A debate on "The end of democracy" will be organized by the Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior (FRIDE), at the Fundación Mapfre, Paseo de Recoletos 23, Madrid, Spain, 22 September 2010
www.fride.org/event/229/debate:-the-end-of-democracy
Description: "How has the financial crisis affected the credibility of democratic values? What is the impact of the increasing weight of other political systems, such as China and Russia's? Are democracy promotion policies still valid? Why does Spain not play a greater role in this area? Why has the number of democracies decreased worldwide during the last decade? These are some of the questions that will be addressed in this debate".
Participants include: Pedro Solbes (former Deputy Vice President and Minister of Economy of Spain); Ana Palacio (former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Spain and former Senior Vice President of the World Bank); Eduardo Serra (former Minister of Defense of Spain); and Fernando Vallespín (Professor of Political Science, Autonomous University of Madrid). The debate will be led by Richard Youngs, Director General of the Madrid-based "European think tank for global action" FRIDE and Associate Professor in the Department of Politics and International Studies at the University of Warwick.
Attendance is by invitation only.
For further information, please contact Richard Youngs: ryoungs@fride.org
(Update 2 October 2010: Contributions to this event, in Spanish, have been uploaded to the website as audio and video files.)
Showing posts with label audio. Show all posts
Showing posts with label audio. Show all posts
15 September 2010
27 May 2010
Audio: Doomed by Democracy?
BBC Radio 4 on 24 May 2010 broadcast an "Analysis" programme dedicated to the discussion among environmentalists that democracy may have to be "suspended" in order to fight climate change.
The audio is available free of charge here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfwtc
The full text of the programme transcript can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/24_05_10.txt
Excerpts: "[Halina] WARD [Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development]: We don't have to be driven by what 50% plus 1 of the population wants to say that we represent a majority view. [Presenter Justin] ROWLATT: And this is Gordon Brown's former special advisor on climate change. [Michael] JACOBS: I don't think it's right to call something anti-democratic if it has the consent of the public even if you couldn't say that they were actively in favour of it. [... Mayer] HILLMAN [Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute]: [...] There's no way that the public are going to willingly say 'I will forego flying'. The fact is that we've got to live on such a low use of fossil fuels for our daily activities. Therefore it's got to be required of them and if they don't go along with it, then we are – I fear – heading for absolute disaster. We are on a trajectory towards rendering the planet steadily uninhabitable. [...] ROWLATT: Establishing a kind authoritarian regime to impose restrictions on people's lifestyle – does sound like fascism doesn't it? HILLMAN: Well it's interesting you should use that noun because I've often observed that in 1939 had there been a referendum as to whether we go to war with Nazi Germany – the majority would have said 'No way' we had a horrific first war – we're not going to go through that again – there are times in history when democracy has to be set aside because of our wider obligation. [...]
"WARD: There are some environmentalists in particular who [...] feel that democracy is hampering progress. But those tend to be very privately expressed thoughts along the lines of China's easier to deal with [in] the intergovernmental arena perhaps because it's not a democracy. Thank goodness for that. And there's another group of activist civil society groups who I think see that democracy presents a huge challenge [...]. ROWLATT: Mayer Hillman [...] now believes the choice is between democracy and the survival of the human species. HILLMAN: [...] Democracy allows people the freedom not to be obliged to do things that we know we must do, so how can one possibly say yes but the principle of democracy must prevail over and above protection of the global environment from excessive burning of fossil fuels? Given the choice, I would sadly – very, very sadly – say that the condition of the planet in the future for future generations is more important than the retention of democratic principles. JACOBS: [...] Am I confident that democratic systems will deal with the issue of climate change? No. [...] ROWLATT: [...] The most pessimistic environmentalists suggesting suspending democracy are likely to remain a minority, not least because there is no obvious alternative. But what seems certain is that the challenge of tackling climate change will test democratic institutions as never before."
The audio is available free of charge here:
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00sfwtc
The full text of the programme transcript can be read here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/analysis/transcripts/24_05_10.txt
Excerpts: "[Halina] WARD [Foundation for Democracy and Sustainable Development]: We don't have to be driven by what 50% plus 1 of the population wants to say that we represent a majority view. [Presenter Justin] ROWLATT: And this is Gordon Brown's former special advisor on climate change. [Michael] JACOBS: I don't think it's right to call something anti-democratic if it has the consent of the public even if you couldn't say that they were actively in favour of it. [... Mayer] HILLMAN [Senior Fellow Emeritus, Policy Studies Institute]: [...] There's no way that the public are going to willingly say 'I will forego flying'. The fact is that we've got to live on such a low use of fossil fuels for our daily activities. Therefore it's got to be required of them and if they don't go along with it, then we are – I fear – heading for absolute disaster. We are on a trajectory towards rendering the planet steadily uninhabitable. [...] ROWLATT: Establishing a kind authoritarian regime to impose restrictions on people's lifestyle – does sound like fascism doesn't it? HILLMAN: Well it's interesting you should use that noun because I've often observed that in 1939 had there been a referendum as to whether we go to war with Nazi Germany – the majority would have said 'No way' we had a horrific first war – we're not going to go through that again – there are times in history when democracy has to be set aside because of our wider obligation. [...]
"WARD: There are some environmentalists in particular who [...] feel that democracy is hampering progress. But those tend to be very privately expressed thoughts along the lines of China's easier to deal with [in] the intergovernmental arena perhaps because it's not a democracy. Thank goodness for that. And there's another group of activist civil society groups who I think see that democracy presents a huge challenge [...]. ROWLATT: Mayer Hillman [...] now believes the choice is between democracy and the survival of the human species. HILLMAN: [...] Democracy allows people the freedom not to be obliged to do things that we know we must do, so how can one possibly say yes but the principle of democracy must prevail over and above protection of the global environment from excessive burning of fossil fuels? Given the choice, I would sadly – very, very sadly – say that the condition of the planet in the future for future generations is more important than the retention of democratic principles. JACOBS: [...] Am I confident that democratic systems will deal with the issue of climate change? No. [...] ROWLATT: [...] The most pessimistic environmentalists suggesting suspending democracy are likely to remain a minority, not least because there is no obvious alternative. But what seems certain is that the challenge of tackling climate change will test democratic institutions as never before."
03 April 2010
Audio: Jonathan Meese's "Lolita de Sade"
Jonathan Meese is a German painter and sculptor, performance and installation artist. In February 2010, the Verlag für moderne Kunst in Nürnberg released "original sound recordings" (Originaltonaufnahmen) of Meese, edited by Brigade Commerz – Audio Arts Archive, under the title "Lolita de Sade":
www.vfmk.de/db/products/_auto_2988092.xhtml
The recordings seem to be in German, but the following English description is to be found on the publisher's website: "'Children – Lolitas – Democrats', this is how the world is built for Jonathan Meese. Democrats are human machines that in reality want to suck us dry. They entice us with the most pornographic and disgusting thing of all: with culture and the journey into the self. Meese cannot find anything obscene in the sex shop, on the other hand. It only has toys, and anyway the vampire in art is the most lewd thing for him. Art simply takes place in front of us. It is like peeing, or like the 'Haifischmund'
[shark's mouth] of Scarlett Johansson: 'Total metabolism, total fertility, total anti-democracy, total neutrality. A pure object, a plug for all and none ... too large or too small for everyone'."
Unfortunately, I can't quite figure out what it is all about. Might be some kind of art work or (merely) an interview.
www.vfmk.de/db/products/_auto_2988092.xhtml
The recordings seem to be in German, but the following English description is to be found on the publisher's website: "'Children – Lolitas – Democrats', this is how the world is built for Jonathan Meese. Democrats are human machines that in reality want to suck us dry. They entice us with the most pornographic and disgusting thing of all: with culture and the journey into the self. Meese cannot find anything obscene in the sex shop, on the other hand. It only has toys, and anyway the vampire in art is the most lewd thing for him. Art simply takes place in front of us. It is like peeing, or like the 'Haifischmund'
[shark's mouth] of Scarlett Johansson: 'Total metabolism, total fertility, total anti-democracy, total neutrality. A pure object, a plug for all and none ... too large or too small for everyone'."
