Reply to George Iulian JIGLAU latest post:
Democracy is not based on informed or not informed citizens. It is based on collective participation, regardless of the educational background or the economic or marital status.
The term “Democracy” is used to describe the power of the public (demos). The absence of “demos” means no democracy. Low turnout indicates problematic democracies – wherever this political phenomenon is present, there is something wrong and local politicians, trend setters, media personas, academics etc should boost participation whatsoever. The way to achieve that? Reaching out to EU citizens (dissemination of info).
New democracies in Eastern Europe obviously face a severe problem: how representative is democracy there? Democratic institutions are not yet mature: corruption and post-traumatic post-communist indifference prevails. Western European Democracies suffer from time fatigue, different kind of corruption and different kind of lack of involvement.
There is NOT a single serious reason not to vote. In your post you just playing the devil advocate for the sake of being one. By not voting we let other people decide on our behalf, like the xenophobic UKIP party in UK (which came second) or the ultra right wind party in the Netherlands (which also came second). I am sure you have heard about the results in these two countries already. Is this what we want in EU? The emergence of fascists and xenophobic lunatics? Ok then, DON’T VOTE, LET THE DARK FORCES OF EUROPE PREVAIL. This kind of abstention will only lead us to the political and cultural death of United Europe.
Let others shuffle the cards. However, shuffling is often followed by a “cut”, to ensure that the shuffler has not manipulated the outcome. Democracy reassures that the shuffler has done his job according the rules.
Ps1: Well done Cyprus: beach and sun has beaten the future of your children! Really mature decision to partially abstain.
Ps2: Non velat umbra diem = Darkness will not cover the sun.
Ps3: To paraphrase Aristotle: democracy (and electing representatives) is the best polity we could have among a bunch of other problematic ways of governing (aristocracy, dictatorships, totalitarian regimes etc). Even if democracy is in a way problematic, still it is the only solution the mankind has.
(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...
Right, even a limited choice matters.
Stergios,
Your counterargument lacks solidity because it is based on the same idealistic kind of lines which stopped convincing skeptics many years ago.
Insisting on the etymologic meaning of the word democracy is the first mistake made when trying to present what democracy is about. In my view, a good democracy in the real world we live in today is MAINLY rule of law, respect towards fundamental rights and freedoms and access to free participation to public life. Voting once in 4-5 years is the most primitive form of political participation and hence, the least important. Constant daily participation through grass-roots movements or civic and political associations of citizens with continuous activites are much more important and bear a much more impact on the democratic life of a state than a vote governed and manipulated by politicians.
Unfortunately very few people have access to more information than the one spread by politicians, because they still remain the main actors who spread/are supposed to spread information (and the media usually present what they say with a minimum filter). This is why I said in the end of my post that the spreaders of the message need to be changed with credible new ones.
There is AT LEAST ONE VERY SERIOS NOT TO VOTE, when those who should be voted for do no treat elections seriously.
I agree the rise of extremism is dangerous, but it is not the fault of those who do not vote, but of the “non-extremist” politicians who do a miserable job at living up to challenges of extremism and constantly fail to prove that they are better than the “dark forces”.
I think it is far more better for someone who does believe in the importance of voting to play the devil’s advocate than the devil himself.
The problem is that the reasons brought by people in favor of voting contain a great amount of normative considerations, while the empiric reality is very very different. Real life problems need real life solutions, not idealistic lines. The gap between the kind of discourse you use in your reply to my post and the problems I put on the table is extremely big, as big as the gap between the EU and its citizens. The EU generally uses the same amount of lack of pragmatism in the attempt to convince citizens that they should care about it and this is precisely why it will never work.
But I do enjoy the debate very much.
Reply to George Iulian JIGLAU latest post: (Arguments in defense of the many who will not vote in these elections)
Dear George,
Your counterarguments give me the impression that cynicism has beaten any optimistic approach to the political system as we know it. And I am fine with “pragmatism” or “realism”, but I think this kind of “cynicism” is dangerously misleading.
