I AM AN ANTI-CHRIST, I AM AN ANARCHIST, DON'T KNOW WHAT I WANT BUT.... (Other...)

Member Name: marandina

Product:	Other...
Date:	12/08/03 (132 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: See op

Disadvantages: See op

So there I am, watching the box as I do in the evenings but wondering what to watch. Should it be yet another movie or would I watch a programme about philosophy on cable. Now I know folks think I'm a bit of an old movie anorak but on this occasion it was too good an opportunity to miss i.e. it was a feature about the meaning of happiness and this particular 30 minutes was about Socrates. Socrates was a Greek philosopher although it's so flippin' difficult to not think of Bill and Ted's "So-Crates" pronunciation (dude). Anyway, having watched it I got to thinking about democracy and what it actually means.

Now this may all sound rather dull but the way the programme set about presenting the material made for fascinating viewing. Socrates lived between 469 - 399 BC and whilst he didn't leave any written material himself, other writers such as Aristophanes and Xenophon did leave documents detailing his life and work. I realise this is beginning to sound like an opinion on Socrates in general but it isn't so bare with me.

Back in ancient Greece, Socrates was renowned for simply going up to people in the street and asking them profound questions. For example, he might approach a shopper and ask her what things made her happy. His thoughts were that everybody was capable of logical, considered thought even if they rarely took the time to consider important concepts in their busy day to day lives. I'm not quite sure how he would have been received back then (although those survey wallas that block my path in the street seem to do OK) but when the presenter did the same thing in modern Athens, most people did give him a reply although now and again he did get the cold shoulder (most notably by a priest of all people). Apart from the meaning of happiness, which I'm not sure we really got around too, it was this assumption that folks were capable of coherent, independent thought that led him to hisviews on democrac
y.

Athens was founded on a style of government that meant, at least monthly, groups of Athenians would gather to discuss the issues of the day. Having discussed them, the majority view would carry the day and thus, decisions were made to the good of the numerically superior. Socrates challenged this saying that just because the majority felt one way about a subject, that didn't necessarily make the course of action right. Moreover, a well thought out, common sense approach would often be better than this majority rule by forum.

In Socrates case, he was eventually executed for his views via a not so discreet cup of hemlock but it did make me draw parallels with events from today. The western world is dominated by a theoretical democracy based on parties representing the views of the people. As an individual, we get the opportunity to have our say by voting for the party of our choice. However, just how democratic is this in reality?

Hot topics right now include the decision to go to war in Iraq and the integration of Britain into Europe. Certainly in the second case, there seems to be a real reluctance to open things out by way of a referendum although this country is in the minority in not taking this particular option whilst nearly all of the other countries in Europe seem concerned at the increasing impact of European centralised regulation on their day to day lives. You'd have to ask whether this is something to do with Tony Blair's own political ambitions with the possibility of him being Europe's first president or is it simply following Socrates thoughts regarding the majority not necessarily knowing what is best?

An even better example is capital punishment. Whilst every poll that ever gets taken indicates that the vast majority are in support of hanging, for example, the Government always overrides this taking a nanny state view that it knows best and the population is simply being petulant. Is this democra
tic?

Group dynamics are a minefield in their own right. There are huge swathes of theory around how individuals interact in group situations including "groupthink" where the group adopt a certain way of thinking even when they know it's wrong, "over contribution" where individuals will contribute for their own reasons as opposed to the good of the argument and so on. I'm sure everybody's been there in a situation where they've felt that the discussion is being dominated by one or two individuals who are not necessarily guiding the group to a coherent course of action.

Another example in the programme was of a man working in a pharmaceutical company. He was on a board of 11 people whose decisions represented literally billions of pounds to the company. Now he was put in a situation where he was the only one who thought the way he did whilst being opposed by the other 10. Democratically, he should have conformed to the majority but he didn't and was subsequently proved right. However, this period of disagreement was extremely uncomfortable but he stood his ground even though he risked losing everything he had in the fallout from his stance. Was he being democratic?

In a capitalist society, just how democratic is capitalism? Seeing as it's the driving force for our consumerist society, shouldn't it reflect this majority rule approach? In reality, companies are dominated by one individual, call them the president, CEO or what you will, who has a vision which drives the company. Sure, most organisations have a board of directors but it's the president who usually carries the most power. Thing is, this is the very fabric of our society and yet it's hard to imagine a successful company operating by committee. However, herein lies another paradox. If successful companies drive capitalism through leadership, why do local and national government supposedly rely on committees so much? Especial
ly when the common consensus is that committee is slow and dilute decisions. Are we simply pandering to what we consider to be the right way of doing things or do we genuinely believe that this will result in the best outcome?

Perhaps the alternatives start to give a clue as to the answer? If you take the current 2 parties that dominate the political landscape of England, generally speaking, the Conservatives are associated with a perceived right wing stance whilst Labour is considered left of centre. I'm not sure how many people actually sit down and ponder what this actually means but anecdotally, Labour always seem to be a kind of Socialist party representing the majority whereas their opposition are considered to be more representing the individual. An extrapolation of this right wing approach might lead us into extreme examples of non-democracy such as those present in most Middle-Eastern countries and historically, Fascism. It's an interesting dichotomy that the West will ultimately assume that it's approach to politics and decision making is right as opposed to the more fundamentally religious countries like Iran and yet it's difficult to actually know whether the people from countries like Iran are actually happy in their day to day lives albeit their culture and values are so completely different from our own.

This concept of democracy is an interesting subject. I really do wonder whether we actually do live in a democracy and truly have my doubts. I guess this confirms why I'm so apathetic when it comes to voting and why I consider virtually all politicians like something that's crawled from underneath a stone (sorry, personal bias and I'm sure that there are some decent politicians out there). Maybe there is something in the principles of anarchy after all? Shame is doesn't work, really.

Thanks for reading and any comments appreciated.

Marandina

**No prizes for guessing the band
whose lyrics are used in the title**

Summary: