Posts
Political theory #1: Matter vs. Spirit
Political theory #2: Origin of Change--Law or Conscience?
Political theory #3: Christian Politician's Dilemma
It is no secret that democracies don't always work by majority vote and are no secure defense against error or wickedness. As regards the first, influential lobbyists and the "court of public opinion" can so affect government that its laws and decisions do not, as they ought to, faithfully reflect the thoughts and beliefs of the people. As regards the latter, even when the first danger has been avoided, in other words even when the outcome of a vote is a true depiction of the people's will, it may still be blatantly erroneous or downright evil. Slavery was legal in the U.S. over the period of several consecutive presidencies, Hitler rose to power by majority vote, and so on. Examples of both vacuous prohibitions and wicked liberties are easy to come by even in today's societies.
This does not mean that democracy is not a good form of government. It does mean that it has its own hangups and defects. One (neutral) difference is that the responsibility of serious blunders is more evenly distributed than in, say, dictatorial monarchies. This is because more people exercise freedom and take part in the decision making.
One could argue, based on what has been said, that to improve a democracy is to minimize the risk of these two problems: (1) the misrepresentation of collective beliefs, and (2) the sanctioning of misguided (evil) collective beliefs.
The second of the three political dilemmas that bother me relates to (2) above. How does one contribute to the defense of truth in a democratic society? What role does law, private/public conscience, and their interplay have in this?
These are huge questions, and an exhaustive answer is beyond my powers. I take it for granted that, as the building blocks of society are individual human persons, change must begin there - here, within ourselves. It has become a platitude (at least among Christians) to say that the quickest and surest way to better the world is to better oneself. But surely this is the case. To live by virtue (whether this takes a conscious religious dimension or not), to raise one's children to recognize truth, beauty, and goodness, and to live a life that requires an answer -- i.e. inspires onlookers to think, "I want what s/he has." Over time, many would catch this "good infection" and goodness would permeate human life collectively as well.
Now, when private beliefs change, public belief changes - and when public belief/opinion changes, a pressure builds to bring legislation on par with the new situation. Initiatives are made, individuals rally and speak in unison, and once all the appropriate procedures (bureaucracy or revolution) is dealt with new laws are passed and reinforced. They must be reinforced because, as we remember, a minority - perhaps a considerable number - voted against it.
But then something happens. Often, over time, the critical voices disappear one by one. Public opinion changed and changed the law, but now a changed law changes public opinion. For unreflective people, the mere fact that something is officially illegal is enough to convince them that that's how it should be. Many Finns, for instance, think a 3-month-old fetus is not a human person because the law says it is not. Or consider the law prohibiting the physical discipline of your children. This has been illegal only a few years, yet the number of people who think this is an excellent law has grown considerably since it was passed. When a moral obligation or what is considered a fact is expressed, defended, and reinforced publicly, public opinion tends to conform.
In a nutshell, both - public opinion and legislation - affect the other.
What more can be said of this interplay? How far can we elaborate? What can be learned from it? How ought it affect the thought and work of a politician, Christian or not? For example, if there is danger of a bad law being passed, should the "wiser" politician use all means necessary, even overriding public opinion (see (1) obove), to defend reason and goodness, while trusting that eventually public opinion will catch up, as it were? Etc.
1 year ago
5 comments:
I think Chesterton's idea of tradition as "democracy of the dead" is interesting when considering the relationship between legislation and public opinion. Why should democracy not be extended through time, to "dead people" as well when making decisions of current issues? I think the public opinion of the masses (which changes pretty slowly even now) serves on some level as the "voice of the dead" - we learn our way of thinking and even great deal of opinions from the previous generation.
This gives a certain weight for the public opinion, it's the sum of the cultures experience so far.
"Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to that arrogant oligarchy who merely happen to be walking around."
I had forgotten about tradition as "the democracy of the dead". I remember finding it well put. I've only read three books by Chesterton: The Everlasting Man, Orthodoxy, and The Conversion to the Catholic Church.
From which one of these did you quote?
I'm not sure how slowly public opinion changes. Perhaps with some questions it can change pretty rapidly, or not. You did say that it serves "on SOME level" as the "voice of the dead".
I guess the same could be said of laws, too, then. It is the sum of the cultures experienced so far. People who walked before us erected those laws.
The quote was from Orthodoxy which I'm reading now, The Everlasting Man is waiting on the shelf.
It does seem that public opinion and the general zeitgeist changes more and more rapidly. Maybe it's because mass media is stronger and faster to react now than ever before? I think that some kind of "solid tradition" is often hidden in taboos and unwritten rules of our society and affects us from there.
My friend Oskari sent the following comments:
Q #2: You seem answer yourself. (Of course, one could elaborate on it
for several books. Go for it...)
My friend Oskari sent the following comments:
Q #3: I think that to Aristotle and St Thomas, the main reason why an
immorality should not always be made illegal is that there would some certain or likely negative consequences that outweigh the benefit of making it legal. (N.B. I just realised that what I said may sound awfully utilitarian or consequentialist; however, it's not because the point is not about defining right and wrong be reference to their
consequences alone, but about the advisability of enacting certain
laws; the main reason aspect that one must examine in legislating is
precisely the consequences; the other aspects of the moral act –
intention, the act itself, and other circumstances – are less relevant to our discussion, although they are of course relevant to the legislator in the act of legislating.)
I think St Thomas called "determinatio" the specific act of the intellect that must discern such practical issues. It is not directly a moral judgment, but the application of general principles to a concrete situation. It is of course guided by the habit of prudence.
On the issue of "keeping religion out of politics", you may be
interested in reading some of the writings of Robert P. George and
John Finnis. (I can also find and send them to you if you've
interested.)
---
Generally, if there seems to be a common theme here. You say St Thomas may have something on this, but you cannot locate where. I have one book here in Bulevardi that may help you: it's called "Making Men
Moral" by Robert P. George. It will also give you the references to
Aristotle and St Thomas. And much more.
Post a Comment