Regarding the etymology not being a good starting point in understanding the world, Plato would respond to you, not me: “the keystone of knowledge is the understanding of terminology” (Plato Republic 465C). George, we have to be SURE that when we use the term “democracy” we have the same kind of understanding of the term. I am not sure there is a consensus here between you and me and therefore any kind of discussion is useless, since we are not based on common conceptual ground.
Your definition of the word “democracy” is scarily limited “good democracy in the real world we live in today is MAINLY rule of law, respect towards fundamental rights and freedoms and access to free participation to public life”…It will be a mere commonplace from my side to say that Democracy is immeasurably MORE than that.
The fact that few politicians in each member states do not meet the criteria of a decent, reliable and accountable politician, that doesn’t devaluate the meaning of democracy itself. Political actors and their followers lose their reputation, NOT the political system itself. It is a sign of mature political though to be able to make this two-fold distinction: political entities (polities) versus political actors. To use another example: do the priests who admitted that they have rapped and sexually abused pilgrims in Ireland or elsewhere represent the Catholic Church in its entity?
“All generalizations are dangerous, including this one” (Alexandre Dumas)
Such a nihilistic approaches to reality will only bring us to political “dark ages” of the past: raise of fascism and the emergence of marginal/fringe political “parties” across Europe. Just read yesterday’s reports on the Euroelections.
Where exactly is this apathy leading us to: We have created a parliament where passing legislation will be even more difficult. With all these self-contradictory anti-EU parties CONSENSUS will be even more difficult to achieve.
Just watch here what one more lunatic (the BNP’s first European Member of Parliament) just said after he had been elected in Yorkshire, UK.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM_syuM22FE
Let me keep on having an idealistic approach towards life, as this is only way to change things. With nothing more than a pure pessimism, as you post is implying, there is no hope. And that’s why European Union has been created: to revitalise humanity’s hope for a better future. To put it into Oscar Wilde’s words: “A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing”!!!
Don’t vote, it only encourages them.
Why is a popular party like UKIP: “xenophobic”, contain “lunatics” and a “dark force of Euope”? There does not seem to be an explanation so I’m puzzled. Is it because they don’t share your politics?
Dear Tan, there is no need to explain my statement at all…You need to research yourself and find out more… This is not my role. The path to avoid being described/characterised as “idiots” is a lonely path, each of us has to follow it alone. Enlightenment might wait for us at the end of the tunnel, but I don’t bet on that for all of us. Popularity doesn’t give necessarily validity…Hitler has popular as well among Germans you know…
Linda McAvan, Labour MEP for Yorkshire: “We said that every vote would count, and of course they did. If the Labour share of the vote had been just 0.85% higher, the BNP would have been beaten”
quote - “.. there is no need to explain my statement at all”
OK, now I see your attitude. You don’t feel any need to reason your arguments. Just to remind you this blog is supposed to be “a forum alive with debate and discussion”.
I notice also that you write in large dark font and use bold a lot - the equivalent of shouting. Don’t you value alternative views?
1) no comments or arguments needed when it comes to racism and facism
2)large dark font: no other meaning behind it
What makes Stergios think the BNP or UKIP are xenophobic? The fact of not wanting too many people of a different race or culture in one’s country does not mean one hates such people. Do people who don’t want tulips in their garden necessarily have a deep loathing of tulips?
© NFLJERSEYCLOTHES.COM is a shirt monopoly. We are specialized in retailed and wholesale all kinds of nfl jerseys for many years,all the jersey are free shipping,custom chearance,with 3-7days delivery.Huge selection of Cheap NFL Jerseys, Authentic NFL Jerseys,NFL Apparel, NFL Jerseys Wholesale,NFL clothing, Soccer jerseys and so on Sports Jerseys.Yours satisfaction,Our pursuit.We would like to set up business relationship with you .