2024-08-10 03:30:00
After 70 years of liberal democracy’s dominance in the West, a movement questioning democracy has emerged today. In much of Europe and most of the Americas, the most extremist options are increasingly gaining traction among the population.mainly on the far right.
Bourgeois liberal democracy is a relatively new creation. The first modern government to adopt a democratic form was the United States government after the Revolutionary War against England. After independence, Latin American countries tried to follow the example of the United States, with more or less success. In Europe, the adoption of democracy began to spread only after the end of World War I.
In the first half of the 20th century, democracies had to withstand not only theoretical criticism but also extreme political setbacks, such as coups in Latin America or the establishment of totalitarian governments in Europe.
Bertrand Russell was one of the liberal theorists of democracy during the most difficult period of the last century, and today when the drums of war sound again and democracy is called into question for its failure to solve the most pressing problems, remember his reflections. A good thing.
First let us remember Russell believes that the history of civilization is a struggle between tyranny and anarchy, absolute power and abuse of power and the attempt to eliminate all power.
This dichotomy already appears in one of the earliest treatises on modern political philosophy: Thomas Hobbes’s Leviathan, in which Hobbes sides with a powerful nation against Britain The disintegrating forces of anarchy following the Civil War.
On the contrary, Russell advocated democracy as a modern civilized way of life. and say A good democratic government opposes both extremes (tyranny and anarchy), Adopt a centrist stance on issues involving state intervention in social life.
Russell said: “The essence of liberalism is the attempt to secure a social order that is not based on irrational dogma (which is the hallmark of tyranny), while ensuring stability (which is what anarchy destroys) without involving the greater Many restrictions.
In an article published in the New York Times on December 16, 1951, Russell claimed that the liberalism he (and most liberal theorists) preached was not a creed but the entirety of the creed; It’s an attitude, a mental disposition: “The liberal attitude doesn’t mean that you should go against authority. It just says that you should be free to go against authority.which is something completely different. The essence of intellectual liberalism is the belief that fair discussion is useful and that people should be free to question anything if they can back up their questions with solid arguments.
Russell clarified that liberals do not favor change at all costs, let alone the transformation of a flawed regime into a potentially more brutal one. He added: “The liberal must advocate certain limits on the exercise of power and expect that these limits will be observed, not only when the authority promotes a creed with which he disagrees, but also when he promotes a creed with which he disagrees. These restrictions will also be observed. “As for me, I am a believer in democracy, but I do not like any regime that imposes belief in democracy. “
Bertrand Russell’s 1951 article – Remembering: the middle years of the Cold War between the United States and the Soviet Union – cIt concludes with what the British philosopher calls “ten precepts that I would like to lay down as a professor of political philosophy.”
These commandments are summarized in a few basic rules Keep the public debate open and discuss all subjects without censoring any. Ask to never rely on authority because you can always find a better authority that is contrary to what we think.
He suggests finding more joy in intelligent dissent than passive agreement because “if you value intelligence as much as you should, intelligent dissent will ultimately produce a deeper agreement than passive submission to the other side.”
The world was on the brink of atomic war (sometimes, as during the Cuban Missile Crisis, not metaphorically, but literally), and even in such situations true liberals like Russell advocated rational debate and sincere Disagreement. At a moment when political rationality seems to have been thrown off a cliff, it is worth making an example of him.
There is no liberal democracy without debate, and debate is impossible in a non-democratic context.
1723275718
#pays #live #democracy
