25 March 2006
Democracy’s Particulars are not Universal
In his article in the Wall Street Journal on March 24, 2006, Amartya Sen characterizes the West’s attitude towards non-democratic states as a sort of cultural imperialism. His mistake is that Democracy, as the system originated in Greece millennia ago was called, is not a universal value. It is merely a device for achieving equity in self-rule. Cultural differences are, indeed, responsible for the variety of government structures that have been used by people to organize their common affairs.
Use of the term Democracy to denote participatory government has indeed become culturally intrusive. Although its derivation signifies rule by the people, it has gathered baggage over the years that includes representative republican form, selection of officials and policies by ballot, and liberal social values.
If we were to get away from this narrow identification of control over civic affairs by the members of the community with the apparatus used in the West to achieve that goal, we might also escape the trap that finds threats to our “way of life” in other cultures whose rhetoric and willing discriminatory treatment of their members are confined to their own borders.
One of the deceits of our culture is to ascribe universality to our way of organizing society, including equal treatment of the sexes, transparent decision-making in government and business, freedom of religion and expression, etc. Among other things, it makes us vulnerable to being taken advantage of by those who appeal to that sentiment in order to sell us on things, like military exploits that create no more benefit for our well-being than wealthier industrialists.
In his article in the Wall Street Journal on March 24, 2006, Amartya Sen characterizes the West’s attitude towards non-democratic states as a sort of cultural imperialism. His mistake is that Democracy, as the system originated in Greece millennia ago was called, is not a universal value. It is merely a device for achieving equity in self-rule. Cultural differences are, indeed, responsible for the variety of government structures that have been used by people to organize their common affairs.
Use of the term Democracy to denote participatory government has indeed become culturally intrusive. Although its derivation signifies rule by the people, it has gathered baggage over the years that includes representative republican form, selection of officials and policies by ballot, and liberal social values.
If we were to get away from this narrow identification of control over civic affairs by the members of the community with the apparatus used in the West to achieve that goal, we might also escape the trap that finds threats to our “way of life” in other cultures whose rhetoric and willing discriminatory treatment of their members are confined to their own borders.
One of the deceits of our culture is to ascribe universality to our way of organizing society, including equal treatment of the sexes, transparent decision-making in government and business, freedom of religion and expression, etc. Among other things, it makes us vulnerable to being taken advantage of by those who appeal to that sentiment in order to sell us on things, like military exploits that create no more benefit for our well-being than wealthier industrialists.
Comments:
Post a Comment
