Demobcracy

Democracy is rather famously the worst form of government except for all of the others, and it's certainly a shibboleth these days that it is the best, full-stop.  As is my wont I am here to Devil's Advocate that assumption, and current events are certainly pointing out the instabilities inherent in the concept of free-for-all democracy.

Most recently and closest to home, students in Quebec are protesting (more or less violently) the decision to raise their tuition rates.  This is no "Arab Spring" but the idea is similar; they don't like what's happening and they vote against it with sit-ins, and some arson and smashing of things.  Leaving out the details of that protest (except to say I have no sympathy since everyone else in the country already pays far more than they do), this is an ancient problem getting a modern treatment.

First, the ground rules in a standard liberal democracy: they are Representative Democracies.  This means we have a system used to elect representatives for our local interests, and it's an understatement to say that this has limitations.  Regardless, it's the system we have, and it's a "model" of democracy which works adequately as long as people work within it.  "Model" in this case means something which represents the actual thing, and of course anything which isn't the thing itself can't display all characteristics of it.  Details are lost, values are approximated.

A REAL democracy would have everyone voting individually for everything.  Of course technology brings this closer all the time, but ask yourself if you'd really like to see that.  It is pretty obvious that you can (in fairly homogeneous societies) put peoples' political leanings on a curve with distinct Left and Right tails.  Each of these tails overlaps into the Centre, and it is my belief (not tested) that the Right is bigger than the Left.

So what?  The polarization of the electorate in Canada and the USA is very evident in voting patterns indicating a "core" of people who feel certain ways about certain things.  This is of course a model, not the real thing, but it's serviceable.  Of the two tails the Right is bigger, as this encompasses the conservative/leave me alone strains of the population.  We'll say this is 35% of the population.  The other end, the entitlement/nanny state I'll put at a hard 20%.  In between there are a lot of people who don't feel terribly strongly about very much, and that 45% or so will either form a default plurality bloc or bleed off in either direction as circumstances warrant. 

With the map (a.k.a. model) laid out, back to my point.  The above groups display certain basic characteristics, some of them common.  Both tails think they know better than everyone else, and the Right and the Centre will overwhelmingly go with "the Devil they know" than smash everything in pursuit of "Revolution".

Enter the sore losers.  Election didn't come out the way you wanted? Scream "cheating", "recall" or whatever is likely to get you what you want.  Sit-in, smash and burn things, distort peoples' statements, act outraged at everything you don't agree with, lie, and resort to ad hominem attacks on the opposition.  It is to be noted (neatly backing up my numbers) that 2/3 of Quebec students are quietly completing their semesters.  I think this excerpt says it all:
At McGill University, classes and exams have been largely unaffected by the student unrest. Only four departments -- Gender, Sexuality and Women's studies; Graduate Art History; Social Work; and French Literature -- are on strike. (emphasis mine).

This is not to say that any one group has a monopoly on dirty tricks.  Much mud is slung in all directions, but the TEA Party vs "Occupy" comparison is educational as it directly compares both ends of the political curve.  TEA Party groups came out for the day, then went home sans rampage.  Occupy groups squatted somewhere and formed impromptu communes and mini-Woodstocks.  In Oakland Ca there were labour and trade disruptions as well as the usual vandalism and not-always-civil disobedience.

The latter are not the people who keep the lights on in our civilization, the former are.  The evil baby-raping Right Wingers protest within the law of the land and go home, voting their preferences and conscience at all opportunities.  The "you're too stupid to know what's good for you" Left cries "foul" and tries to physically change the terms of the discussion.

There are a lot of different brands of ideas and the farther you go in either direction the less common ground they have.  With this in mind, the dangers of unbridled democracy should become evident.  Here is the reductio ad absurdum of "Democracy is always good":

Last year, the White House began peddling the line that the uprisings in the Middle East were a repudiation of the al Qaeda model of seeking change through terrorism. The argument was that while America opposed violent extremism, the rise of nonviolent radical movements was just fine, and even commendable. Al Qaeda leader Ayman al-Zawahri quickly dismissed this claim, saying that from the terrorists’ point of view, it didn’t matter whether an Islamist victory came through violence or not. The means were unimportant except as they related to the end state: the imposition of hard-line Shariah-based laws and policies. (emphasis mine again)

Of course we've been down this road many times, recently and obviously with Hamas in the Gaza Strip.  The thing that people seem to forget is that any political system is a tool, a means to an end.  If the end is the means, anything done within the means is legitimate. 

When you think "Democracy" do you think "one man, one vote, once"?  Theocracy? Democracy can be used to achieve these end-states as easily (more easily, really) than it can produce a stable liberal democratic system.  Hitler was legally elected too...

Life is a struggle (ultimately futile) against Entropy, and anything we do in life requires maintenance.  If you want to live in a society which allows free speech and freedom of association, that cannot be maintained by burning everything down each time you have a grievance.  I started this post yesterday (30 April) but as I wrap it up today it is May Day and further Anarchist/nihilist stupidity can be expected over the Western world.  As the Gender Studies students and loutish vandals co-mingle at various "protests" the former will not recognize themselves as the vectors of the latter "Black Bloc" assholes.

Coming back to the freedoms (speech and association) I mentioned earlier, there can be no absolute freedom in anything.  Although poorly understood, the Universe has rules which are necessary to keep things turning and every other sub-system needs some definable structure too.  Nature abhors a vacuum, and if you squeeze the trigger on your "revolucion" don't be surprised when your Robespierre pops up, Reign of Terror and all.