Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 12-May-2024 00:48:03 JST simsa03
   It's perhaps worth noting that the merit of liberal democracies is less their representative way of governance but their provision of a legal and structural framework in which even harsh and intricate disagreements can occur, be debated, and resolved.
   
   While there may be representative democracies (not necessarily liberal once) with more efficient ways of conflict resolution and decision finding (e.g., the Haudenosaunee Confederacy or the Quakers), these are most often models designed for small populations. Liberal democracies on the other hand are currently the best way to accomodate differences in opinion without breaking apart the society of large populations.
   
   The advantage of liberal democracies becomes even clearer when contrasted with non-liberal societies of large scale that generally tend to be authoritarian. Authoritarian or autocratic societies cannot deal with disagreements (esp. harsh once) except via force, oppression, and violence, which leads to silent populaces, complicit populations, or all out resistance movements.
   
   So perhaps the benfit of liberal democracies should less be seen how well the "will of the people" is represented and applied, but by the way they allow for diagreements to occur and abide. They allow for the time necessary to sort things out without their societies breaking apart in the meantime.
   
   #talkingtomyselflettingyoulisten
   • anderbill likes this.
   • Embed this notice
     anderbill (band@hachyderm.io)'s status on Sunday, 12-May-2024 03:21:18 JST anderbill

     in reply to

     @simsa03 nice thinking there; thanks for posting.

   • Embed this notice
     simsa03 (simsa03@gnusocial.jp)'s status on Sunday, 12-May-2024 06:11:08 JST simsa03

     in reply to

     • anderbill
     Thanks. I should have pointed out more clearly that any alternative to a liberal democracy – or at least: representative democracy with at least some form of division of powers, constitutional rights like free assembly and free press, and delegation of political will – becomes a form of government that, *because* it cannot provide means for sustaining disagreements and slow down the pace of debate, necessarily becomes oppressive, authoritarian, and, by that: violent.
     
     Most people think that the prime feature of liberal democracies is that "the will of the people" is somehow and somewhat realized. Although that is a necessary condition of liberal (and I'd claim: every representative) democracies, the value and merit of this form of societal organisation and governance doesn't fall or rise by the question whether and how well this "delegation" is enacted.
     
     That we have structural and legal means to sustain disagreements, esp. harsh and combative ones, is a trait of liberal democracies perhaps even more important. And it boils down to: How can we slow down the pace of the deliberation, how can we come to a procedure that not only takes into account the various aspects of a topic but is capable, via deliberation, to apply a method of contolled gradual complification so that we don't break down topics into pieces but raise their complexities (and thus number of aspects and facets) by the very process and method of deliberation?
     
     Speed is of essence here, or more precisely: the slowing down of the process the more complex and contentious the topic / deliberation becomes. Without division of powers (etc.), you run into top-down command hierarchies – successful in the short term, but devastating in the long run.
     anderbill likes this.