Unfortunately, I can't quite figure out what it is all about. Might be some kind of art work or (merely) an interview.
13 January 2010
Audio: An Anarchist Critique of Democracy
On YouTube, you can find three videos – more truthfully: audios – outlining "An Anarchist Critique of Democracy" (Parts 1, 2, and 3). Apparently, they were created by one Moxie Marlinspike and one Windy Hart (pen names, one suspects). Here's a link to the playlist:
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A902B96F4702B1F3
Description: "An explanation of why anarchists oppose democratic government, in all the varying flavors that democracy comes in."
Part 1: introduction; definition of democracy; alienation; decontextualization as a form of alienation; majorities; Part 2: immanent critiques; the reproduction of democracy; Part 3: democracy is only a single component of our lives; direct democracy isn't anarchy, you fucks; conclusion.
The audio-videos are based on a text (apparently written in 2005 by the same authors) that is available here:
www.againstallauthority.org/democracy.html
Some quotes: "[W]e recognize an inherent tension between democracy and the freedom of individuals to create their own lives as they see fit. Some of the problems we find with democracy have been acknowledged by defenders of democracy as well, but have only led to the development of amended types of democracies (as various thinkers tried to prune the concept into an acceptable shape). By contrast, our analysis has led us to abandon the concept all together [sic], because we find some fundamental faults with the idea itself that can not be reconciled by new modifications or reforms. Our critique is of democracy in all its various forms, whether representative or direct. We are not echoing confused cries for more democracy, we are calling for its entire abolition. [...]
"Democracy does nothing but maintain the existence of alienated power, since it requires that our desires be separate from our power to act, and any attempts to engage in that system will only serve to reproduce it. Democracies of any type make decisions via elections, the very essence of which transfers one's will, thought, autonomy, and freedom to an outside power. It makes no difference whether one transfers that power to an elected representative or to an elusive majority. The point is that it's no longer your own. [...]
"Voting strongly resembles the capitalist economic system that always accompanies democracy. There are producers who dictate the agenda, and there are consumers who spend most of their time in the role of spectator – choosing opinions from the marketplace of ideas. These choices also become a competitive game, and every decision will end with 'winners' and 'losers.' [...]
"By providing the illusion of participation for everyone, democracy allows majorities to justify their actions, no matter how oppressive. Since democracy makes the claim that everyone can participate in the political process, there is no harm in providing suffrage for groups with minority opinions, since their losing votes will only justify the contrary actions of a majority. Likewise, if individuals choose not to participate in a vote, their actions are still interpreted as a consent of the majority opinion, since they could have voted against it if they'd wanted to. There is no escape. [...]
"Issues like campaign finance reform or subsidized media time are not interesting to us, because in recognizing the tyranny of political manipulation, we do not then seek to change things such that we can make this tyranny our own. Democracy only offers the choice of relieving yourself of oppression by becoming the oppressor – freedom lies in the entire institution's abolition. [...]
"When democracy frames our discussion and forces us to argue in its terms, all actions to change the socio-political environment must happen via its means and achieve only those ends it will sanction. For these reasons, democracy reproduces itself with little special effort from the ruling class. [...] Even the most obvious contradictions get overlooked because the system has equated its existence with freedom and so places its existence outside the realm of contestable ideas. [...]
"And so one sees presumably intelligent people tieing [sic] themselves in knots, trying to reform a system that in its best and most functional form can only hope to oppress everyone, equally, an equal percentage of the time. Again, the ruling class can rest easy as long as we place blame on ourselves and not them for our alienated position in modern society and that will continue until we realize the intrinsic flaws in the concept of democracy itself and refuse to reproduce it. [...]
"Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination. [...] Even 'direct democracy' demands surrender to the status quo that produces a hierarchy of group over individual, thus separating us from our desires and our desires from their unfettered realization in direct action. Any who would give up these principles should also give up the name 'anarchist' – perhaps in favor of 'libertarian.'"
