What prompted me to do this piece was this article.
What are we analyzing about the elections? Analysis can be of different types.
1. Party A got x percent of votes from y section of society in z constituency. That's the reason this candidate failed or that candidate won. Or, using such and such data, we can assume that this particular section of people went with that party and these these could be the reasons for that to happen since so and so things happened in the past. Etc. That's factual analysis. There are no judgements about either the verdict of the people or the candidates itself here. You are just looking at the data as what it is, and inferring certain trends, patterns and conclusions based out of it. You are not judging the character of the people who made the verdict.
2. You can make an assumption that the people would have make appropriate judgements on the character of the candidates (their values, their beliefs, their preferences, their intelligence) and then you can form an informed opinion on how the candidates are actually perceived among the people. That's objective opinion analysis. You are trying to make an objective opinion about certain individuals by analyzing subjective opinion of a large number of other individuals. For example, if I realize that a large pecentage of people considered Modi as a person who will bring a new growth story to the country and if I consider that realization as a correct judgement I can attribute to Modi by looking at the data, I have formed an objective opinion about him.
3. But then, this objective opinion could go against my own subjective opinion about that candidate. Then, we are in a conflict resolution analysis. If my own subjective opinion coincides with the objective opinion, then I don't feel any need for doing this. But if they don't, as a rational individual, I end up doing the conflict resolution. But, this process itself is subjective where I could pick facts to suit my preferences. There are two possibilities at the end of this rather murky phase. Either I refine my subjective opinion to suit the objective opinion, or I revamp the objective opinion to suit my subjective opinion.
I don't think anybody would object to the premise that political analysis unto this is justified in a democracy. This is because of the two principles implied in democracy: freedom of thought and superior power for people's judgement.
But then, you can take this to another level.
4. You can make a safe presumption that the character of the people (their values, their beliefs, their preferences, their intelligence) is already reflected in the facts that are available in front of you. Hence, these very same facts can be used to now actually judge the character of the people who voted, hence you could form an objective judgement about the people who participated in the democratic process. For example, you could say that Keralites are Idiots because they did not elect O. Rajagopal. You could also say that Keralites are extremely Intelligent that they grasped something that people from other states could not understand. Is this kind of judgement against the spirit of democracy? (That's what Mr. Berly is saying). Does anybody has a right to judge the people who made the judgement in the election?
As long as you hold that (2) is a valid method to form opinion about candidates, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in using that same data to form opinion about the people whose character is reflected in the judgement. So, the question is not really about the validity of the process itself. The only question is if it goes against the principle of superior power for people's judgement? In other words, if I call you an Idiot for not electing a certain candidate, am I undermining the democratic principle?
I certainly disagree. I vehemently disagree. As long as I recognize that Mr. Sashi Tharoor is an MP and has the right to do whatever an MP is privileged to do, and if I recognize that Mr. Modi is the PM and has the right to do whatever the PM is privileged to do, and if I recognize that Mr. Tharoor is an MP because people in his constituency found certain things in him that I did not , and if I recognize that Mr. Modi is a PM because the people in this country found certain things in him that I did not, and if I don't do anything illegal to subvert their privileges, I am well and truly aligned with the democratic principle. I think Mr. Berly made a category error when he said that "there is nothing right or wrong" about people's choice. He is correct in the sense that the people's verdict is always right. Hence, no Supreme Court can legally overrule it. But that doesn't mean that people themselves are right about that verdict. If I question the rightness of people's verdict, them I am being undemocratic. If I say that Mr. Modi is not the right PM, then I am being undemocratic. But, If I say that people are wrong in electing Modi as the PM, I am being perfectly democratic.
This difference, even though subtle, is very important. Was there anything right or wrong with Hitler being German Chancellor? It was right in the sense that it was just an output from the German democractic process. But that doesn't mean that German people were morally justified in making that choice. In other words, had there been a German who cried out that German people were being fascist in electing their leader, would that have been unjustifiable democratically? No. The final cause (from an Aristotlean analysis) of democratic process is, let's say broadly, is the improvement of the nation as a whole (that is, if you consider that democratic process is not an end in itself), then there is always room for judgements about (i) the principle of democracy itself (ii) the process of democracy and (iii) how the outcome of democracy is reached.
