However the main idea was that democracy could not last, because in democracy someone always loses. And in almost every issue we have, the amount of "losers" is pretty significant in size. And the losers are rarely ok with it.
It seems to me that any political system will suffer from that problem. If decisions are imposed by elites from above that much of the rank-and-file citizenry don't agree with, there will be dissatisfaction.
At least democracy gives people the hope that they might win in the future, if they can convince a majority that they are right.
And in a decentralized form of democracy, where a great deal of power is retained on the local, state or provincial level, the possibility exists that different regions might opt for different policies, as opposed to having a one-size-fits-all diktat being imposed from above on everyone. If one side in a controversy loses out in region A, they might be winners in region B. So internal diversity remains a possibility and being a loser isn't an absolute thing.
The elaborate further, the sense of community that was possibly once shared is vastly gone and replaced by a "me" mentality.
That's a different problem. In the Modern period, people used to identify with their broader community, symbolized as 'state' or 'nation' or 'people'. Patriotism was the expression of that. In medieval times, they were more apt to identify with 'Christendom' than with the feudal lord in whose territory they found themselves.
But since World Wars I and II, 'nationalism' has become a dirty word in Europe and increasingly in the United States, blamed for those conflicts and for millions of deaths. Apparently people are supposed to identify with humanity in general or something. But that's too vague and airy to really work for all but the most idealistic people. Most people need to feel identity with something closer to home, something more connected with their lives. So what we see instead is the intentional promotion of identity-politics, where people are encouraged to identify first and foremost with their own race, class and gender. (As long as they aren't whites and male.) We see people identifying with their profession, political party, or their favorite football team.
Sadly, the attempt to create a sense of peaceful community has led to the exact opposite, to people feeling stripped of any previous sense of community they might once have had, and to their grasping tightly to things that divide them from those around them. And with that change, we see the gradual loss of social cohesiveness.
Instead of accepting loss of a social issue and abiding by the rules for the sake of peace, going about the changing of policy and law the "proper way" with the understanding that is how democracy works (sometimes you win sometimes you don't), there is conflict. At the best of times people spread hate through various means (social media, media, rallys, etc) and at the worst there is violence in the streets.
We see it here in the United States. If immigration law is going to be treated as if it is merely optional, with no penalties for ignoring it, then why shouldn't everyone treat tax, environmental. labor and civil-rights laws the same way? The whole idea of obeying the law
because it is the law disappears with the loss of our sense of community and social cohesion. The belief that everyone in the community is equally subject to the law and equally obligated to honor it is lost when the sense of belonging to a larger overarching community fades away and where ethnicity and national origin become the things that people most identify with.
So the question that was brought up was essentially, how can democracy survive with this line of thinking?
I could go on, but it would serve as more of a rant. What are your opinions on this?
I think that democracy
can easily survive. But I'm not convinced that it
will. It seems to me to be self-destructing as we speak. It's probably the greatest tragedy of our time.
