is democracy inherently good?

Yesterday in Creative Democracy Professor Orosco asked us to write and share our ideas on two questions. It hadn’t occurred to me to blog about this, but then Luke did, so I thought I’d go ahead and type up what I wrote about and a bit of a reflection.

Orosco’s two questions:

1) Is democracy a good system of government? Why or why not?
2) “The US has squandered its democratic potential.“ Strongly agree, agree, disagree, strongly disagree? Why?

My response to question 1:

Yes, a real democracy is a good system of government. It is the only system that treats us as fully human — or, rather, where we treat ourselves as fully human. [a few reasons:]

Luke writes that he doesn’t think that democracy is inherently good, and I’ve been wondering about that. Orosco discussed a book that had recently come out (maybe in the 1990s) that argued that we have the “what type of government is best” question solved: democracy has won out (the Cold War had just ended) and no one disputes that democracy is the best form of governance. I don’t think that there is any consensus, though, because now we have the task of defining and enacting democracy. When I wrote my piece, I was thinking of the ideal democracy (whatever that may look like), and I am inclined to say that it is inherently good, though perhaps that’s very simplistic thinking. Then again, I don’t very often say anything in inherently good…

On to my response to question 2:

[I took this to mean the US Government, not the people.] Strongly agree: The government has shut down public spheres, promoted a two-party system that doesn’t leave much room open for deliberation by people, became (or has remained) an aristocracy/oligarchy of “experts” and rich people. The government has also ignored justice, continued injustice against marginalized folks…

Here Luke and I agreed, and class discussion was interesting. I heard quite a few people who either disagreed or strongly disagreed with the statement call themselves optimists. Then, Orosco called our group (there were five out of maybe 15 or so who strongly agreed with the statement) “pessimists.” I immediately chimed in “I didn’t self identify as a pessimist.” Because I don’t think it’s pessimistic to say the US government is squandering/has squandered democratic potential. Rather, it’s realistic. And this doesn’t mean I’m despairing; rather, I’m hopeful. Orosco told the class about the distinction made by Cornell West between optimism and hope. Here is what he said in an interview with The Progressive:

You have to draw a distinction between hope and optimism. Vaclav Havel put it well when he said “optimism” is the belief that things are going to turn out as you would like, as opposed to “hope,” which is when you are thoroughly convinced something is moral and right and just and therefore you fight regardless of the consequences. In that sense, I’m full of hope but in no way optimistic.

Bingo!

But I’m still wondering about inherently good…