Tag: democracy

Understanding Democracy

crimson

I really have no idea what I should think or feel about everything going on. What I do feel is confused and lost. Particularly because I thought I understood what the state of things was. I thought I understood what the majority of people wanted. The “silent majority” as my father used to call them. Now, I’m not so sure.

Let’s start with the basics here; what is democracy? Well, the etymology can help us here. Democracy comes from the greek “dêmos” and “krátos.” “Dêmos” translates to people or citizens, while “krátos” translates to rule or strength. Putting them together, you get an idea of people ruling, or the strength of a community coming from the people. In these modern times, we have the idea of governing by the people or the citizens. That is, it is the people who collectively come together to decide the rules and laws that ought to govern the community as a whole.

So it seems to suggest that in democracy, you have a group of people who somehow come to agreement regarding the ways in which they coexist among one another. This in contrast to other situations where perhaps a small subsection of the group is in charge while the remainder simply submit to the subsection’s authority (oligarchy), or perhaps the subsection is simply a lone individual that everyone else submits to (dictatorship). In a democracy, everyone has a say in how things will be in the community as a whole.

In nations such as the United States or Canada, it is believed that the society is organized as a democracy. In Canada, individuals exercise their freedom by voting representatives, who in turn will vote other representatives, who will ultimately speak on behalf of all the people in Canada. Thus, in some ways it seems like an individual is making decisions while everyone else is expected to submit, but the manner in which the nation is organized, that top level representative has to be re-elected regularly in order to affirm that they are continuing to appropriately represent the people who elected them. In this way, it is understood that the representatives are always working in the interests of the people as a whole.

It is true that from time to time there will be representatives who abuse the power they are given by the people they are meant to represent. Sometimes with malicious intent. But that is supposed to be the exception, and not the rule. In general, representatives try to actually represent their constituents and further the constituents’ projects. But how can we be sure?

This is where an aspect of democracy is uncovered that I believe is not always recognized, especially by the very same people who are claiming to support democracy. In any democracy, there are many people with many differing opinions and ideas regarding how things should be done. There are many different projects that will be proposed, all with different priorities and different levels of importance. If I represent 100 people, then I have to somehow decide which of the 100 projects they all wish me to progress to actualize. I may be able to push forward several projects, but it is unlikely I can actualize all 100. Multiply this issue to the size of Canada, where there are about 38 million people, with 38 million different projects and ideas about what should be done.

Almost certainly you know how such things are decided: the majority rules. That is, those participants in the democratic process come together to vote on which projects ought to be undertaken. Those projects who have the greatest support are actualized. Those projects that are not supported sufficiently are not. If one person in 38 million wishes a particular project be undertaken, while the remainder do not, clearly the democratic group will decide against following through with such a project.

In these situations, where a minority of the population wishes a particular project be undertaken and are defeated by a vote from the majority, what ought the minority do? As one who often finds himself among the minority, it is my understanding that I have to simply suck it up and move on. That is, my desired projects are not to be undertaken. I may spend some time trying to convince others to take up my projects. I can use strategies such as protest to increase the awareness of my desired projects, utilizing appeals to emotion to try and sway others. But if, in the end, those who support my projects still only represent a minority, ultimately, I need to simply let it go and move on.

This is how I necessarily must behave. If I support the idea of democracy, I have to accept the fact that I will not always get what I want. In fact, as I am a part of a rather large community, it is very likely that I will rarely get what I want. Most of the time, I will have to simply accept the opinions of others and go along with them. As a single individual among millions, my opinions and desires do not count for very much.

This brings me to this whole “freedom convoy” business. The challenge I am having presently is that it is my understanding that the individuals who are participating in this so-called protest are representing a minority of the whole population. For example, their alleged primary point of concern is that they are against vaccine mandates, especially for truckers who are primarily responsible for maintaining the supply chains between Canada and the United States. If the information I have uncovered is to be believed, upwards of 90% of those truckers are fully vaccinated and continuing to (try to) do their jobs. Thus, the protesters, assuming they represent those truckers who do not support the vaccine mandate, are representing about 10% of the truckers in question. Basic math tells us that 10% is much, much less than 90%, and thus constitutes a minority.

Don’t get me wrong. As they represent a minority, within the laws and rules we have set out in our democratic society, they are definitely entitled to protest and attempt to sway to their side those who presently do not agree with them. The problem is that they have long since already made this point and presented their case (or at least had the opportunity to). So why are they still “protesting?” Worse, why have they escalated their “protest” to include further disruption of the very same supply chain that they claim the vaccine mandates are distrupting?

As anyone who has been following this story should already be aware, this “freedom convoy” is clearly about much, much more than simply vaccine mandates for truckers. In fact, it seems like the movement itself is distracted with hundreds, and possibly thousands, of other intentions and projects. When these “protesters” are waving American confederate flags, nazi flags, and banners supporting their desired candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election, putting aside my level of agreement or disagreement with them, this tells me that their intentions are far more diverse than simply concerns about vaccinating truckers.

This is where I would like to point out what I’ve been talking about regarding democracy and about accepting the decisions of the majority. In this case, it seems to me, the majority of people in Canada support vaccine mandates. It seems to me that the majority of Canadians recognize the significance of supporting their healthcare system in trying to keep as many people safe as possible during a pandemic. It seems to be that the majority support the idea that a vaccine mandate is probably a good thing. The “freedom convoy” has made their point, and they’ve presented their side of this issue. Why the hell are they still at it? And why are they escalating their disruptive behavior? Are they not actually in support of democracy, in contradiction to what they seem to be shouting about?

Many of them suggest their primary interest is in “freedom.” But who’s freedom? They are disrupting the freedoms of all sorts of other individuals with their actions. They are disrupting the supply chains and making it far more challenging for the rest of Canadians to go about their lives. I can promise that those who’s lives have been disrupted do not believe their freedom is being supported; I imagine they believe their freedom is being striped and infringed upon. Is it the “freedom” of the “protesters” that the “protesters” are concerned about? Once again, this will represent a minority, and once again this ought to be dropped.

I do NOT support the “freedom” of the “protesters” whatsoever, primarily as they have outright dismissed and attempted to crush my own. I support the authorities in doing whatever actions they deem necessary to put an end to this ridiculousness and allow the majority of Canadians to attempt to return to some semblance of normalcy.

The (American) Center of the Universe, part 2

crimson

On October 5, 2020, I wrote a post talking about how, for me, the United States of America (USA) has a great deal of influence over my day-to-day life, despite my desire for this not to be the case. In that post, I suggested that my feelings about Donald Trump are mostly irrelevant to the state of affairs of the world, and especially the USA, as I am not an American citizen. As I said in that post “the American people will do what they think is best,” especially with regard to whom they select to represent them in the international arena. This past week has been particularly interesting and so I have decided to follow up my previous post.

For those of you who may not be aware (I am envious if you are such a person), on Wednesday, January 6, 2021 there was a riot at the United States Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. This riot resulted in the breaching of the building by rioters, which has resulted in several deaths and what some regard as an attack on American democracy. As the current president of the USA (Donald Trump) essentially goaded the rioters on to perform this act, it has been suggested this is an attempted coup. Essentially, the incident could be a failed attempt by Trump to overthrow the existing government and install his own, of which he would be the supreme power in this new government. This is my interpretation of the incident. There are certainly others who would suggest different interpretations.

However this incident is viewed and interpreted, what I wish to focus on is something a little different. Yesterday, I happened upon an interesting comment on Reddit, suggesting that there should be a filter created to filter out all the USA focused news items from Reddit. Ironically, a quick search in Google suggests this isn’t the first time people have asked this sort of question. I’d like to briefly consider this simple request.

For me, especially in that I happen to live in the country which shares the longest border with the USA, it seems unlikely that I will ever be able to live my life without having to keep myself informed regarding the goings-on of the USA. Whether I like it or not, I kind of need to know what the president of the USA is doing, what sorts of decisions he is making, and what sort of leader he is. If nothing more, those around me will talk about “those crazy Americans” and educate me. I am also well aware that many Americans frequently seek asylum in the country I am in, particularly as affairs in the USA become more and more unpredictable. All things considered, to consciously attempt to ignore the sleeping giant next door would likely be taking a huge risk on my part. I need to keep on top of American affairs.

