yes, the central problem of democracy is to put substance into the formalities of voting, freedom of speech, and so on, in ways that don't prejudge cultural and economic issues (like propertarianism) unnecessarily. Theorizing about that problem in the abstract doesn't yield any conclusions, but in practice, it's not really that hard, IMO. It's actually much much easier, in practice, to tell when people are truly listening to each other while disagreeing on cultural values, and when they're simply ignoring the needs of the out-group in order to impose their own ways.

People love to hate on theory and abstraction, but I'm increasingly convinced that being 'practical' just means not questioning the assumptions that one has when one does things in the ways one has always done. In this case, I think it's true. You are taking a liberal conception of democracy and saying, "Let's just do this, it's not actually hard to implement in practice." But someone else might disagree, and not just about procedure (which you thought was "a hollow shell" earlier but are essentially turning to now by focusing on 'how' and not 'why' - democracy is, after all, a set of procedures in practice that are designed to realise a democratic ideal). And then what? You obviously have good reasons for believing in this particular conception of democracy, but it's important to realise that it's not necessarily as obvious as it might seem to you. Maybe addressing it theoretically is what is needed to pump life back into the hollowness of following formal procedures for their own sake (or because they are basically right, end of).

 

[Karalysia]

The problem isn't one of democracy. It's of unregulated capitalism which leaves people like the villagers from which the Naxalites draw their support behind, which increases the gap between the cities and the countryside, which creates a problem of the unemployed landless living in the cities with no prospects, which takes land and extracts resources and gives nothing back in return. The area's the Naxalites are strongest are among the most resource rich areas of the country, yet they are also the pooerest areas of the country. The resources are being extracted and funds being pocketed by industrialists, corrupt politicians or going to develop the cities, while these villagers still lack running water, roads, schools, hospitals, electricity, or any basic services at all. So of course they rise up. Who wouldn't in that situation?

 

[Ayatollah So]

Herein lies the rub - is it more democratic to let the people decide whether their society is democratic to begin with and carry on, or to tell them that some kind of natural law (based on logic or whatever) trumps their absolute sovereignty?

In a country approximating democracy, a brute military force approach tends to make things a lot worse. (Hell, even in the worst dictatorship, an invader is likely to make things worse unless they are willing to commit huge resources.) So that really isn't an option, but persistent criticism is, and so are diplomatic and trade sanctions and rewards, carefully conditioned on specific items of progress that have some chance in hell of being accepted. Hell, sometimes just discussing the issue can help overcome a nation's shush-the-messenger policies w.r.t. their domestic reporters.