Democracy’s harmful effects

In Please Vote for Me, it was interesting to watch how the children’s concepts of democracy naturally evolved. Originally, it seemed that, aside from Cheng Cheng, they thought of democracy as a system in which voters would simply choose the best candidate. However, the competitive climate that the election created forced them all to embrace techniques that involved bribing and slandering. In turn, this made the climate more competitive, to the point that all of the candidates saw it as a zero-sum game. By the end, one could see that many of the same kinds of appeals that are made in American Presidential debates were made in the classroom, specifically populist rhetoric as well as rhetoric concerning the inadequacies of the other candidates. In the end, the effect this had was devastating to the two candidates who lost, as well as some of their classmates, who were all crying uncontrollably. This highlights one of the most prominent issues with America’s democratic system–the candidate who comes in first place wins everything,  which creates a fractured, hostile electorate.

Candidates and Primaries

Fareed Zakaria makes the claim that “the election is a necessarily democratic process, but not the choosing of the pool of candidates.” He also seems to be implying that this is at the core of the problems that American democracy faces. While Zakaria may be correct in arguing that allowing the public to choose candidates is dangerous, he overlooks that the decrease in faith in democracy is often attributed to the common opinion that the system is rigged, or simply not functioning as it should. The implication behind these rationales is that a large portion of the public does not feel that they’re voices are being heard. If this view is truly held by a large number of citizens, it would likely be counter-productive to attempt to limit one of the democratic aspects of the election process. Changing this process could feasibly be seen as a symbolic overhaul of part of democracy’s most important institutions, which would exacerbate the problem. From a different perspective, it is important to examine how giving this power to party officials would change the selection of candidates. In the case of the Republican Party, though citizens don’t directly choose the candidate anyway, it seems likely that little change would occur. If it were completely up to the party to decide, it is likely that the same choices would be made. The Tea Party’s influence on the Republican Party has forced them to gravitate towards an extreme point of polarization, threatening those in the party who were more moderate. This means that the party must mediate between the public and its internal conflict, and in the last election the solution to the problem seems to have been to pick the candidate that matched the public opinion and the Tea Party’s agenda, not the one that best represented the party. In this way, it seems that removing primaries might be symbolically dangerous and procedurally inconsequential.

John Gray and Balgat

In comparing Lerner’s piece to John Gray’s concepts of Positivism and globalism, it becomes apparent that Gray’s opinions are in some ways affirmed by the case of Balgat. First of all, Gray defines Positivism as the idea that progress leads to virtue, a belief that he condemns, and he claims that globalization is linked to the fallacious American concept that America can be used as a helpful model for the rest of the world to follow. In Balgat, the grocer appears to hold some Positivist views in that he conceives of progress as the key to a better, more fulfilling life. In addition, he seems to have an innate desire to see and understand more of the world, which he sees as achievable through the industrialization and general modernization of Balgat. Lerner seems to place value the grocer’s ideas, despite their incongruence with the rest of the people of Balgat. In this way, Lerner’s bias towards American-like modernization becomes very apparent. This suggests the validity of Gray’s conception of globalization, as Lerner appears to admire the grocer’s desire to be more like an American. After Balgat has become somewhat modernized, most of the people of Balgat appreciate the change. They are able to buy useful things that they were not previously able to buy. However, there is some ambivalence, particularly in the chief and the man at the coffee shop. While progress has undoubtedly given them more access to resources, it has not led to a more virtuous community. Rather, it has decreased some of the community’s work ethic, sparked an interest in buying unnecessary things, and eliminated much of the nationalistic values. In this sense, Gray’s condescending description of Positivism is given more validity. Progress may have given this community more wealth, but it also left behind some of its core values.

Searching

While it is interesting to examine death rates through a social/psychological/historical lens, Gessen runs into fairly predictable dead ends. Historical facts are important, however it appears that Gessen overlooks the importance of how the Russian people view their history as well as their current society. With Gaventa and Scott, we have established that as an outside observer, it is important not to assume that anyone views their situation as owe view it, regardless of how clearly we feel we’ve analyzed it. Interviewing the wrong people might also have played a role here. Clearly, interviewees who are not of the appropriate age or who are not among those reporting to experience exceptionally low “hope levels” would not be able to provide accurate insight into the social causes, as they would not be operating with the same private transcript. Finally, the psychological correlation that Gessen proposes seems somewhat misplaced. A correlation based on odd statistics seems to be the least direct way to approach the problem. Not only is a correlation untrustworthy, but statistics, especially concerning something like “hope,” are also a questionable approach to a phenomenon that is clearly complex, especially when the statistics represent a large variety of people. Furthermore, this seems impersonal in that it doesn’t deal with the individuals’ conceptions of hope. Overall, it seems as though Gessen would do well to look to anthropology’s more immersive approach. While she seems to attempt a Middle-Range approach, she misses the importance of depth in her three approaches. Rather than search further socially, it seems as though Gessen would rather search for the answer elsewhere. While it is essential to conducting research that one is searching for something, it seems that the lesson here is that searching means nothing without adequate depth and constant re-evaluation.

Shooting an Elephant

In George Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant” what strikes me is the strong will and unity of the people Orwell ostensibly has power over, while the citizens in both Wedeen and Havel’s models of authoritarian rule are driven in some way to perpetuate the system through either social self-preservation or drawing upon a public transcript. It seems to me that the citizens in Orwell’s story have found a way to alter their political system such that unspoken social threats drive Orwell to responds to their needs. This is reminiscent of what many would think of as the ideal democracy, as it gives the leader no option but to act in accordance with the will of the masses. I’m positive that a large percentage of the public wishes that they had this degree of influence over our government’s proceedings, yet at the same time the story highlights the ways in which direct responsiveness can be dangerous by depicting a scene in which Orwell is essentially forced to destroy what he believes is a potentially useful tool. This has proven to be the case in many referendums, one example being Brexit. However, this also highlights how leaders must have both a public and private transcript when put in a system where they are in some capacity reliant on social relations. In this sense, it seems as though most, if not all, governments that appear to act in the interest of the people will simultaneously be making personal judgements that might come into conflict with the public’s condoned course of action.