|
Forthcoming in Frontiers of
Philosophy in China (2006) 1, the
original publication will be available
at
www.springerlink.com
Democracy as a Way to Social Compromise
Han Zhen
Abstract
In modern society, democracy as a symbol
of social civilization and progress is
cherished. Any government or
organization, whether truly democratic
or not, will claim that it is democratic
while its opponents are not. However, as
a historical notion, democracy does not
possess the quality of absoluteness. In
my view, democracy, in its original
meaning, should be understood as a way
to social compromise, whose aim is to
guarantee a relatively fair political
life.
Keywords
democracy, compromise, historicity
The English word
democracy
is derived from the classical Greek word
demokratia,
which means
“people”
(demos)
“ruling”
(kratos).
In its proper sense, democracy is not
finished reality, but exists as
potentiality. But, indeed, people are
obviously acquiring more and more
democratic rights. Thus considered,
democracy is reality.
In modern society, democracy as a symbol
of social civilization and progress is
cherished. Any government or
organization, whether truly democratic
or not, will claim that it is democratic
while its opponents are not. However, as
a historical notion, democracy does not
possess the quality of absoluteness. On
one hand, in the past, democracy did not
work as positively as today; on the
other hand, in reality, democracy has
never been fully realized and every
community enjoys only limited democracy.
From my point of view, democracy, in its
original meaning, should be understood
as a way to social compromise, whose aim
is to guarantee a relatively fair
political life. This conclusion gets
some support from two western scholars.
In
Western Political Theory in the Face of
the Future,
John Dunn proposed two forms of
democracy: real democracy and ideal
democracy. According to him, democracy
itself is both a utopian ideal and a
practical arrangement, although the two
forms cannot really be embodied
simultaneously in any political
activity. In
On Democracy,
Robert Dahl reaches a similar
conclusion. Dahl argues that democracy
means something different for people
situated in different times and places.
For instance, in ancient Greece,
democracy was only enjoyed by free men;
in the early period of US political
history, democratic rights were given
only to white males in colonies; today,
although all citizens have democratic
rights in law, what they really have in
political life, in fact, are voting
rights.
However, there exist some differences
between Dunn and Dahl as to the duality
of democracy. Dunn is not so confident
in the realization of democracy. He
maintains that democracy cannot be
fulfilled in a postindustrial society,
in which citizens are far from fully
enjoying the liberty and
self-cultivation that ideal democracy
promises to provide them. In his
opinion, the best democratic system is
no more than a way to supervise a ruler’s
activities, while the worst democratic
system is a meaningless daydream. Dahl
is more optimistic than Dunn. He insists
that democracy can be realized step by
step. Historically speaking, democracy
has been widening its fields. Poor women
minorities are beginning to gain voting
rights and have shared more rights to
express their views. From Dahl’s
perspective, ideal democracy performs as
a standard by which real democracy can
be compared and evaluated. The gap
between ideal democracy and practical
democracy will never be filled out, but,
with people’s
effort, it is expected to become
narrower and narrower.
In my view, both Dunn and Dahl are
extremists on democracy. I would like to
stand between them. Dunn takes too
pessimistic a view of democracy, for, in
my opinion, we can achieve democracy to
some degree. Dahl goes too far in his
confidence on the realization of
democracy. In my opinion, the ideal
itself is always historically
conditioned. Any ideal, if it goes too
far from its historical conditions, will
degenerate into an illusion. If the
standard of the ideal consists in value
judgments and the description of reality
consists in empirical judgment, then
value judgments should always be based
on empirical judgments. A value judgment
isolated from empirical judgments will
be of no significance.
Hence, it follows that any form of
democracy depends on historical
conditions and, therefore, is not
perpetual. Democracy is a compromise
designed to balance interests among
members of a community.
Firstly, from the perspective of
ontology, human beings as a plurality
are made up of many different
individuals. It is the individuals, not
the people as a whole, who think.
Similarly, the subject that exerts power
is not the people in general but the
individuals. Power that is equally held
by all individuals will no longer be
called power.
Ideal democracy means that every
individual should be respected. Such
democracy, however, is impractical. It
is impossible for all members in a
community to reach a complete agreement,
especially today when labor division and
social structures are becoming more and
more complex. In practical life, the
tension between different interest
groups always exists, so the balance or
compromise of different interests is
badly needed. After the compromise, a
common understanding
may be reached. Here, common
understanding does not mean a complete
agreement among all members, but refers
to a compromise procedure that most
members can accept. A complete agreement
does not necessarily produce a good
result, and it may give rise to the
opposite of democracy—totalitarianism
or tyranny.
In political life, it is the number of
votes that determines the ruler, who is
usually in the majority or is the
representative of the majority.
Obviously, democracy should be
authorized through the number of votes.
But even after counting the votes, the
compromise is still necessary;
otherwise, the majority will degenerate
democracy into majority dictatorship.
The political elite is empowered by the
majority, but they should not exert
power only in the interest of that very
majority. The group in power must be
responsible for the minority as well.
The interests of the minority must also
be protected. Here, a compromise
mechanism is needed. Any individual or
any group in power without a sense of
compromise tends to ignore the voices of
different interest groups.
Secondly, a proper democracy must be
able to help the individual transcend
his isolated space to go into public
life. Democratic politics should be a
politics of presence, in which all
members (or at least most of them) feel
that they are present in the political
life. Individuals authorizing their
representatives to participate in
politics, which is a typical form of
compromise, can help achieve their sense
of presence. Taking American politics as
an example, its democracy is
characterized by representatives from
different interest groups participating
in political decision making. The
American Constitution is a text
abounding with compromises. For
instance, the lower house of the US
Congress, in which the number of
representatives of each state is decided
by its population, and the upper house,
to which two members are elected from
each state, constitute the Great
Compromise. It is through such
compromise that American democracy makes
steady progress.
Compromise itself is a historical notion
and should be discussed under its
historical circumstances. In the early
developing period of modern democracy,
what the people were most concerned with
was the ruling class not offending their
rights, rather than them actively
participating in democracy. In feudal
ages, democracy had something to do with
struggles for power between the nobles
and the emperor. As a result of
struggles, a compromise procedure arose.
With the development of capitalism in a
feudal economy, the middle class was
born in the city. From a long-term point
of view, the feudal ruling class decided
that the middle class should be taxed
but cannot be overtaxed, so they
compromised with the middle class on
taxation policy. This was the starting
point of modern democratization.
Thirdly, the vigor of democracy lies on
its ability to tolerate dissenting
opinions. People aspire for democracy
not because it provides absolute
agreement by eliminating differences,
but because it can achieve compromise
and harmony with differences. One of the
most conspicuous distinctions between
democracy and tyranny is that the former
aims at protecting the state of
differences while the latter tries to
establish complete agreement by
suppressing dissenting voices.
Different from some traditional theories
of democracy that regard differences as
obstacles in the way to realizing
genuine democracy, some advocates of
multiculturalism and feminism insist
that the state of differences as an
unavoidable phenomenon is what
encourages people to strive for equality
and democracy. In a sense, democracy
means that people from different
interest groups can freely express their
voices and protect their own interests.
Thus, democracy is an equal dialogue
among different interest individuals or
groups, and is ultimately a way to
compromise.
Not only the democracy within a society
but also international democracy and
equality must be based on tolerating
different voices. The world tends to
become a multipoled one, in which each
nation must compromise with others in
dealing with international affairs.
Whichever nation preaches its culture as
the only civilized one, thereby imposing
its value upon others, will surely be
condemned.
Lastly, the development of democracy is
an evolutionary process by compromise.
In ancient Greece, democracy was a
disgrace to some people, and it somewhat
meant ruling by the cousins. Aristotle
gave little credit to democracy and
suggested that democracy is the worst
among good polities, although the best
among the worst ones. In fact, not until
the French Revolution did democracy
really become one of the key political
ideas in the west. However, Jacobin’s
terror and Napoleon’s
military adventures caused many people
to doubt democracy. In the USA,
democrats were, for a time, damned by
the people. It is with the progress of
world history and the development of
human civilization that democracy is
beginning to be accepted by more and
more people.
The ups and downs of democracy show that
politics is not an either/or choice
between tyranny and democracy, but a
mutual molding process between political
practice and its ideal. Today, the idea
of democracy as the opposite of feudal
thought has become deeply ingrained in
our souls. It is no longer a utopian
dream, but has been embodied in
political systems all over the world.
This is not to say that democracy has
come to a satisfying ending. On the
contrary, democracy still has a long way
to go. But I am certain that democracy,
through compromise, will lead to a
brighter future.
The compromise alone is far from being
democratic, since stable and credible
proceedings are also necessary. In
practical politics, decision-making
tendency is usually determined according
to vote number, so authoritative
proceedings are needed to effectively
guarantee the vote counting and
authorizing process. If there are no
sound proceedings, some opportunists
might unconscionably alter some
proceedings to achieve their own ends
and, consequently, undermine the whole
democratic system. It is by following
the proceedings that the majority is
empowered. Next, let me further
explicate the necessity of the
proceedings for democracy.
Firstly, the proceedings are likely to
compel the government to make decisions
in an orderly way, thereby avoiding
radical or extreme actions that tend to
cause political disasters. For some
people, it is somewhat conservative, but
it seems to me that it is a fairly
reasonable way to deal with important
political issues in an orderly way or
through compromise, especially when
considering that the world is full of
uncertainties.
Secondly, proceedings can help protect
the interests of the weak. Properly
speaking, the poor have no obligation to
obey their government if they have no
rights to speak of. Thus, the weak must
be given opportunities to voice their
opinions, and their rights ought to be
exercised through compromise or
proceedings; otherwise, they might be
deprived of all political rights by
strong people in power.
Thirdly, the proceedings of compromise
are likely to assure the liberty and
rights of the minority. If the
proceedings were absent, the minority’s
culture and value would be damaged and
they would fall victim to the majority,
hence
the tyranny of the majority.
With the proceedings available, the
majority may be compelled to make some
concessions to the minority, and
something like a common agreement can be
reached.
Lastly, a democracy with credible
proceedings is apt to be supported by as
many people as possible, which is
expected to produce a democratic
atmosphere and social harmony. In
political life, any law that is not
supported by public opinion will lose
its effect. If, for instance, a policy
is supported by 90% and opposed by the
other 10%, it is necessary for the
policy maker to make a concession to the
10% to show respect to them. In other
words, democracy should be a way to
compromise, supported by proceedings or
a system.
References
1. Dunn J., Western Political Theory in
the Face of the Future, Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1979
2. Dahl R., On Democracy, New Haven, CT:
Yale University Press, 1999
3. Sartori G., The Theory of Democracy
Revisited, Chatham, NJ: Chatham House
Publishers, 1987
4.
猪口孝et
al., The Changing Nature of Democracy
(Chinese translation), Jilin: Jilin
People Publishing House, 1999
5. Reeves R., Traveling with Tocqueville
in Search of Democracy in America
(Chinese translation), The Commercial
Press, 1997
6. Russia, France and Germany do not
want
“New-Yalta,”
Cankaoxiaoxi, 13 April 2003
|
