I would say that Johnny Got His Gun is primarily an anti-war movie, I can’t honestly say I enjoyed the film, but this is not a movie review, I’m more concerned with the themes it explores and the analysis of those themes. It critiques the use of democracy as a justification for war and explores how ideals such as democracy are manipulated by those in power. It suggests that if democracy is used to justify unimaginable suffering without consent or clarity, it becomes a hypocritical slogan, not a genuine principle.
Not too dissimilar from that explored in Johnny Got His Gun, over fifty years after the movie was released, a recent well-written article here on TPQ(1) by Cam Ogie outlined concern for particular actions of late, and suggested that if these actions are democracy, then words have lost meaning. Indeed Cam suggests the same; “Democracy as slogan, not principle”.I asked in the comments section under Cam’s article the same question from the movie; what is democracy?
I mentioned that democracy means different things to different people, but the intent of my question was more to do with; what is the definition of democracy? If we have a definition, then we can say whether the word has indeed lost it’s meaning, and then explore the differences between what it now means, and what it is supposed to mean. Easier said than done.
According to Wikipedia, a precise definition of democracy does not exist.(2)
Although democracy is generally understood to be defined by voting, no consensus exists on a precise definition of democracy. Karl Popper says that the "classical" view of democracy is, "in brief, the theory that democracy is the rule of the people and that the people have a right to rule". One study identified 2,234 adjectives used to describe democracy in the English language.
2,234 adjectives in the English language to describe democracy, that's a fair amount. Does this mean that everytime anyone uses the word "democracy" they have all 2,234 adjectives in mind? I would suggest not. In fact, whenever someone uses the word, without significant context it's very difficult to ascertain exactly what they mean. I have often sought clarification in personal discussions whenever someone uses the word, and more often than not, I fail to receive it. It seems that some are much more clear on what it isn't, rather than what it is.
Philosophers and Scholars have long discussed this topic.
Perhaps if we start with Popper's classical view and also the general understanding that democracy is defined by voting. I would suggest that the former has a certain amount of ambiguity but, from my understanding, it does not appear to me that in practice it's "the people" that rule, and as to whether the people can exercise "the right to rule" has it's own set of problems. But what about the latter; voting. It could be said that these two are intertwined. If it's the people that vote, then does that mean it's the people that rule? Again, I would say that it does not appear that way in practice to me.
We can contrast "direct democracy" where people can vote directly on policy, with "representative democracy" where people vote on representatives that will then decide policy. Some countries have a semi-direct system, but by-in-large in The West, the dominant system is representative. Elections are supposed to be free and fair, where each vote is equal, and the impression is given that the result is the majority rules.
A form of representative democracy is liberal democracy. Constitutional protections are supposed to be in place, such as an independent judiciary and legal institutions, due process and rule of law. These checks and balances are supposed to protect civil liberties, rights of the minority, safeguard against oppressive governmental over-reach and prevent the "tyranny of the majority".
Austrian Political Economist Joseph Schumpeter’s controversial suggestion(3) was that:
the formation of a government is the endpoint of the democratic process, which means that for the purposes of his democratic theory, he has no comment on what kinds of decisions that the government can take to be a democracy.
Let’s take a closer look at voting for the formation of government.
Suffrage or the right to vote, has changed throughout history all around the world. In modern times more people now have the right to vote, although disfranchisement or not having the right to vote still occurs. Within Schumpeter’s theory for the definition of democracy, his was more “the method by which people elect representatives in competitive elections to carry out their will.”
There are currently different systems that can be used to determine elections, the Single Transferable Vote (STV), First Past the Post (FPTP), Additional Member System (AMS), to name but a few.
The YouTube Channel Veritasium has a very interesting and informative video titled Why Democracy Is Mathematically Impossible.(4)In this video, various voting systems are analysed and explained along with visual aids to show mathematically why this looks very much to be the case, with FPTP in particular receiving criticism. However, that is only a mathematical analysis of voting systems. Of course when other various factors are also taken into account such as; subversion, voter manipulation, voter suppression, gerrymandering, voter intimidation, electoral fraud, voter fraud, election interference, election denial etc, we can add these to the equation, and if the result of the maths looked bad before, it’s now looking even worse.
Election manipulation, and election denial is nothing new. These terms along with election interference were thrown around fairly recently, notably in the U.S.
A 2018 article for The New York Times(5) by Scott Shane mentions a study by Carnegie Mellon scholar Dov H. Levin, where Levin found that from the years 1946-2000 there were 81 counts by the United States and 36 counts by the Soviet Union or Russia of both “overt and covert election influence operations”.
The article quotes Steven L. Hall who retired in 2015 after 30 years at the C.I.A. where he was the chief of Russian operations as saying;
if you ask an intelligence officer, did the Russians break the rules or do something bizarre, the answer is no, not at all,” The United States “absolutely” has carried out such election influence operations historically, he said, “and I hope we keep doing it”.
The dean of American Intelligence Scholars Loch K. Johnson is also quoted as saying “We’ve been doing this kind of thing since the C.I.A. was created in 1947”.
The article does state that both Hall and Johnson argue that the interference by the U.S. is not morally equivalent to that of Russia. Somehow that assertion does not surprise me.
I found it an interesting piece that contained other quotes and details, but also in this very same article by Shane, we see a similar question being asked; "what does democracy mean?"
The article does not offer an answer.
It’s not agreed that voting alone for the formation of government is the overall defining element of democracy. So let’s look at some other commonly described attributes.
Consider the following excerpt from Wikipedia(6);
Features of democracy often include freedom of assembly, association, personal property, freedom of religion and speech, citizenship, consent of the governed, voting rights, freedom from unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life and liberty, and minority rights.
Those attributes are not exhaustive. Remember that 2,234 adjectives have been found to describe democracy, to try and address all 2,234, it would be a very long article indeed. But have a look through that excerpt from Wikipedia, and whichever "democratic" country you happen to reside in, ask yourself, how many of those attributes do you actually have, or how many do you perceive to be under threat?
In the U.S. right now, is the killing of Renee Nicole Good by I.C.E agent Jonathan Ross not to be considered as unwarranted governmental deprivation of the right to life? Are there other examples of such acts? Does the consent of the governed exist? Do you still have freedom of speech, or freedom of association or assembly?
The answer to some of those questions I am sure would vary between different folk and different countries, but I think we are seeing an increasing amount of people that would claim, perhaps rightly so, that those rights are not being protected, they are being eroded or, they simply don’t exist. Which brings us back to the original question, if democracy is not solely about voting, and if so-called democratic countries are not upholding the other attributes, then what is democracy?
Maybe Cam Ogie was right, words have lost meaning. I would certainly say there are plenty of words that have lost meaning over time, but with democracy we can’t even define it.
I think that democracy in practice is an illusion, where the common people believe they have a say, when in reality it’s not the case, and much like the analysis of Johnny Got His Gun, it is also a hypocritical slogan, it's a trigger word. It can invoke something in people. In fact, to accuse someone of being anti-democratic is used as a slur. It is used hypocritically to justify atrocity. It can invoke a reflex reaction that it is something to defend, something to fight for, something to kill for, something to die for. Yet for those in which these feelings or actions are invoked, they struggle to articulate exactly what it is they are killing and dying for. Some so-called democratic countries will actually dictate what other countries can do, and if they don't comply, they're more than happy to bomb "democracy" into them, more so when those countries do not possess the ability to defend themselves and there is less fear of reprisal, they then interfere in their so-called democratic elections, if indeed these elections even take place. Justification for this with a single solitary word that is devoid of meaning just so happens to be sufficient enough for those that are still taken in by the illusion. "Democracy!"
In many ways, democracy can be considered a paradox. Some of these paradoxes are explored by the Belgian political theorist Chantal Mouffe in her collection of essays aptly titled The Democratic Paradox.(8)
Also, consider how Donald Trump is often labelled by some as a dictator. A recent image of him after the illegal invasion of Venezuela and the subsequent kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, shows Trump with a Hitler type moustache of dripping crude oil. Yet some will assert that the very fact Donald Trump is President of the U.S. is down to democratic processes. If a democratic process can result in a dictatorship, is that not paradoxical? We can even see in the U.K. and Europe that those elected and supposed to represent the people, are putting policies into place that are limiting ideals which seems far from representing the very people that voted for them, yet again, paradoxically, these are the results of so-called democratic processes.
Some may point out that democracy contrasts with a dictatorship in that there are checks and balances that limit the power of the elected. I would argue that these checks and balances are far from sufficient. One such check on power in a democracy in attempt to avoid dictatorship is "Term Limits". But is this just another part of the illusion? Do we simply replace one dictator with another after their term limit is reached? Or is the political figurehead the illusion and policy is being dictated elsewhere by others?
Critics argue that modern democracies may fail to be sufficiently democratic and instead function in practice as oligarchies, insofar as governments are more responsive to the preferences of economic elites than to those of ordinary citizens. Numerous empirical studies across various western democracies including the United States, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Canada, Norway and Germany have consistently found that elected representatives tend to respond more to the preferences of very affluent citizens for policy outcomes than those of the average voter.(7)
Some descriptors of democracy make it seem fair in theory, but in practice we can see a different picture. I would suggest, to avoid using the word if you do not also provide sufficient context to make it precisely clear what it is you mean, especially if you’re likely to fold under questioning when asked for clarification. If the word invokes some sort of sense or feeling, perhaps your mind can steer away from being triggered by the word democracy and instead focus on the specific liberal attributes instead; rights, equity, equality, justice, liberty, freedom, and so on. Values like these make sense, but to invoke the word democracy if it doesn’t contain such values, does not make sense at all.
What does democracy mean to you?
The Veritasium video I previously mentioned concludes with the statement;
Democracy is not perfect, but it’s the best thing we’ve got. The game might be crooked, but it’s the only game in town.
If the only game in town is crooked, then it desperately needs repaired, and if it can’t be repaired, then is it time for a new game?
(1) The Pensive Quill - Cam Ogie - If This Is “Democracy,” Then Words No Longer Mean Anything -
(2) Democracy.
(3) Joseph Schumpeter.
(4) Why Democracy is mathematically Impossible.
(5) Scott Shane for the New York Times.
(6) Democracy.
(7) Democracy - Criticism.
(8) Chantal Mouffe – The Democratic Paradox
⏩Matt Bowen is a researcher and commentator.
No comments