The 24th Annual Indonesia Update conference this year is themed "Democracy and the Promise of Good Governance". I've been thinking lately that the theme is too heavy. That is, the term "democracy".
What is it that we really want when we say we want democracy? The memorization machine back in primary school said: "democracy is a system where the people rule". And we took it for granted. Then there was a time when columnists thought it was more cool to say it in a latin expression: vox populi vox dei -- the voice of the people is the voice of god. Again, taken for granted.
But then. In "people" there should be many persons. It is unlikely that everybody agrees on everything. So whose voice is the voice of god? It seems, by what the memorized definition implies, that the majority's voice is. Therefore democracy means a system where the majority rules.
If that is true, I don't like democracy. Because it allows the tyranny of majority.
Better system, I believe, is the one when people are free to negotiate. Regardless of whether you are of minority or majority, as long as you can enter into negotiation without coercion, and there exists a rule of law that is respected by everyone, then any agreement that occurs should benefit both parties. Otherwise, there would never be any agreement in the first place.
Right, I'm not a political scientist. But am I that off? Or, really, what is democracy?
And Canberra is still cold.
Democracy
i thought democracy is a myth; you think it exist but really, what is it?
ReplyDeleteyou must have had a nice Canberra visit. been alrite there? awesome.
ReplyDeletei think (correct me if wrong) democracy term in economic framework is believed as contribution to the value of the whole magnitude in economic context.
for example, shares owned in a company. or in micro, production shares within industry peer group. like in macro, aggregate saving proportion between components of personal, government and corporate, as that in spending.
the thing is those who have bigger shares, contribution or interest should control.
sampoerna or gudang garam won't be likely to be closed. the owners are minority but the contribution to the local economy makes them majority.
newmont/freeport as foreigners will never be part of national democracy, but their restituion to state keeps them still in rule.
common debate are between social welfare spending, military spending and tax cut.
personal, government and corporate are definitely people in one economy.
anyway, for me, democracy needs high level of confidence of strength. this makes me suggest that globalisation is channeling democracy from strong economies to the rest of the world, so called neoliberalisation.
Detta, frankly I don't know.
ReplyDeleteAnymatters, been alrite, mate! Still here for a while, but shorter than Ujang who lives across the street.
I think I agree with you, globalization is a good way to channel democracy -- in economic context as you defined. Thanks, mate!
Aco:
ReplyDeleteYou'll be surprised how your world of negotiation-for-all would end up very similar to the representative democracy that we have now -- or even worse.
It all depends on the rule of the negotiations. But let's suppose that the rule is that one must continue to negotiate until a deal is struck.
Negotiations take time, and people who will negotiate longest are those who has the greatest stake in the negotiation relative to the value of his/her time.
In most cases, then, people who value their time least have an incentive to create issues to negotiate away until those whose time are more valuable yield in this war of attrition.
Now, assume that the rule suggests that negotiations cannot be done by proxy. What we get is a world where people whose time have the least economic value rule.
Now that's bad -- so we change the rule: One can negotiate by proxy.
So those with valuable time and great stakes will not yield so easily. In the world of negotiation-for-all, he will pay somebody whose time is of very little value to negotiate on his behalf. And obviously, they will pay those people with the best negotiating skills.
Now, financing people whose time have the least value, fighting for your sake in a public forum -- doesn't that sound familiar? Interest groups, anyone?
I think you fall into the trap of thinking that majority rules in a democracy mean that there is no room for negotiations. But ex-ante and ex-post to a decision, the room is always there for negotiations.
In fact, majority rules can be conducive to negotiations. By declaring that the "majority rules", you assign clear property rights. Once that is clearly assigned, the negotiations can go ever more smoothly, right? ;-)
Arya, yes, negotiation can lead to a result similar to that produced by a majority rule regime. That's fine, as long as it is achieved through voluntary exchange. This is what I meant by "negotiation". It is as simple as two persons involved in trade.
ReplyDeleteThousands of books since Plato have been written about democracy (and thousands more are coming i guess), yet we don't have any single definition of it. We will know what it is when we see one...
ReplyDeletethis sounds a lot like reminiscing for the old Musyawarah Mufakat, Pancasila-ist Democracy. You will probably have better time explaining that rather than most people.
ReplyDeleteNegotiation only works among groups with shared interested and common priorities otherwise it wouldn't work. In any negotiations - fair world we all live in - we leverage on our position in the negotiations, not always with the stuff on the table but almost always, when push come to shove we will bring whatever outside influence (reputation, future promises, etc) to gain the advantage in the negotiation. Once this is conducted in the large group - exercising the leverage of the majority - the distinction becomes blurred.
your point is rather moot. again, as that guy points out, they've tried talking this thing for ages and will continue to do so.
T/S: Negotiation only works among groups with shared interested and common priorities otherwise it wouldn't work.
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. We negotiate because we don't have common interest. Take buyer and seller. For buyer, low price is the interest. For seller, high price is the objective. That said, when they transact on voluntary basis, the buyer goes home with a consumer surplus (an excess of what he was willing to pay and the negotiation-led equilibrium price) and the seller goes home with a producer surplus (an excess of what he was willing to accept and the equilibrium price).