341. Dealing with democracy
In item 339 of this blog, I discussed Žižek’s
diagnosis of the problem of liberal democracy as being unable to provide a
shared ‘ideal object’, ‘objet-a’, of a good ‘symbolic order’ that appeals to society
as a whole, and is universally recognized and seen as the Law, to be obeyed
unconditionally. Representation of the people in terms of a God-appointed
monarch has been lost, and in democracy society is broken up into partial
interests represented in rival political parties. This yields an inconsistent,
messy, tangle of laws and regulations that do not and cannot satisfy everyone,
and is seen as arbitrary, at best a result of political incompetence, and at
worst as a conspiracy of a devious elite.
If I follow Žižek’s thought, people still have an urge
towards some idealized order that does not exist, and is dressed up in
ideology, symbolized with salient ‘master signifiers’. In a democracy this
would yield rival ideologies, which then provide an obstacle for the
compromises that need to be achieved in coalition governments. This is
perceived as betrayal to the ideology. As a result, democracies have gravitated
towards a neglect of ideology, particularly in the loss of socialist ideology,
which results in a bureaucratic technocracy, and further betrayal and loss
of the ‘objet-a’.
Disenchanted with this, people are now seduced by populism,
instigated by a leader who claims to represent the people as a whole, as the
embodiment of the people or of a shared ‘objet-a’ with appealing ‘master
signifiers’. The problem with this, as identified by Žižek, is that this
authoritarian leader also cannot make good on his promises of cohesion and
successful representation of all, and to hide that, any failure to do so is
attributed to some scapegoat, such as the Jews for the Nazi’s, and refugees or ‘the
ruling elite’ for current populists.
The only alternative, I think, is to muddle through
with democracy but somehow improve it and make it more acceptable.
For this, one possibility is for political parties
re-adopt ideologies, to avoid technocracy, and offer alternative ‘objets-a’,
even if the clashes between them complicate the political compromises needed
for coalition governments.
I see this presently happening in the Netherlands, in
a record breaking length of an attempt to form a coalition government after the
election in 2017. Sensing the hot breath in their necks from populism they
re-enact ideologies that either pacify populist instincts or re-establish
liberalist lore.
Another possibility is for people to wake up and renounce
their aspiration towards an objet-a with an exclusive ideology and the illusory
ideal of universal, equal outcomes of justice and fully rational and coherent
policies.
Conceptually, perhaps the most fundamental requirement
is that of dropping the illusion of a universal order, to appreciate diversity and
to accept that justice varies across individuals and the conditions they are
in. Even more fundamentally, I think, is the need to shed what I have called
the ‘object bias’, in seeing the symbolic order as a thing with a clear
identity, and then to see it, rather, as a process of development, in
deliberation and conflict, regulated in debate. To aim not for full and
complete substantive justice that is equal for all, but the best possible
procedural justice. Imperfection on the move.
I have been pleading to replace the utility ethics
underlying liberalism with a form of virtue ethics, with virtues defined as
competencies for achieving the good life. I showed that I was aware of the
problem that this might yield a new paternalism, prescribing how to achieve the
good life, and that I want to maintain the liberal idea of freedom for people
to decide for themselves what constitutes the good life.
For that, I proposed a distinction between procedural
virtues, needed for a just conduct of deliberation and political compromise
making, and more substantive virtues that support individual choice of the
content of the good life. The first is a public matter, the second is not. I
also noted that in fact the traditional, ‘cardinal’ virtues of reason(ability),
courage, moderation and justice have that nature of procedural virtues.
That is also in agreement with my stance towards
markets. We need them but we also need to curtail them in their limits and
failures. They need to be formed and informed by virtues of reasonableness
(which includes openness), courage (to be responsible to society and to
counteract perverse interests and incentives), moderation (in remuneration and
profit), and justice (fairness, equitability).
Above all, an awareness is needed, and commitment, to what in the preceding item in this blog I called Levinassian freedom: the highest level of freedom from prejudice that arises from opposition by the other, which is to be sought and valued as an opportunity rather than avoided as a threat.
Another conceivable fundamental reconceptualization
might be to no longer see democracy in terms of representation in parties with
their political programmes and corresponding ideologies, in which voters can
periodically position themselves, but as a process of policy formation and execution
in which people participate, in some ‘commons’. Instead of a clash between
party ideologies there then is a clash in debate between people and their views
and convictions.
Some combination is also conceivable, of political parties
for some areas of policy, on the national and supranational level (such as the
EU), and local commons for local provision of amenities and services.
No comments:
Post a Comment