View all notes
The French Revolution, like the American, did not dislodge the aristocracy to replace it with a democracy but rather dislodged a hereditary aristocracy to replace it with an elected aristocracy [...] a new upper bourgeoisie took power. It derived its legitimacy no longer from God, soil or birth but from another relic of the aristocratic era, elections. This explains the exhausting arguments about suffrage and the severe limitations placed on it, as only those who paid sufficient tax could qualify. Only one out of every six citizens in France was allowed to vote in the first parliamentary elections, according to the constitution of 1791. [...]
he says later on that elections were "never actually intended as a democractic instrument in the first place" which is an interesting point that I'll need to incorporate into my theory of drift
Behold the pathogenesis of our electoral fundamentalism. The drawing of lots, the most democratic of all political instruments, lost out in the eighteenth century to elections, a procedure that was not invented as a democratic instrument but as a means of bringing a new, non-hereditary aristocracy to power. The extension of suffrage made that aristocratic procedure thoroughly democratic without relinquishing the fundamental, oligarchic distinction between governors and governed, between politicians and voters. [...] There was something unavoidably vertical about it, always above and below, always a government and its subjects. Voting became the service lift that brought a few to the top, retaining therefore something of an elective feudalism, a form of internal colonialism that everyone endorsed.
1948: Universal Declaration of Human Rights mentions elections; later, Francis Fukuyama defines a democratic country as one that holds elections
[...] Referendums and deliberative democracy are similar in the sense that they turn directly to the ordinary citizen to ask his or her opinion, but other than that they are completely at odds with each other. In a referendum you ask everyone to vote on a subject that usually only a few know anything about, whereas in a deliberative project you ask a representative sample of people to consider a subject about which they are given all possible information. A referendum very often reveals people’s gut reactions; deliberations reveal enlightened public opinion.
Democracy is like clay, it’s shaped by its time and the concrete forms it takes are always moulded by historical circumstances. As a type of government to which consultation is central, it is extremely sensitive to the means of communication available. The democracy of ancient Athens was formed in part by the culture of the spoken word, and the electoral-representative democracy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries thrived in the era of the printed word (the newspaper and other one-direction media such as radio, television and internet 1.0). Today, however, we are in an era of articulacy, of hyper-fast, decentralised communication, which has created new forms of political involvement. What kind of democracy is appropriate to it?
Without drastic adjustment, this system cannot last much longer. If you look at the decline in voter turnout and party membership, and at the way politicians are held in contempt, if you look at how difficult it is to form governments, how little they can do and how harshly they are punished for it, if you look at how quickly populism, technocracy and anti-parliamentarianism are rising, if you look at how more and more citizens are longing for participation and how quickly that desire can tip over into frustration, then you realise we are up to our necks. There isn’t much time left.
It’s very simple: either politics throws open the doors or it won’t be long before they’ll be kicked in by angry citizens shouting slogans like ‘No taxation without participation!’ as they smash every last stick of furniture and walk out with the chandelier of power.
the ultimate ultimatum. compromise, or the guillotine
[...] The next stage of our emancipation can be achieved through the education of the people in effective political participation. But we are at a crossroads. If we don't equip the people with the skills to make change, and if we don't trust them to have power, then they will be resigned to apathy, will continue to lose trust in those who govern on their behalf and be open to manipulation and division by those who seek to gain power through exploiting discontent. [...]
I agree completely; the real question is how you can change it (it's almost a chicken and egg situation)
- Feeling completely powerless.
- Rejecting any compromise and so choosing principled loss over pragmatic gain.
- Stereotyping the powerful and believing your side has a monopoly on morality.
[...] the problem is that many people who want to make a difference are idealistic: they want to move from where we are now to where we ought to be in one go. They've spent years dreaming of a better world and a small incremental step in that direction feels such a long way off. [...]
On April 21, the Council met to make its decision. After perfunctory debate, it approved an ignoble document called Resolution 912. It was a veritable lexicon of diplomatic mendacity. First it proclaimed that the United Nations was "shocked," "appalled," and "deeply concerned" by the bloodshed in Rwanda and was determined "to remain actively seized of the matter." then came the blow. All peacekeepers were to be pulled out of Rwanda, except for 270 whose main job would be to observe the slaughter.
just thought this was hilarious cus it so perfectly sums up my own experience with the UN by way of MUN
During one of his appearances as a witness at the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, Dallaire described the evacuation missions that foreign armies launched when the genocide broke out. He explained that soldiers rescued their own nationals but left Rwandans to die and called their conduct "inexcusable by any human criteria."
"It seems as though you regret that," his questioner observed.
"You cannot even imagine," Dallaire replied.