This part of the rant is mainly a translation of my reply to a friend’s FB status, where she asked whether people thought voting is worthwhile or not, and why.
In my rant pt. 1, I mentioned how the scenario of the success of the True Finns has been met with horror among my friends. I have sensed between the lines (and even testified explicitly uttered) worry and resentment caused by the “stupidity of the people” and the fact that anyone and everyone has the right to vote.
I’m not sure whether I’m more horrified by the thought of the True Finns gaining power and in what direction that would lead our country, or appalled by the critique against democratic suffrage, uttered even by people I have perceived as civilised and intelligent.
I see democratic suffrage as an intrinsic value, which should not be compromised in any circumstances. Accordingly, I believe voting for the True Finns is just as correct as voting for any other party. As a fundamental premise, I see that one can never, ever vote wrong, as long as the vote is given according to one’s own opinion and conscience and not under exogenous pressure. I get the chills at the mere thought that there be a higher quarter dictating what is “correct voting” or who would be entitled to vote. That has absolutely nothing to do with a democratic constitutional state, which even in its imperfection is (in my opinion) the best we’ve got so far.
What the grounds are for one’s vote and in which direction politics are heading can and should definitely be a topic of discussion. Ignorance fuels hatred and fear, and I see one of the key issues being how information could be passed on more efficiently. Everyone is not capable of being an expert in society with vast knowledge of world history and politics, and I don’t even see that as necessary. But how could we increase the level of knowledge at least beyond that provided by the yellow press, especially when the target audience consists of people who have little, if any, interest in politics, but who nevertheless are members of the society and who have (and should maintain) the right to vote?
I see resentment and condemnation as a very infertile approach – although in all honesty, I have to admit from time to time being also myself offended by people’s opinions. Yet, Voltaire is rumoured to have said “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” and it is a value I deeply cherish. Even if I most probably never will vote for the True Finns, I find it good that the party exists. Abolishing it would not abolish the existing dissatisfaction – at worst, there just would not be any means to channel this disaffection, but would stay bubbling under until it would manifest itself in a very uncontrollable and violent way. We have seen this all too many times in history already. Problems need to be tackled with before the outburst, especially when they are made visible already at this stage.
I have sensed from the more or less aware comments by my friends and acquaintances that meritocracy is perceived as the best form of government. Giving the power to the experts? Sure, sounds good. As long as I’d have a say in who’s qualified for being the expert for the whole people. Who, then, would be competent to assess the competency of the expert rulers, and on which grounds would some sectors of the people be left out of this process? And what if the once competent and just rulers are blinded by power and the rule turns into a despotic oligarchy?
I think I’ll stick to parliamentary democracy, as long as true politeia isn't available.
No comments:
Post a Comment