![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Daniel Little's recent post over at Understanding Society, "Democracy in a polarized society", began with a simple question: "What are some of the institutional arrangements that can work to preserve a functioning democracy in a society with extensive inequalities of wealth and power?"
If Little places Italy alongside Thailand, Thailand may as well be joined by other First World countries marked by gridlock between two different political factions with wildly different views on the future of the country. Spain (the Popular Party versus the various left-wing and regional movements) and the United States (Democratic Party and the left versus the Republican Party and the right) come quickly to mind. But, by including Italy in that list, Little has made that list not very useful: Italy is qualitatively different from Thailand.
Or is it, at least in the particular and highly specific sense of having the forms of a democratic system that don't seem adequately fleshed out? In the same post, Little came up with a list of the idealized qualities which make a democracy durable, viable, even.
My Google search just now using the keywords "malaise" and "democracy" returned 563 000 results (in 0.05 seconds!). In Thailand and Russia, the ability to implement the qualities of a democracy might be hindered; in Italy or even in Canada, their importance either isn't considered or is considered overrated. Italy has a man who is at once prime minister and media hegemon ruling the country, doing so not so much because of his strength but because of his opponents' disunity; Canada, a congress of unimpressive parties manages to run the country, these parties failing to break beyond their particular regional and municipal strongholds by virtue of their unimpressiveness. One way in which Italian and Canadian democracy resemble each other--and in which they might be reflected by other democratic polities--is in the general lack of conviction. Canada's just lucky in that, unlike Italy for certain and perhaps unlike Spain and the United States, the divisions between the different political demographics aren't nearly so visceral.
Thoughts?
Discuss.
This is a key question in part because we can easily see the factors that work against the democratic outcome. A Berlusconi in Italy is capable of dominating the political institutions in his country through his wealth and control of a media empire. An Abhisit in Thailand is able to maintain his political power through his reliance on the support of the armed forces and their willingness to use force against popular movements like the Redshirts. And the sham democracy resulting from elections rigged by Burma's junta last fall demonstrates how the generals can exert their rule through and behind ostensibly "electoral" legislative institutions.
If Little places Italy alongside Thailand, Thailand may as well be joined by other First World countries marked by gridlock between two different political factions with wildly different views on the future of the country. Spain (the Popular Party versus the various left-wing and regional movements) and the United States (Democratic Party and the left versus the Republican Party and the right) come quickly to mind. But, by including Italy in that list, Little has made that list not very useful: Italy is qualitatively different from Thailand.
Or is it, at least in the particular and highly specific sense of having the forms of a democratic system that don't seem adequately fleshed out? In the same post, Little came up with a list of the idealized qualities which make a democracy durable, viable, even.
The population as a whole is entitled to decide the basic issues confronting the nation. Individuals have an unencumbered right to form and express their opinions about the issues of the day. Individuals have the right to join and support political organizations (parties) whose program they wish to support. Individuals and organizations have the right to compete for political office, legislative and executive. An elected legislative body has the authority to enact legislation. All parties in society are fundamentally committed to supporting the constitutionally defined democratic processes, whether or not their preferences prevail. No party has the ability to overturn the outcomes of democratic competition. And no group has such a concentration of resources that it is able to dominate political outcomes.
My Google search just now using the keywords "malaise" and "democracy" returned 563 000 results (in 0.05 seconds!). In Thailand and Russia, the ability to implement the qualities of a democracy might be hindered; in Italy or even in Canada, their importance either isn't considered or is considered overrated. Italy has a man who is at once prime minister and media hegemon ruling the country, doing so not so much because of his strength but because of his opponents' disunity; Canada, a congress of unimpressive parties manages to run the country, these parties failing to break beyond their particular regional and municipal strongholds by virtue of their unimpressiveness. One way in which Italian and Canadian democracy resemble each other--and in which they might be reflected by other democratic polities--is in the general lack of conviction. Canada's just lucky in that, unlike Italy for certain and perhaps unlike Spain and the United States, the divisions between the different political demographics aren't nearly so visceral.
Thoughts?
Discuss.
