Democracy IS THE COMPROMISE.
The alternative is a nonstop threat of violence that makes the "Wild West" look like a monk's retreat.
What's going on Canada?
🍁 Meta
🗺️ Provinces / Territories
🏙️ Cities / Local Communities
Sorted alphabetically by city name.
🏒 Sports
Baseball
Basketball
Curling
Hockey
Soccer
💻 Schools / Universities
Sorted by province, then by total full-time enrolment.
💵 Finance, Shopping, Sales
🗣️ Politics
🍁 Social / Culture
Rules
Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage: lemmy.ca
Democracy IS THE COMPROMISE.
The alternative is a nonstop threat of violence that makes the "Wild West" look like a monk's retreat.
It begs the question be asked, 'Can democracy survive in a multicultural society, or can democracy only exist in a homogeneous society?' And a supplemental question, 'Can democracy in a multicultural society compete and prosper when confronted by democracy in a homogeneous society?'
A lot has been said about 'white elitism' and 'white entitlement' with reference to the decline of democracy in Western society. However, this misses the point. American 'democracy' (and indeed the beginnings of democracy in Britain) began as a system based on homogeneity. The original voters list in America was limited to white male landowners who believed in God. Freedom of religion originally meant 'the freedom to worship God in the religion of your choice'. It was assumed that this restricted group of voters had the same goal, they just differed in how to achieve it. Under this system, 'democracy' was seen as a way to determine the path, not the destination. (Yes, this is over-simplistic, as even at the time that American statehood began there was a North-South divide, with each faction having a different destination in mind, but the destinations were variations on which entitled male landowner faction would dominate).
But as the voters list expanded in scope (more and more groups were added - females, non-whites, renters, indigent populations), the 'destination' was no longer homogeneous. Each faction that was added came with a divergent goal, and the original faction could no longer guarantee that democracy would just determine the path, not the destination.
Today, Western society now represents such a huge divergence of factions, with greatly divergent destinations, that the main thrust of 'democratic' elections is now to determine the characteristics of the destination, not just the pathway to achieve it. Unfortunately, many of these destinations are mutually exclusive of each other, and what we call democracy has now become a battle between entrenched positions, winner-take-all.
But it will be interesting to see how the global situation evolves.
The West does not have exclusive rights to elitism and entitlement, just the rights to 'white male' elitism and entitlement. Let us not forget that there are other locusts of power in the world, and many are still primarily homogeneous societies, with their own sense of (definitely not 'white') elitism and entitlement. Further, with modern weapons systems, they are becoming militarily powerful loci of entitlement.
China, for instance, is an extremely homogeneous society, with a growing sense of Chinese entitlement, that is getting stronger every passing year. Rather than growing more diverse, the Chinese society is actually growing more unified and consolidated in their sense of destination. Democracy in China is very alive and well, contrary to Western public opinion. It is just that they are not voting to determine the destination so much as they are voting to select the path. China, in fact, does not have a 'one party' system, so much as they have a 'no party' system. With a common destination, no need to differentiate by 'party' but by 'path'. It begs the question be asked, 'Is the rise of China's power and the decline of American influence due to the homogeneity, and thus the singular nature and the goal directedness, of the Chinese society?' That is, Chinese society today is driven by a singular common societal goal and the entire resources of the state are directed towards achieving this goal; whereas the concept of democracy in the West has evolved into trying to implement a divergent set of goals, depending on who wins the election. Since the goals of each faction have become so mutually exclusive, whatever progress is achieved by one party in one election cycle is destroyed by the next party in the next election cycle.
This century will be defined by this conflict between and within world political systems and nation states regarding the degree of homogeneity versus diversity of their society, and the nature of their democracy. I suspect that the result will be a shift in the nature of statehood towards a world of smaller, but more homogeneous, states where democracy determines the path, not the destination. Trump is not the cause, but the symptom, of this clash.
I believe America's future can only be sustained when America breaks up into two or more nations, each progressing towards their own mutually exclusive destination. How Canada evolves will be determined by whether or not Canada can define its own workable common destination, and shape manageable power sharing schemes between federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions to allow different paths towards this common destination.
Can democracy survive a multicultural society, yes it can. Can it only exist in a homogeneous way, no. This is kind of the same question honestly.
A better question is, will powerful fascist elements use multicultural issues against democracy? The answer is yes.
Can a non-homogeneous democracy compete with a homogeneous? Do you think the US has competed successfully considering they have been non-homogeneous for awhile now.
I have never heard white elitism as the cause for the decline of democracy. I would say it has definitely created a two tired society where some white males get the benefits of other's work disportionally.
Honestly your question(s) seem kind of race baiting in a mild way. Like you are looking for an answer you already have and just need confirmation.
I see your reliance on path and destination as a metaphor for the status quo and change misplaced. Democracies can and do change and the fact that not every group has the exact same goal does not prevent democracy.
It may make it more complex and slower because the groups must find common ground and develop shared goals. Or perhaps one group will simply dominate the other as we see in the US. Obviously there will be conflict if the groups have polar opposite demands.
I find your distinction between one party and no party just silly. China is not a democracy at all. The supreme power is invested in a autocrat. Of course, you could argue the US is very similar and depending how this next election plays out it may to become a no-party/one party government. I am sure some would argue it already is one party when it comes to serving the wealthy's desires.
China is not driven by a singular goal as what the rural working class wants is completely different than the urban elites want. There is no way everyone in China can be a billionaire. This two-tired society is non-homogeneous by nature.
This new world is dominated by corporate interests. The wealthy are no longer bound by nations. I see us heading into an increasingly post-nation world for the wealthy with nations purely becoming a tool to control the populace and something that is ignored by the wealthy.
I think every large nation, including the US could be broken up and probably be better off. This concentration of power under the guise of the state in order to control the populace at the benefit of the wealthy is a problem that is happening all over the world as income gaps continue to increase dramatically.
Can a non-homogeneous democracy compete with a homogeneous? Do you think the US has competed successfully considering they have been non-homogeneous for awhile now.
There is a difference between a multicultural population, and a democratic multicultural population. The difference is in the degree to which the enfranchised voting list is multicultural, the degree to which the multiculturalism can be expressed at the voting both. Israel is a case in point - multicultural to the extent that Palestinians can live in Israel, but definitely not a multicultural democracy since they can not vote.
America grew stronger in the early 1900's, a time when the voting franchise was effectively limited to 'white males'. Women did not get the right to vote until 1920, and America had a singular destination - pure Capitalism. There was also really only one party that was allowed in America during this time - the Capitalist party. It had, however, two divisions that differed in how Capitalism was to be achieved.
Now in America, capitalism and socialism are different destinations, espoused by different parties. They are a distinctly different culture. Trying to determine which destination to aim for in a democratic electoral process, in my opinion, will result in a non-productive society. As the two cultures of socialism and capitalism became voting issues in an America with an expanded voting franchise, democracy faced an inevitable stalemate and the country descended into political polarization and now economic stagnation. If you don't think it is cultural, just tale a close look at the breakdown of American voter characteristics and how each demographic votes.
A society that is almost exclusively capitalist, but determines the economic policies that drive that capitalism (such as policies on competition) through voting, is a workable democracy in my opinion. That was America in the early 1900's.
China today has a common destination (universal socialism) but the population can determine the path to move towards that socialism (exclusively state ownership or limited private investment) through the electoral process. That is a homogeneous population with a common destination, but a democratic process to determine the path.
You seem to be splitting hairs between multicultural population and a democratic multicultural population. How much representation does it take to get to the democratic part. Also, what about recent studies that highlight that US policies appear almost completely unaffected by the majority of the population.
In this respect the US would not qualify as a democratic multicultural population. The only time your vote matters is if you vote with the ruling class. In fact, the US government is actually structured to ignored the working class from the start with the Senate, Executive Branch, and Judiciary all designed to thwart the Congress.
Your point about Isreal and Palestinians is strange considering that Palestinians are not actually Israeli citizens. Not sure if you mean non-jewish Israeli citizens, if so I suppose it makes some sense.
There is no socialism destination for the US. If you lived here you would know socialism is a bad word. We even purged all of our leftists during McCarthyism. The destination is not capitalism either. It is has been fascism since before there was a word for it.
