Latest update May 13th, 2024 12:22 AM
Jun 22, 2009 Letters
Dear editor,
I was reading some letters in the dailies relating to democracy or the absence of it in the context of Guyana. What I garnered from these letters is a relish by soi disant intellectuals to play with words.
One is constantly exposed to a profusion of false logic disguised under specious phraseology, cosmetic and casual approaches to matters of considerable consequences. One constantly hear words like simple and weighted majority, limited legitimacy, Consensual and majoritarian democracy, etc all in an effort to analyse what we have operating in Guyana today.
None of these descriptions accurately describe the present administration. What we have operating in Guyana today is, simply put, anti-democratic.
The word democracy needs no qualification, because the very qualification we seek is latent and patent in the word itself. Democracy means “Government, of, by and for the people” or to use Rousseau’s version, “Government by the general will”. The words “people” and “general will”, needless to say, mean the sum total of the people or the will of the sum total of the people. It doesn’t mean some of the people, a majority of the people, a simple majority of the people, a weighted majority of the people, etc. It categorically means the sum total of the people.
Before I offer what I consider the solution to the problem and to expound a little more on the preceding paragraph, allow me to list and analyse the problem from a philosophical standpoint.
First of all, the principle of Majority Rule is a masked version of that barbaric principle that “might is right” and, philosophically speaking, it is no different to, let’s say Nazism, Marxism, Fascism, Capitalism, and Darwinism.
At the philosophical level these are all similar teachings. The might is right principle underlies, and is the connecting constant in, all these philosophies. The variable being what is it that constitutes that might.
In Nazism, racial purity constitutes the might, in Marxism labour power constitutes the might, in Fascism military power constitutes the might, in Capitalism financial power constitutes the might and in Majority Rule numerical power constitutes the might. So to rest or render legitimacy based on might is to philosophically agree with or countenance Hitler, Mussolini, the capitalist ethic and Mr. Darwin.
The “might is right” principle is antithetical to the principle of society, therefore majority rule (which is identical to saying that might rules or “might is right”) is also contrary to the principle of society. The might is right principle is the law of the jungle, a law that prevails in the animal kingdom. It is mind-boggling, therefore, to determine how and why this principle still remains a guiding principle among people who are claiming to be civilised and different from the animals.
It is also mind-boggling to note the present unquestionable status this principle holds in society, when one learns that it was exactly this principle man was running away from when he first formed societies.
If we legitimise majority rule or numerical might, then by what standard can we delegitimise an overthrow of the government by an expression of physical might or violence? Majority rule is as undemocratic as violent overthrow. This, I presume, answers the question posed in Ravi Dev’s column entitled “Minorities’ political strategy”.
Let me be frank before I attempt to move on, I am not proposing a violent or any other overthrow of the
government, I am simply exposing the philosophical flaw in majority rule and lending philosophical and sociological relevance to the movement for shared governance.
In continuing, if majority rule or might is right is the problem then what is the solution?
The solution I proposed, not merely in the Guyana situation, but generally, at determining how to arrive at the government by the people or by the general will can be best arrived at or comprehended by a mathematical demonstration.
In my personal studies of the laws and formation of society, I learned that society was arrived at through compromise or contract as Eric Phillips stated in his letter: “Majoritarian government is the worst form of democracy for Guyana”, March 12, 2009.
A person only gets all he wants at the expense of the other in a state of nature where there is no social compromise and contract. So why must one group of people get all they want at election time at the expense of others? That’s because we have an election system that is contrary to the laws of society.
To mathematically demonstrate the best method of choosing leaders, I will now give the mathematical demonstration alluded to earlier.
Supposed there are 10 people voting for either of three leaders, labeled as A, B and C. six persons vote for A, three persons vote for B and one person vote for C.
Using the present undemocratic method, 60 percent of the people get what they want but 40% is ignored. The best method, one that also reflects the principle upon which society is built, which was also proposed by Rousseau in his “Social Contract” would be to implement a system where the 10 persons could be allowed to vote for all three leaders as first, second and third options.
The leader which claims the plurality will be the compromise allowing everyone to get at least half of what they want.
This process could end up, however, with the AFC rather than the two political gargantuans winning the election.
While this might be the best option ideally, it might not be the wisest option practically.
So for now, the only workable democratic option capable of reconciling that which is ideally best with that which is practically possible is that of Shared Governance, like it or not.
Duane Edwards
Listen how to run an oil country
May 13, 2024
GCB T10 Blast Semi-finals… Kaieteur Sports – The semi-finals of the GCB T10 Blast will get underway today, barring inclement weather as the final four teams look to book spots in the...By Anasa Williams Kaieteur News – Millicent Mary Frank was born on May 11, 1924, at Lot 103 Leopold Street, Werk-en-Rust,... more
By Sir Ronald Sanders Is it ever justifiable for journalism to fan the flames of geopolitical tension? This question arises... more
Freedom of speech is our core value at Kaieteur News. If the letter/e-mail you sent was not published, and you believe that its contents were not libellous, let us know, please contact us by phone or email.
Feel free to send us your comments and/or criticisms.
Contact: 624-6456; 225-8452; 225-8458; 225-8463; 225-8465; 225-8473 or 225-8491.
Or by Email: [email protected] / [email protected]