Author Archives: Katrina Wheelan

Democracy in “Please Vote for Me”

Posted on by
2

“Please Vote for Me” illustrates a system that is flawed, but still unequivocally democratic. The system encapsulates the key tenets of democracy—candidates are chosen by popular support, and votes are cast by secret ballot. The election may not have been “fair”, but it was still democratic. The candidates received different levels of parental advice and influence, and Luo Lei’s father allows his son to give gifts and a field trip to the class. This is reflective of a real world democracy where candidates come from different socioeconomic backgrounds; candidates with more money are able to run more extensive campaigns. The election potentially veers from pure democracy when Cheng Cheng promises positions to his classmates in exchange for a vote. However, the ballot was still secret, so Cheng Cheng had no way to verify who voted for him. In a way, this is comparable to candidates in the United States who make promises to their voter bases like targeted subsidies or more lenient regulations. Because Luo Lei was the incumbent, he had power and force (ability to beat children) up until the election. However, the election appeared to make Luo Lei less forceful rather than more forceful; he appeals to the class by saying “I can change,” and his classmates testify to his decreased use of force. Again, the ballot was secret so Luo Lei had no way to correlate force with voting outcome. The election also demonstrates Tocqueville’s “tyranny of the majority.” When Cheng Cheng starts insulting Xiaofei, the entire class jumps on the bandwagon and starts insulting Xiaofei (the minority in this case). It undermines Xiaofei’s campaign and it also temporarily helps Cheng Cheng’s campaign. Although Cheng Cheng didn’t ultimately win, this scene demonstrates democracy’s susceptibility to electing a demagogue.

The Future of Democracy

Posted on by
Reply

Zakaria makes a meaningful distinction between democracy and liberality. Democracy is a process of selecting government, and liberality deals with the actions and legislation passed by that government. A democratically elected government can pass illiberal legislation. Keeping in mind this distinction, I believe that liberal democracy is seriously imperiled. Three factors challenge the permanence of liberal democracy: populist tendencies, complacency, and increasing wealth inequality.

Populist tendencies are inherent in every nation. The nature and purpose of a democracy is to reflect the will of the majority. Often this happens at the expense of a minority. There are ample historical examples of populist and nationalist demagogues who transfer popular support into decidedly illiberal atrocities against minorities (Hitler, Miloseviç, etc). Although ethnic cleansing is unlikely in developed democracies, milder versions of scapegoating are already evident (In the U.S., actions against immigrants and Muslims). These causes have been adopted by populists in the U.S. and Europe.

The Foa and Mounk article reiterates a point made in the Applebaum article: Americans are becoming increasingly complacent about governance. Voter turnout is low, especially among young Americans. As Applebaum argued, Americans take democracy for granted, and because they aren’t constantly working to maintain the experiment of democracy, they often undermine its liberal tendencies.

The third factor is inequality, which exacerbates the other two factors. Wealth concentrates in the hands of a few, who in turn use their wealth to influence governance. The majority of the country is left feeling unfairly treated, and this increases the opportunity for dangerous and illiberal populism. Thus, the liberality of contemporary democracy is being eroded on three interrelated fronts.

The Chief, the Grocer, and Modernity

Posted on by
Reply

In Al Qaeda and What It Means to Be Modern, Gray describes modernity as the idea that humans are capable of perfecting life and the attempt to perfect it, particularly through science. The Grocer encapsulates Gray’s image of a Positivist; he believes in rational improvements to achieve progress, whatever that might mean. In the original interview, the Grocer says that if he were president of Turkey, he would “make roads for the villagers to come to towns to see the world and would not let them stay in their holes all their life.” For the Grocer, progress is synonymous with outside influence and with wealth. The Grocer dreams of moving to Ankara or America, of building a bigger and nicer grocery store, and of accumulating wealth. In contrast, the Chief is anti-modern. The Chief is content in his way of life and incapable of imagining life beyond his beloved village. If he had more funds, he would ask for “help of money and seed for some of our farmers.” The Chief envisions progress as a continuation of the present; he is incapable of imagining a village where the majority of the population no longer farms.

The Grocer’s worldview comes with a price however. The Grocer was never content. He strove for progress and looked longingly at the wealth of the city. The modern man is constantly hungry for more and can never be content with stagnation. Meanwhile, the Chief was happy when the village was still agrarian, and is still content four years later when the village connects to Ankara. By not assuming the need for “progress”, the Chief appreciates its benefits but doesn’t suffer in its absence.

Hope is Arbitrary

Posted on by
2

Masha Gessen’s explanation for the “dying Russian” puzzle is not scientific in the traditional sense of the word. She presents no quantitative data to back up her conclusion that Russians are dying from lack of hope. She presents no data on hope because the data don’t exist. Eberstadt’s and Parson’s studies approach science when they analyze the statistical relationship between mortality rates and various factors (drinking, infectious disease, economic prosperity, etc.). Gessen’s essay turns more theoretical and qualitative when she concludes that hope is the culprit for Russia’s low life expectancy. The idea of hope is arbitrary and likely impossible to quantify. Gessen’s explanation hinges on the subjective classification of periods as hopeful or hopeless. Who says that the Khrushchev and Gorbachev led Russians through periods of greater hope? In science, even in political science, we can’t know why lies within the metaphorical black box with any certainty. Yet, just because a study isn’t strictly scientific doesn’t mean that we should disregard it. Gessen’s conclusion is still useful for what it is: a qualitative answer to a complex and possibly unsolvable puzzle.

Power – Second Post

Posted on by
2

In Orwell’s “Shooting an Elephant”, both the native Burmese and the British officers have power, but neither group has complete power. It is the partial power held by each group that limits the power of the other.

By virtue of his position in the colonial hierarchy, Orwell has power over the native Burmese. As a police officer, he enforces the rules and punishes those who break them. The Burmese also hold power over Orwell and the other colonial officials. The ‘everyday acts’ that Scott describe such as spitting betel juice on British women in the market and tripping Orwell in football games erode Orwell’s power. The acts check Orwell’s power but fall short of full rebellion because Orwell’s power in turn checks the power of the natives.

Ironically, the same partial power also reinforces the power of the other. The natives resent British power, which motivates the small acts of defiance that erode the colonial power. To Orwell, the shooting of the elephant demonstrated the passive power of the natives, but to the natives the incident reinforced the image of Orwell as a powerful, armed colonial authority. In this way the partial power dynamic is self-enforcing.