What are we analyzing about the elections? Analysis can be of different types.
1. Party A got x percent of votes from y section of society in z constituency. That's the reason this candidate failed or that candidate won. Or, using such and such data, we can assume that this particular section of people went with that party and these these could be the reasons for that to happen since so and so things happened in the past. Etc. That's factual analysis. There are no judgements about either the verdict of the people or the candidates itself here. You are just looking at the data as what it is, and inferring certain trends, patterns and conclusions based out of it. You are not judging the character of the people who made the verdict.
2. You can make an assumption that the people would have make appropriate judgements on the character of the candidates (their values, their beliefs, their preferences, their intelligence) and then you can form an informed opinion on how the candidates are actually perceived among the people. That's objective opinion analysis. You are trying to make an objective opinion about certain individuals by analyzing subjective opinion of a large number of other individuals. For example, if I realize that a large pecentage of people considered Modi as a person who will bring a new growth story to the country and if I consider that realization as a correct judgement I can attribute to Modi by looking at the data, I have formed an objective opinion about him.
3. But then, this objective opinion could go against my own subjective opinion about that candidate. Then, we are in a conflict resolution analysis. If my own subjective opinion coincides with the objective opinion, then I don't feel any need for doing this. But if they don't, as a rational individual, I end up doing the conflict resolution. But, this process itself is subjective where I could pick facts to suit my preferences. There are two possibilities at the end of this rather murky phase. Either I refine my subjective opinion to suit the objective opinion, or I revamp the objective opinion to suit my subjective opinion.
I don't think anybody would object to the premise that political analysis unto this is justified in a democracy. This is because of the two principles implied in democracy: freedom of thought and superior power for people's judgement.
But then, you can take this to another level.
4. You can make a safe presumption that the character of the people (their values, their beliefs, their preferences, their intelligence) is already reflected in the facts that are available in front of you. Hence, these very same facts can be used to now actually judge the character of the people who voted, hence you could form an objective judgement about the people who participated in the democratic process. For example, you could say that Keralites are Idiots because they did not elect O. Rajagopal. You could also say that Keralites are extremely Intelligent that they grasped something that people from other states could not understand. Is this kind of judgement against the spirit of democracy? (That's what Mr. Berly is saying). Does anybody has a right to judge the people who made the judgement in the election?
As long as you hold that (2) is a valid method to form opinion about candidates, there is nothing intrinsically wrong in using that same data to form opinion about the people whose character is reflected in the judgement. So, the question is not really about the validity of the process itself. The only question is if it goes against the principle of superior power for people's judgement? In other words, if I call you an Idiot for not electing a certain candidate, am I undermining the democratic principle?
I certainly disagree. I vehemently disagree. As long as I recognize that Mr. Sashi Tharoor is an MP and has the right to do whatever an MP is privileged to do, and if I recognize that Mr. Modi is the PM and has the right to do whatever the PM is privileged to do, and if I recognize that Mr. Tharoor is an MP because people in his constituency found certain things in him that I did not , and if I recognize that Mr. Modi is a PM because the people in this country found certain things in him that I did not, and if I don't do anything illegal to subvert their privileges, I am well and truly aligned with the democratic principle. I think Mr. Berly made a category error when he said that "there is nothing right or wrong" about people's choice. He is correct in the sense that the people's verdict is always right. Hence, no Supreme Court can legally overrule it. But that doesn't mean that people themselves are right about that verdict. If I question the rightness of people's verdict, them I am being undemocratic. If I say that Mr. Modi is not the right PM, then I am being undemocratic. But, If I say that people are wrong in electing Modi as the PM, I am being perfectly democratic.
This difference, even though subtle, is very important. Was there anything right or wrong with Hitler being German Chancellor? It was right in the sense that it was just an output from the German democractic process. But that doesn't mean that German people were morally justified in making that choice. In other words, had there been a German who cried out that German people were being fascist in electing their leader, would that have been unjustifiable democratically? No. The final cause (from an Aristotlean analysis) of democratic process is, let's say broadly, is the improvement of the nation as a whole (that is, if you consider that democratic process is not an end in itself), then there is always room for judgements about (i) the principle of democracy itself (ii) the process of democracy and (iii) how the outcome of democracy is reached.
No comments:
Post a Comment