14 replies to this topic

[August1991]

Following John Stuart Mill, Pierre Trudeau asked "What is a just society?"

I always wondered rather "What is a civilized society?"

It seems to me that a civilized society requires respect for minorities (in particular, respect for the ultimate minority - an individual), a government that somehow follows the wishes of most ordinary people and in that sense, a State that allows for the peaceful change of government.

Democracy may be a popular state, or even majority rule, but no civilized state is a tyranny of the majority. The US constitution wisely includes amendments restricting the power of a popular government - and Trudeau smartly included a Charter of Rights in our own constitution.

So anyway, I read this in the Toronto Star:

We profess fidelity to democracy, especially in the Arab world. But our commitment seems to come with the caveat that the will of the people is acceptable only if it confirms our prejudices. If not — as in Egyptians’ choice of the Muslim Brotherhood for both parliament and the presidency — some of our leaders, thinkers and media eminences get antsy and irrational.
...

When the West speaks up, it does so mostly on behalf of selected constituencies — non-Muslim minorities, in particular. When it advocates for the rights of women, it does so for certain types of women — secular, pro-western, often anti-Islamic. It did not go to bat for the women belonging to the Brotherhood who suffered for long periods under Mubarak.

Haroon Siddiqui

----

I think Siddiqui is confused between "democracy" and "civilized society". Democracy presumably means majority rule, 50% plus one. Civilized society means that, but more. A simple majority - so-called democracy - could mean the tyranny of the majority.

If a majority of Egyptians happen to be Islamists (or if a majority of Ontarians happen to be WASPs), it may be democratic for them to impose their will on society. But it wouldn't be civilized.

The Ontario government rightly (now) respects the Catholic and French-speaking minority. Egypt, to be civilized, should do the same with its non-Muslim minority.

----

I happen to think that a critical feature of civilized society is the peaceful transfer of State power between governments/people of opposing views. Arguably, the most significant event in political history was when John Adams stood beside Thomas Jefferson in 1802.

So, Egypt and others in the Arab world have become partly civilized: their governments change with (less) violent revolution, and at least there is the pretense of civility. Saddam Hussein was at least judged, and then hanged. Mubarak was also judged before receiving a sentence. (We don't know yet what will happen with Assad Jnr.)

[In the grand scheme of things, I guess, Egypt and Iraq are comparable to England at the time of Henri VIII and Anne Boleyn.]

----

With all that said, I admire popular will. Like Haroon Siddiqui, I applaud and admire the Arab Spring just as I admired the guy in Beijing who stood before the tank. I guess that I like Gary Cooper.

Edited by August1991, 08 July 2012 - 02:32 PM.

[Argus]

Let me start out by admitting I have no particular love for democratic government. It seems to me that it all too often results in incompetent idiots being foisted upon me by an ignorant electorate as my 'leaders'. I am an elitist, and I would like to see rule by the elites -- providing we can figure out who they are. The only function of democratic government which I like is its ability to depose governments when their incompetence and corruption has been made so manifestly obvious even the herd can see it and vote against them. If we could figure out another governmental structure which would similarly allow the removal of incompetents I'd be happy to give it a try.

Especially if it's made up of people of clear intelligence, integrity and ability.

Would such a government be civilized? Unquestionably. It would probably be more civilized and sophisticated than the self-promoting weasels we often get in power nowadays. You can have a civilized society without democracy. You can also have democracy without a civilized society. I'd prefer the former, but I fear what Egypt is going to have is the latter.

Edited by Argus, 08 July 2012 - 02:31 PM.

[cybercoma]

It's called the judiciary, Argus. You seem to hate it, but it keeps democracy in check.

Edited by cybercoma, 08 July 2012 - 04:27 PM.

[Canuckistani]

Sad what Islam has sunk to in so many countries. When it was first conquering it's world, it was a paragon of enlightenment for its times, including how it treated women and minorities. Certainly had the Europeans beat. But then Europeans went thru the enlightenment and began to set new standards of civilization. I wonder if the West is now on the same path as Islam, will lose it's way and we will once again be rightfully deemed the barbarians by whoever is shining the light at the time?

Good luck with that philosopher kings form of govt, Argus. I don't think it has ever been successfully put into practice. True elites are about service, not accumulating power and prestige and demanding obeisance as you do. Elites have their ego trips worked out. I guess the closest is the old Tibetan system, and it had slavery, hit squads and a bullshit form of death penalty. But it was certainly rule by an elite, no nepotism at all. The proper term for it is oligarchy.

Edited by Canuckistani, 08 July 2012 - 04:42 PM.

[eyeball]

I always wondered rather "What is a civilized society?"

One that is governed honestly.

[eyeball]

It's called the judiciary, Argus. You seem to hate it, but it keeps democracy in check.

It's the judiciary's potential to keep elites in check that has Argus so pissed.

[Argus]

It's called the judiciary, Argus. You seem to hate it, but it keeps democracy in check.

The judiciary keeps government in check only when government allows itself to be kept in check by the judiciary. And it only allows that for fear of being thrown out in the next election.

You don't have to look far to find places where the judiciary is a joke, and will do whatever the government or police want it to.

The judiciary protects no one without that ultimate threat.

[Argus]

It's the judiciary's potential to keep elites in check that has Argus so pissed.

No, it's the way the judiciary in Canada invents law by deciding cases on their own ideological interpretation of fairly clearly written legislation.

[Argus]

Good luck with that philosopher kings form of govt, Argus. I don't think it has ever been successfully put into practice. True elites are about service, not accumulating power and prestige and demanding obeisance as you do. Elites have their ego trips worked out. I guess the closest is the old Tibetan system, and it had slavery, hit squads and a bullshit form of death penalty. But it was certainly rule by an elite, no nepotism at all. The proper term for it is oligarchy.

You are misinterpreting the term 'elite'. I'm not speaking of people who have wealth and power but people who are intellectually and culturally superior to the bulk of the populace. Donald Trump has wealth and power but he's certainly not the type of 'elite' I'm referring to.

[guyser]

No, it's the way the judiciary in Canada invents law by deciding cases on their own ideological interpretation of fairly clearly written legislation.

Such as...?

[Argus]

Such as...?

Such as gay marriage.

[guyser]

Such as gay marriage.

Sorry, no go on that.

Halpern v Canada , Ont court ruled that equality rights were being denied .

The CHarter was not invented by any Judge, the law was applied fairly.

What I was looking for was something that the judges invented out of thin air.

[Argus]

Sorry, no go on that.

Halpern v Canada , Ont court ruled that equality rights were being denied .

The CHarter was not invented by any Judge, the law was applied fairly.

What I was looking for was something that the judges invented out of thin air.

Since gays weren't written into the charter exept by uhm, the courts, I think that pretty much qualifies.

After all, the legislator didn't put them into the Charter. In fact, it deliberately didn't put them in. It also deliberately exempted them from the marriage act. The courts simply decided they wanted them there.

Edited by Argus, 09 July 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[guyser]

Since gays weren't written into the charter exept by uhm, the courts, I think that pretty much qualifies.

After all, the legislator didn't put them into the Charter. In fact, it deliberately didn't put them in. It also deliberately exempted them from the marriage act. The courts simply decided they wanted them there.

The new law came from the Legislature , not the courts. The govt decided to let stand the appeal court verdict.

[August1991]

One that is governed honestly.

Honestly? I would be simply happy if the power of the State passed from government to government peacefully. If the governments oppose one another, and yet still pass the State's power, that is a civilized State.

But a truly civilized State ensures that whatever government has power, the minority population is respected, and can go about its life.

The measure of society is how the majority treats the minority.