If you were a vampire, then baby I'm the walking dead
IMPORTANT NOTE: THIS POST IS NOT ABOUT THE 2020 SUMMIT, WHICH BY ALL ACCOUNTS WAS AWESOME WITH A CAPITAL "AWES"
So I’ve got a bit of a bee in my bonnet at the moment. And that bee is called “democracy”, and it’s buzzing around my head so loudly that it’s difficult to hear anything else*.
See, I love a bit of democracy. I think it’s ace. I’m quite the fan of process, and being heard, and all that kind of gear.
What I like less is imitation democracy, or what I’ll now term as “faux-dem”. Faux-dem seems rife at the moment (Zimbabwe, Qantas, etc) and is often expressed in terms of a process or policy which would seem to imply democracy, but is effectively there to diminish the possible charges of dictatorship.
How to spot faux-dem: a beginner’s guide
1. Constant use of the word “I” in discussions (genuine democracy usually starts with “we”)
2. Grand gestures which would be completely unnecessary in an authentic community
3. Attempts to diminish the role of particular individuals or groups (e.g. “well, feminists – they don’t represent anyone, therefore it’s not important to listen to them”)
4. Observation of the process as far as is necessary (turning up to meetings, taking queries from constituents) but no delivery of outcomes, and complete disregard for learnings gained from such process
5. Animal Farm-esque appointment of generals to shield leaders from real circumstances
6. Use of the phrase “what people have to understand”, with the implication being that in fact, the person using the phrase knows all, while everyone listening is stupid
Believe it or not, I’d actually prefer a dictatorship to faux-dem. What makes people unhappy in an environment with a process and a system which is not being observed is that they have been tricked into thinking that they have an equal right to participate.
The other benefit of a dictatorship is that it tends to give a lot more legitimacy to activity that evens the playing field for those who are unrepresented. While you have structures in place to be pointed to in times of difficulty (“See? We have a Supreme Court, I don’t know what more you want,” etc) then you also do damage to the legitimate concerns raised and then ignored in those processes.
I feel like I’m coming over all Bakunin here, but I have been deeply disappointed lately by the effectiveness of supposedly democratic processes in my immediate vicinity and beyond.
I’m not sure what to do about it, short of perch myself prettily atop a heap of dead Frenchmen, waving a tricolour.
Or maybe I just need a second cup of coffee.
* Anyone who wants to “involuntary” me on the basis that I have an invisible talking bee friend called “Democracy” and am wearing a colonial-style sunhat in April can pretty much get bent.
So I’ve got a bit of a bee in my bonnet at the moment. And that bee is called “democracy”, and it’s buzzing around my head so loudly that it’s difficult to hear anything else*.
See, I love a bit of democracy. I think it’s ace. I’m quite the fan of process, and being heard, and all that kind of gear.
What I like less is imitation democracy, or what I’ll now term as “faux-dem”. Faux-dem seems rife at the moment (Zimbabwe, Qantas, etc) and is often expressed in terms of a process or policy which would seem to imply democracy, but is effectively there to diminish the possible charges of dictatorship.
How to spot faux-dem: a beginner’s guide
1. Constant use of the word “I” in discussions (genuine democracy usually starts with “we”)
2. Grand gestures which would be completely unnecessary in an authentic community
3. Attempts to diminish the role of particular individuals or groups (e.g. “well, feminists – they don’t represent anyone, therefore it’s not important to listen to them”)
4. Observation of the process as far as is necessary (turning up to meetings, taking queries from constituents) but no delivery of outcomes, and complete disregard for learnings gained from such process
5. Animal Farm-esque appointment of generals to shield leaders from real circumstances
6. Use of the phrase “what people have to understand”, with the implication being that in fact, the person using the phrase knows all, while everyone listening is stupid
Believe it or not, I’d actually prefer a dictatorship to faux-dem. What makes people unhappy in an environment with a process and a system which is not being observed is that they have been tricked into thinking that they have an equal right to participate.
The other benefit of a dictatorship is that it tends to give a lot more legitimacy to activity that evens the playing field for those who are unrepresented. While you have structures in place to be pointed to in times of difficulty (“See? We have a Supreme Court, I don’t know what more you want,” etc) then you also do damage to the legitimate concerns raised and then ignored in those processes.
I feel like I’m coming over all Bakunin here, but I have been deeply disappointed lately by the effectiveness of supposedly democratic processes in my immediate vicinity and beyond.
I’m not sure what to do about it, short of perch myself prettily atop a heap of dead Frenchmen, waving a tricolour.
Or maybe I just need a second cup of coffee.
* Anyone who wants to “involuntary” me on the basis that I have an invisible talking bee friend called “Democracy” and am wearing a colonial-style sunhat in April can pretty much get bent.
posted by gigglewick at
11:44 am
5 Comments:
Oh that's spot on! What a great list.
The 'I' thing stands out to me too. I noticed some leader saying it the other day and I spoke out loud (how else would one speak) to correct them and tsked in a disapproving manner (how else would one tsk). But I can't remember who it was. Could it *sharp intake of breath* have been Mr Rudd???
Two questions:
1. Where do you stand on the 20-20 summit issue?, and
2. Can we see pictures of the hat please?
EB,
No - never Kevin!! In fact, I should possibly go in and correct this post to ensure that no one thinks (as INCraig seems to have drawn) that I speak of the 2020 Summit.
INCraig,
No, I like the summit. It had some good ideas (I read the report today, because I am a nerd). No, the incidents to which I refer in this here post are both closer than national politics (immediate comunity) and further away (Zimbabwe, American presidential)
Fair to say I've confused everyone really.
And no, you may not see the hat.
My friend democracy on the other hand, is right over there. Can't you see him? He's so cute!!!
* bats at imaginary bee *
* collapses *
Eleanor's right, that was an awesome list. Pity my own democracy cheer-squaddiness (with direct reference to point 3) bars me from saying that I would prefer some complete gits had their voting rights revoked. It's been an interesting week at work.
Nai,
I've been referred to as a "feminazi" (a title proudly accepted by our new GG I notice) too many times for it not to have had an effect.
Ding-bats may indeed determine the outcome of an election, but we all have the capacity to change that by ensuring better civic education and participation.
another bee! My good friend, Civics! At least now Democracy will have some one to talk to.
PS where do you work? Email me the answer....!
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home