I don't agree with you appraisal of China. Their destination is Neo authoritarianism like most of Asia right now. You could argue the US is heading this same way.
A multicultural population becomes a multicultural democratic population when the various multicultural factors are given the right to vote. If you can not vote, you can not participate in the 'democracy'.
George Soros certainly thinks there is a socialist destination for America. Bernie Sanders pretty much considers that there is a socialist destination as well, if only Americans would vote for it.
The democratic multicultural nature of America is strongest at the local level. City mayoralty, for instance.
I am not surprised you don't agree with my appraisal of China. To do so would mean that you have taken the time to research and study modern China, not just accept the American propaganda machine as the truth. They have a well defined democratic process, strongest at the local level. Their election process is hierarchical in nature, progressing up from local to national.
It’s happening all across the west
"Every crisis is an opportunity"
-- Every single slimy "liberal" politician who is really just a posh autoritarian with a toolbox of Identity Politics slogans.
Actually, this is not about Canada, this is about the world. And it’s frightening: https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=Fd-_VDYit3U&ra=m
It doesn’t help my hope for things that, every time Carney clearly represents the owner class over the working class, I see people in comment sections talking about they “don’t like it but you gotta get things done!”. No, this is bad and should not be excused, and why do we always have to have excuses and patience for centrist and right-wing bullshit, which has still yet to show any real functionality, but we won’t even try being progressive despite the innumerable examples of progressive policy working all over the world? Even Mamdani is making it work in the US and we act like Carney needs to allow unreviewed distruction of our environment to benefit O&G companies or the whole country will up and die in only a couple years’ time.
I’m so tired of this crap. I’m so tired of us willfully throwing away our rights and self-respect just to get leaders who will ignore us at every possible turn. I’m sick of people saying that the left will be like Soviet Russia while everything they describe as guaranteed with progressivism is literally happening, openly, in front of them under conservative governments(like our current one, too). Degrading our democracy almost feels like it’s still democratic because so much of the population seems perfectly happy to watch it happen.
And Canadians don't have the same excuses to not do anything about it unlike the muricans. Their healthcare is not tied to their jobs.
So I can tell you haven't been poor recently.
Their healthcare is not tied to their jobs.
sure, if you dont care about your teeth, eyes, mental health, physiotherapy....
All tied to employment...
And before anyone jumps in here with "at least not as bad as america!!!".... thats exactly the kind of low bar thinking that landed us in this situation..
And before anyone jumps in here with “at least not as bad as america!!!”… thats exactly the kind of low bar thinking that landed us in this situation…
Well, look at the bright side: at least you don't yet have to compare your country with North Korea like Americans do to make it seem less bad.
Excellent article. Thanks for posting.
Trudeau's failure to bring in proportional representation will be a missed opportunity with severe consequences that most don't fully appreciate.
Trudeau did not fail to bring in proportional representation. He campaigned with the intention of bringing in ranked balloting. Instead of forcing it through when he could, he sent it to committee where no consensus was reached. Instead of compromising with a small improvement the NDP flat out refused anything but proportional representation. With ranked balloting the NDP would consistently win more seats than they do now and we would have more minority governments where compromising would result in more progressive legislation.
I actually voted for Mark Carney out of pure fear of what PP would do. But I had no idea it would still turn out this bad.
Overall, I supported Carney as well, last election (but voted Green). But I said at the time, here in this community, that although I completely agreed with his economic and fiscal policies, the jury was still out regarding his social and humanitarian policies. If you think back, Carney ran almost entirely on his financial policies, and remained silent on social policies.
Fiscal policies? The guy is basically gutting everything in favor of his rich buddies. You think Doug's fatass privatization of healthcare is alone to him.
He is implementing fiscal policies that promote economic growth. Protecting the less fortunate and disadvantaged is a social, not a fiscal, policy.
He is doing none of those things.
You said yourself he is favoring his rich buddies. Policies that promote economic growth. You can not say he is going 'those things' and then say 'he is doing none of those things'. Which is it?
Are you trolling?
No, I am entirely serious. Are you trolling?
Democracy in the entire west is eroding.