Democracy?!

[Myles Domini]

I've just finished reading 'Crime and Punishment'. I've been buried in Theology for awhile so I thought I'd take a break, relax, put my feet up and delve into some Dostoevsky. I was not dissapointed. Dostoevsky was an awesome writer whose portrayal of modern man is as apt in the so-called 'post modern' period as it was at the end of the 19th century. Existentialism is everywhere and nihilism acts as its constant shadow...

Dostoevsky's book also got me thinking about other issues particularly those that deal with the [i]polis[/i]. Rodion, his protagonist, in his nihilism constantly spouts of about the classes of men: ordinary and extraordinary. His belief is that the extraordinary men have no moral obligations because it is they that trounce those obligations willingly to achieve their ends and thus become the legislators themselves his example is Napoleon. Dostoevsky obviously doesn't buy this Nietchzesque ideology and neither do I but Rodion's words do strike a resonance on some level.

He says that after these men, these extraordinary men have done their deeds and achieved their ends, these men are no longer regarded as criminals but rather extolled, glorified and altars are even raised in their names and is that not true? Look at Julius Caesar? Ambitious, ruthless, deceitful, criminal, there are few sins that Caesar didn't commit and yet every monarch to bear his name or one of its deratives e.g. Tsar or Kaisar is glorifying this meglomaniac. Our modern world was built on the values of Rome look in the US senate and you will find the Eagle and thatch of the Empire.

As I highlighted previously I rabidly disagree with the nihilist that Caesar or those historical personages who fit his psychological profile had the right to plot and scheme their way to power. However, isn't it interesting to note how men came to love them for it. I've not read the Brothers Karamazov but I hear in the story of 'The Grand Inquisitor' Dostoevsky makes a point about the ordinary men: how in truth they feel most comfortable when they're being controlled by someone. Is there not some grain of truth to this?

Look at history its far from the Marxist portrait of class struggle. Machiavelli states clearly that if you want absolute power your court the popular classes and that is consistently what has happened throughout history. Figures like Caesar were always willing to appeal to the plebs and were always duly rewarded. One only has to recall that that 'progressive' thinker Rousseau considered the best form of government to be one ruled by a 'Benevolent Dictator'.

My point? Well I think given the consistency with which men in times of trouble have looked to a single strong leader that one cannot rule out the monarchist system so easily. Democracy has its advantages but what about is disadvantages such as the ones Aristotle outlines in the Politics e.g. lying and flattering to win votes. Does not the democratic system leave itself open to those with the greatest talent in immorality to succeed? Certainly Aristotle did not think it the best breeding ground of virtue.

Maybe democracy isnt all its cracked up to be and maybe at their deepest levels men dont want a democracy they just want a strong, noble, dependable and honest sovereign to lead them? If that be the case why are we so fixated on the democratic ideal? Is it really such a big deal to sacrifice the corruption of the Republic for the Principate of an honest Augustus?

INXC
Myles

Edited December 13, 2005 by Myles

[philothea]

No disagreement from me.

(sigh)

Question is, what is the better option, and how do we get there?

[toledo_jesus]

democracy. who needs it.

Look at Georg Hegel via Alexandre Kojeve to determine why liberal democracy is the end state of history. Look at Francis Fukuyama!

The empire is dead, the monarchy is dead. It's been all over since 1806. Jena.

[rkwright]

yes...democracy can smell of elderberries

but the idea of a benevolent dictator? Know any recently? I mean with so many ideas on how things should be run, the leader of the country will always seem benevolent to some and tyranical to others. Any leaders off the top of your head that were loved by all of their people?

my point is, is this even possible? or just an ideal?

[Myles Domini]

No political system can aptly satisfy everyone, thats impossible, but that wasnt the thrust of my argument rkwright. My point was why is it that we have such an inordinate esteem for an inherently flawed system of government that hasn't proven to satisfy man's inherent desire for organised and civilised society any better than any others. A good King is just as reliable and dutiful as a good democractically elected President and a self-glorying absolute monarch is just as detrimental to the civic polity as a President who uses his military connections and money to buy, extort or force votes for himself (a common occurence even in the 21st century).

That being the case why do we so love democracy? Is it just because it has become the status quo? Because its comfortable?

INXC
Myles