Aphorism:Common man
Common man is uninformed, his taste vulgar, notions prejudiced.
Hence it stands to reason that result of any process which relies on public preferences solely will range anywhere from indifferent in best case, to positively catastrophic in the worst case.
Democracy best exemplifies this.
I can only hope future generations will be more charitable to "age of reason" for its delusion, than this age has been to "age of faith."
"Vox populi vox dei" translates as "My God! How did we get in this mess!" *
(Yes I quoted it earlier, I like it so much)
PS I am a common man.
5 comments:
You assume that a functioning democracy actually represents 'people's preferences solely'. Wrong assumption.
How so ?
Because most functioning democracies are representative. And there are atleast two layers between people's wish and public implementaion - that of the legislature which is accountable to the people, and that of the bureaucray that is accountable to the government in power. These two layers introduce the gap between peolpe's preferences and reality. Thus, a government, that is by your assertion, evil, has the responsibility of protecting its citizens from self-destruction. Your view of the equilibrium between the evil that people can cause to themselves and the evil that governments can cause to people determines where you stand on the socio-politico-economic spectrum.
People claim that a democracy is imperfect, but it is the least imperfect system - I claim that it is precisely the imperfection of a democracy that sustains it.
All functioning democracies are thus, I assert, equilibria between a theoretical democracy and an oligarchy. Which is the way it should be. One may however, differ on the exact location of this equilibrium. To argue on that would require significantly more technical knowledge than what i possess.
Ritwik,
Now if I understand correctly you concede common people's are bad in choosing, yet somehow you conclude (or rather assume) that representative chosen by common man will be any better.
Now if that were true, to draw an analogy, it would mean that atleast some popular serials will be watchable, however since none are, it means that assumption is not supported by reality.
Nice one, Gaurav. But not entirely true, for the following reason. Consider a hypothetical case of a population of 100 people, to be administerd by a group of 10. Now, the inherent need (this inherent need is partly a result of requirements of evolutionary dominance in society, and partially a self-sustaining loop set up by past governance mechanisms) for capability that politics and bureaucracy demands ensures that only say, the top 30 are able to enter the fray for contention (civil service aspirants, wannabe lawmakers) Notice that I say 'capability', which can be used for evil purposes too (which is the cause, alongwith the state's right to legitimate coercion, of any evil that is perpetuated by the government). I do not necessarily ascribe good intentions to these 30, only contrats them with the idiocy of the 50th percentile.
Now, since the average person is an idiot (a point that I may not necessarily believe in, but since the entire discussion has been on these premises, let's stick with that), the democratic process would be inefficient. hence, instead of choosing the top 10 candidates, the average operson chooses, say, the bottom 10 out of top 30. which means, that instead of being handled by percentiles 91-100, governance has passed into the hands of percentiles 71-80. This clearly reflects the idiocy of the common man. It, however, also ensures that governance is in the hands of people > 50th percentile - thus not solely representative of people's preferences.
Which is to say, the soaps on TV are horrible. But they could be much worse. And since people like these soaps, and you don't, it's clear that your assertion of 'I am a common man' is contradicted! :)
The numbers I have used serve only to illustrate the larger point. Don't take them literally.
Post a Comment