As is in the nature of anarchism, many anarchists won't agree with all or parts of this particular critique of democracy (see comments left on YouTube).
Mandatory reading/listening.
www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=A902B96F4702B1F3
Description: "An explanation of why anarchists oppose democratic government, in all the varying flavors that democracy comes in."
Part 1: introduction; definition of democracy; alienation; decontextualization as a form of alienation; majorities; Part 2: immanent critiques; the reproduction of democracy; Part 3: democracy is only a single component of our lives; direct democracy isn't anarchy, you fucks; conclusion.
The audio-videos are based on a text (apparently written in 2005 by the same authors) that is available here:
www.againstallauthority.org/democracy.html
Some quotes: "[W]e recognize an inherent tension between democracy and the freedom of individuals to create their own lives as they see fit. Some of the problems we find with democracy have been acknowledged by defenders of democracy as well, but have only led to the development of amended types of democracies (as various thinkers tried to prune the concept into an acceptable shape). By contrast, our analysis has led us to abandon the concept all together [sic], because we find some fundamental faults with the idea itself that can not be reconciled by new modifications or reforms. Our critique is of democracy in all its various forms, whether representative or direct. We are not echoing confused cries for more democracy, we are calling for its entire abolition. [...]
"Democracy does nothing but maintain the existence of alienated power, since it requires that our desires be separate from our power to act, and any attempts to engage in that system will only serve to reproduce it. Democracies of any type make decisions via elections, the very essence of which transfers one's will, thought, autonomy, and freedom to an outside power. It makes no difference whether one transfers that power to an elected representative or to an elusive majority. The point is that it's no longer your own. [...]
"Voting strongly resembles the capitalist economic system that always accompanies democracy. There are producers who dictate the agenda, and there are consumers who spend most of their time in the role of spectator – choosing opinions from the marketplace of ideas. These choices also become a competitive game, and every decision will end with 'winners' and 'losers.' [...]
"By providing the illusion of participation for everyone, democracy allows majorities to justify their actions, no matter how oppressive. Since democracy makes the claim that everyone can participate in the political process, there is no harm in providing suffrage for groups with minority opinions, since their losing votes will only justify the contrary actions of a majority. Likewise, if individuals choose not to participate in a vote, their actions are still interpreted as a consent of the majority opinion, since they could have voted against it if they'd wanted to. There is no escape. [...]
"Issues like campaign finance reform or subsidized media time are not interesting to us, because in recognizing the tyranny of political manipulation, we do not then seek to change things such that we can make this tyranny our own. Democracy only offers the choice of relieving yourself of oppression by becoming the oppressor – freedom lies in the entire institution's abolition. [...]
"When democracy frames our discussion and forces us to argue in its terms, all actions to change the socio-political environment must happen via its means and achieve only those ends it will sanction. For these reasons, democracy reproduces itself with little special effort from the ruling class. [...] Even the most obvious contradictions get overlooked because the system has equated its existence with freedom and so places its existence outside the realm of contestable ideas. [...]
"And so one sees presumably intelligent people tieing [sic] themselves in knots, trying to reform a system that in its best and most functional form can only hope to oppress everyone, equally, an equal percentage of the time. Again, the ruling class can rest easy as long as we place blame on ourselves and not them for our alienated position in modern society and that will continue until we realize the intrinsic flaws in the concept of democracy itself and refuse to reproduce it. [...]
"Anarchists believe in unmediated relations between free individuals, the absence of any coercive or alienating forces in societies, and an unquestionable, universal right to self-determination. [...] Even 'direct democracy' demands surrender to the status quo that produces a hierarchy of group over individual, thus separating us from our desires and our desires from their unfettered realization in direct action. Any who would give up these principles should also give up the name 'anarchist' – perhaps in favor of 'libertarian.'"
As is in the nature of anarchism, many anarchists won't agree with all or parts of this particular critique of democracy (see comments left on YouTube).
Mandatory reading/listening.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Posts
