cema | An editor of the Washington Post on democracy

An editor of the Washington Post on democracy

As a Chinese journalist, you may have your own definition of democracy which corresponds to your history and your way of seeing the world.

I wonder what his definition of democracy is, and to what history and what seeing the world it corresponds.

Democracy in one sense means the majority decides, but it also means the rights of the minority are protected. As UK late Prime Minister Winston Churchill said, democracy is the least bad system that we have ever thught of. So democracy is never perfect. It always has problems. Our democracy here in the US has many contradictions, problems and challenges. So democracy is not a cure that could turn everything bad into good. It has its own advantages and its disadvantages.

Has he graduated from the kindergarten already?

Update. Apparently, my point was not understood. Read inside for more enlightenment.
Update. The editor is now saying he was misquoted by the Chinese agency. His point was milder, but still along the same lines.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

What is your point: that what he is saying is not true or that he is saying things that appear to be trivial to you?

Absolutely trivial. He sounds like a "cultural colonial" officer who is treating the locals with platitudes (which he does not seem to understand himself).

I do not know the context, but it does occur to me that the mentality of the folks he is addressing is different from yours and mine. He has not said anything that, in my opinion, constitutes a challenge to common sense. And what he said is definetely better than "We in the mighty USofA know how to do democracy! You, commies, have to learn from us."

I do not know what's worse. Both ways are condescending. Both are incorrect.

Among all the things that are going on in the world you choose this to bark at???

I am concerned about the journalists. Do they do their work or not?

Out of all potential examples of bad journalism, this is what you are selecting?

Yes, and here is why. This reminds me how American journalists and professors would come in the USSR during perestroika and teach the aboriginals how important it is to vote etc.

At the same time, this guy does not understand that what he is saying is that democracy is culturally defined. Maybe when he is saying "democracy" he means "good life", I do not know. But the word "democracy" has a certain meaning loosely understood by everyone and denoting the same thing all over the world. Elections did not make Slatinist USSR a democratic country, and neither did the declared principle of the "democratic centralism", and corruption in Brooklyn does not make the USA a non-democratic country.

I thought you would understand this.

You either need to give your own, non-trivial, in your eyes, definition of "democracy", or you cannot really complain. Again, I did not see anything outrageous in his comments. Something that you and I know - yes. But nothing that get me riled.

lol

Exactly (http://www.livejournal.com/users/cema/179667.html?thread=1013203#t1013203), what's your point?

My point is more or less this.

Забавненько.

A few ... ago tried to enlighten some guy about North Korea. As little as I knew about the subject, I carelessly mentioned, that's not even the country's real name, but, more like, a location. The name would be something like Democratic People's Republic of Korea.
A shock. REPUBLIC?! PEOPLE'S??! DEMOCRATIC???!

In fact, the longest leisure trip he ever took was, I think, Cape Cod. The guy doesn't even have a passport...

I am not surprised. But everybody in this discussion (so far) has travelled far and been educated.

Didn't even mean to surprise you.

Interestingly, this fella has masters in computer science. Go figure...

University education in this country tends to be one-sided. Students are supposed to choose several classes from outside of their major, but whether they choose politics or milking yaks is almost completely up to them.

Точно.
Tell me this, when are you going to choose to come over here and milk some yaks?
Actually, yak milking is quiet optional, and there might be some other options, if you will.

I want to, and I will.

умный в гору не пойдёт, умный гору обойдёт

Лучше гор могут быть только горы.

I have asked a (very intelligent and thoughtful) Chinese student here to read the interview and tell me whether he thought Bennet was condescending...

His response to me was "I do not think Bennet was condescending. I think he said the right things about democracy"...

The point: what you see as kindergarden stuff, other people do not.

I remember having discussed these things with my friends back when, and I am not surprised about your student's reaction. A simplest thing may be a revelation to someone who has never thought about it.

There is a trivial claim that each country is different, and there is a (less trivial) claim that there is something common for all. Whether we call it "democracy", "socialism" or "self-determination", while they look different in different cultures, they usually have a global meaning. Sweden is different from Israel, both countries are democratic. Self-determination and sovereignity of Lebanon is less than perfect, still it is an independent and sovereign country, like Taiwan or Belgium. (I am not sure about "socialism" though, the word has too many meanings to choose from without getting confused.)

The point of the editor was that the world is multicultural in the narrow sense of the word. This logically leads to a conclusion that, like I wrote before, Soviet "democratic centralism" was simpy a Soviet kind of democracy, no less democratic than Great Britain. To me, this is absurd.

Finally, a reaction from you (-:

I did not get a feeling that he was saying "anything can be thought of as a form of democracy." I think, rather, he was making the point you are making - that democracies differ, only with slightly more negative overtones.

There are two subjects for conversation here: (1) categorization: drawing a line between democracies and non-democracies and (2) the implications of calling something a "democracy." The negative overtones come from his discussion of (2) - just because you call something a democracy does not mean that it is suddenly a perfect world.

I think the reporter was trying to say something along the lines of "Bush wants you to be like us, please don't be like us, we are arrogant and do not deserve it". :-) Warning against blind borrowing would be wise, but this is not it.

The word "democracy" is a code word in the modern political discourse. Somewhat less so than "socialism" used to be during the Cold War. Then a warlord could have come to Moscow, declare his interest in the "socialist way" and get money. Another warlord would come to Washington, declare his interest in fighting against the "socialist way" and get money.

These days the situation is different: proclaiming democratization is not sufficient, but pretending is, in many cases. And claiming that a nondemocratic society is democratic (because that is how democracy appears in its culture) is one popular way to perform this demagoguery. I think I recall hearing Soviet talking heads talking like that too, before they were swept away with the events. And I am sure there were Western journalists then who took it at its face value.

Now, there is something to discuss.

you appear to be mixing your metaphors a bit. On one hand you are talking about the "democracy is in the eye of the beholder" crap of the "Russia has its own unique way to do democracy, conveyed President Putin today..."

On the other hand you seem to be equating it with the statements of the form "Democracy by itself does not mean that everything is good." What the WP editor was saying, in my opinion was that "democracy is implemented differently in different DEMOCRATIC countries" (and here "DEMOCRATIC" corresponds to your common sense understanding of the term). The continuation of the thought was that US implementation of it is far from perfect - a feeling I wholeheartedly support, and will continue supporting until this country moves to direct presidential elections.

PS. I am leaving town, but will continue this conversation with you at some other time and place.

A peculiar choice of examples. Neither Taiwan nor Belgium are truly independent or sovereign, although Belgium was a few years ago. Self-proclamation of sovereignty and independence in case of Taiwan only goes so far.

Neither Taiwan nor Belgium are truly independent or sovereign

This is exactly the kind of attitude that I consider absurd, and this is precisely why I chose those examples.

Absurd it may be, but unrealistic it is not.

There are two realities: one is the facts of life, the other its description. This secondary reality plays an important part in the professional development of all educated people. One unfortunate result is that such people tend to get carried away with theories, and words sometimes become more important than meanings.

So, the above attitude is not necessarily unrealistic in terms of this secondary reality, I agree. But not in terms of the primary reality: facts of life.

Not in terms of facts of life? Don't you read the news? Taiwan is on the brink of being treated by China as Chechnya is being treated by Russia. What sovereignty or independence is that, for god's sake?

Israel was on the brink of being treated by Arab neighbors just like that, in Spring 1967... So, I think as long as the country can act, it has enough sovereignty.

How many countries officially recognized Israel in 1967 and how many countries (and which ones in particular) officially recognize Taiwan now? See the difference?

USA did not officially recognize annexion of the Baltic countries by the Soviet Union, and still it is obvious that these countries were not sovereign. Contrast this with Taiwan.

Democracy, n. The condition of people having the government they deserve.

A joke is a four-letter word.

How I wish it were a joke! There are corollaries, e.g: a regime established in a backwater country by outside "progressionists" is never democratic (people do not deserve it), nor is an ochlocratic regime despite any external features (people deserve better). Some parts of the U.S. are pretty much ochlocratic, and the country as a whole is getting close.

I think the right word here is a "progressor", after the Strugatsky brothers.

I think your estimation of the level of ochlocracy in the US and its dynamics is not correct, but I am not sure I have the facts to support my point of view.

How I wish it were a joke! There are corollaries, e.g: a regime established in a backwater country by outside "progressionists" is never democratic (people do not deserve it), nor is creeping ochlocracy in a formerly democratic country despite the unchanged external features (people deserve better). Some parts of the U.S. are pretty much ochlocratic, and the country as a whole is getting close.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

An editor of the Washington Post on democracy

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Democracy

Re: Democracy

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Definition of democracy

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject