Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Democracy. Show all posts
Saturday, 2 March 2013
Democracy doesn't always work
'It’s a mistake to think that things are a lot worse than they used to be, but it’s hard to deny the conclusion that democracies across Europe look increasingly threadbare. In Defending Politics (OUP, 2012), Matthew Flinders argues that democracy is far more fragile than we realise, and needs to be constantly renewed. Flinders’ central mistake, I think, is to believe it can justify itself, that we should stick with it because it works. But what happens when functional defences no longer hold?
I would say that democracy can’t sustain itself. It needs something from outside, something behind and beneath itself, on which it rests – a civil society captured by a particular vision of the good, and a commitment to human dignity. Of all people, Christians have a stake in that. As Jacques Maritain said, we are ‘children of the same God and redeemed by the same Christ... it is up to us to make every man our neighbour’. Everybody would say that democracy is better than the alternatives, but I’m not sure everyone would know why.
Paul Bickley
To see the full blog go to LICC
Tuesday, 13 November 2012
Engaging the Battleground of Contemporary Politics
From LICC website (October 2912)
After watching the recent Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I was reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre’s provocative definition of modern politics: ‘civil war by other means’.
MacIntrye’s argument is simple and insightful. Modern society no longer has a shared moral framework on which political debate can take place. Beyond us all agreeing that some things (increasingly few) are bad, we can no longer agree on what is good. Instead, there are many competing understandings of what good looks like.
The problem is this – if there is no shared understanding of the ‘good’, then you cannot win an argument by logically showing that your perspective is better than another. It’s impossible to ‘prove’ that you’re right.
So how, in contemporary politics, do you win?
MacIntyre suggests that the two hallmarks of modern politics are protest and indignation. As you can no longer give a full account of why you believe you’re right, you simply turn the volume up and get angry. In our media-saturated age, ‘turning the volume up’ takes place through out-advertising the opposition. And advertising is not cheap. It’s no coincidence that in the last decade in US congressional elections, the candidate with the most money won over 80% of the time.
If MacIntyre’s analysis is right – and it is a big ‘if’ – how might a Christian engage in politics? Is it just a case of having to ‘play the game’ because the benefits gained by political power outweigh the cost of obtaining it? Should we more effectively mobilise the church to raise funds to lobby for Christian ‘values’ – increasing the volume of our voice in public debate?
James Davison Hunter has recently called for Christian witness in the public square to be one of ‘faithful presence’ – in line with Jeremiah’s call to the exiled people of God in Babylon to ‘seek the peace and prosperity of the city’ (29:7). The goal is not to obtain political power in order to bring a Christian influence. The goal is not ‘winning’, nor even the transformation of culture. It is faithfulness. Hunter recognises that cultural change may, on occasion, be a byproduct of faithfulness – but it is just that, a byproduct. If faithfulness is the goal, then perhaps we don’t have to resort to ‘playing the game’. As a friend once told me, ‘You don’t have to play by their rules if you don’t require their rewards.’
Mark Sampson
Further reading:
Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory is a profound account of the crisis of ethics in modernity. It is intriguing that not too long after publishing this, MacIntyre converted to Christianity. See here for an overview of MacIntyre’s political philosophy.
The statistic that over 80% of winning candidates in US congressional elections are those with the most money comes from this article. The most dramatic statistic is that in 2004, when 98% of House seats went to the candidate with the most money.
James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World has changed the dynamics of the conversation about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Though his focus is on the US context, much of it is applicable to the UK.
Nathan Johnson is responsible for the phrase: ‘You don’t have to play by their rules if you don’t require their rewards’. His life – a blend of music, production, art, film-scores, and more – is a vivid example of the innovation and creativity permissioned by this perspective.
After watching the recent Presidential debate between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama, I was reminded of Alasdair MacIntyre’s provocative definition of modern politics: ‘civil war by other means’.
MacIntrye’s argument is simple and insightful. Modern society no longer has a shared moral framework on which political debate can take place. Beyond us all agreeing that some things (increasingly few) are bad, we can no longer agree on what is good. Instead, there are many competing understandings of what good looks like.
The problem is this – if there is no shared understanding of the ‘good’, then you cannot win an argument by logically showing that your perspective is better than another. It’s impossible to ‘prove’ that you’re right.
So how, in contemporary politics, do you win?
MacIntyre suggests that the two hallmarks of modern politics are protest and indignation. As you can no longer give a full account of why you believe you’re right, you simply turn the volume up and get angry. In our media-saturated age, ‘turning the volume up’ takes place through out-advertising the opposition. And advertising is not cheap. It’s no coincidence that in the last decade in US congressional elections, the candidate with the most money won over 80% of the time.
If MacIntyre’s analysis is right – and it is a big ‘if’ – how might a Christian engage in politics? Is it just a case of having to ‘play the game’ because the benefits gained by political power outweigh the cost of obtaining it? Should we more effectively mobilise the church to raise funds to lobby for Christian ‘values’ – increasing the volume of our voice in public debate?
James Davison Hunter has recently called for Christian witness in the public square to be one of ‘faithful presence’ – in line with Jeremiah’s call to the exiled people of God in Babylon to ‘seek the peace and prosperity of the city’ (29:7). The goal is not to obtain political power in order to bring a Christian influence. The goal is not ‘winning’, nor even the transformation of culture. It is faithfulness. Hunter recognises that cultural change may, on occasion, be a byproduct of faithfulness – but it is just that, a byproduct. If faithfulness is the goal, then perhaps we don’t have to resort to ‘playing the game’. As a friend once told me, ‘You don’t have to play by their rules if you don’t require their rewards.’
Mark Sampson
Further reading:
Alasdair MacIntyre’s After Virtue: A Study in Moral Theory is a profound account of the crisis of ethics in modernity. It is intriguing that not too long after publishing this, MacIntyre converted to Christianity. See here for an overview of MacIntyre’s political philosophy.
The statistic that over 80% of winning candidates in US congressional elections are those with the most money comes from this article. The most dramatic statistic is that in 2004, when 98% of House seats went to the candidate with the most money.
James Davison Hunter’s To Change the World: The Irony, Tragedy, and Possibility of Christianity in the Late Modern World has changed the dynamics of the conversation about the relationship between Christianity and culture. Though his focus is on the US context, much of it is applicable to the UK.
Nathan Johnson is responsible for the phrase: ‘You don’t have to play by their rules if you don’t require their rewards’. His life – a blend of music, production, art, film-scores, and more – is a vivid example of the innovation and creativity permissioned by this perspective.
Saturday, 2 July 2011
Is being a democracy the same as having elections?
From THEOS
Is being a democracy the same as having elections?
“In a modern democracy, people must choose their representatives” said Nick Clegg in his speech introducing the Coalition’s Draft Bill and White Paper on House of Lords reform. Yet research shows that people in fact value effective function over elected form.
Democracy is a more textured thing than the mere act of voting. Can the House of Lords be reformed in such a way as to become more democratic in function rather than merely in formation?
MORE
Is being a democracy the same as having elections?
“In a modern democracy, people must choose their representatives” said Nick Clegg in his speech introducing the Coalition’s Draft Bill and White Paper on House of Lords reform. Yet research shows that people in fact value effective function over elected form.
Democracy is a more textured thing than the mere act of voting. Can the House of Lords be reformed in such a way as to become more democratic in function rather than merely in formation?
MORE
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)