However, the country I am in represents less than one percent of the total world population. That is, collectively, all the people in this country who are in the same sort of situation as I find myself in, make up less than one percent of the total population of the world. Furthermore, the population of the USA itself makes up approximately four percent of the total population of the world. Combined, these two countries together make up less than five percent of all currently living humans on this planet. That is, less than one in every twenty human beings currently alive, lives in either the USA or Canada. This is a simple statistic, but what is its significance? Perhaps it would help if we had something to compare it to.

The population of China is currently about eighteen and a half percent of the total population, and is the largest country in the world in this regard. India’s population comes in second with just shy of eighteen percent of the total humans currently living. That is, just these two countries (who are also neighbors ironically) make up more than a third of the total world’s population. That is, more than a third (about thirty-six percent) of all currently living human beings are on pretty well the opposite side of the globe from the USA. What I find astonishing is how little I know about the affairs of China and India, when compared to the affairs of the USA, or even Canada.

The first reasonable argument that springs to mind as to why I would be more familiar with the affairs of the USA and Canada are their proximity to me. I live within Canada, and the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor. For this reason alone, it makes sense I should be much more familiar with the affairs of these two countries. It isn’t a question of size or percentage of the world’s population; it is simply a question of the human beings who are closest to me. It makes sense for me to need to know what is going on in these two countries, as opposed to China and India. However, this cannot be said for everyone.

The Internet (and all the various communications mediums that exist on it, including all the various social media channels) spans the whole world. Media channels, such as Reddit or Twitter, exist in Canada and the USA and China and India. So, one might expect that the percentage of material and data and news found on the Internet which is concerned with each of these countries might be proportional to the number of people who exist in each of these countries. One might anticipate that approximately five percent of all news items might be concerned with Canada and the USA, while approximately thirty-six percent would be concerned with China and India. But this clearly is not the case. Why not?

One reason I can think of is that my access to the Internet is not “unmediated.” That is, when I select my source for news, I tend to receive news that is more “relevant” to me. Putting this another way, the news I receive is focused on what is going on closer to where I am. As I am in Canada, I tend to get information and news about the goings-on in Canada. As the USA is Canada’s closest neighbor, I should expect that a significant amount of my information will be about the USA as well. And unfortunately, as China and India are pretty well on the opposite side of the globe from me, practically as far away as possible, their day-to-day goings-on will be less likely to make headlines for me. Thus, proximity seems a significant part of my experience.

But what about for others? What about people who do not live in Canada or the USA, or perhaps not even on the North American continent? Does an Internet user in China receive mostly Chinese news? And Indian mostly Indian news? Honestly, I do not know; I do not reside in those areas. I would like to think so, but seeing posts on Reddit where people are asking for filters to filter out USA news would seem to suggest this is not the case. That perhaps there is a disproportionately larger focus on the USA on media channels on the Internet.

Another possibility, especially with news media, is that more significant events tend to usurp more attention than less significant events. For example, this latest possible coup attempt by Donald Trump likely hit headlines the world over, simply because there was a potential overthrowing of a government in one of the larger countries in the world. One might expect there to be much more attention given in such a spectacular incident like the storming of one of the significant governmental buildings in such a country. Not so much because it is the USA, but simply because a country seems to be in turmoil. However, as the quick Google search suggested, people have been requesting a filter to filter out USA content for some time.

I suggest there is another possibility. Perhaps the issue isn’t with regard to the proportion of human beings in various areas of the world. Perhaps the issue is where the headquarters of the various media channels reside has more to do with the situation. For example, Reddit is “an American social news aggregation, web content rating, and discussion website,” with a headquarters in San Francisco, California, USA. Similarly, Twitter is “an American microblogging and social networking service” with headquarters in San Francisco as well. In fact, Google is “an American multinational technology company that specializes in Internet-related services and products” with headquarters in Mountain View, California. Even Wikipedia (which I clearly seem to favor) is “hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation, an American non-profit organization” which lists it’s location as being in San Francisco, California once again. All of these media channels are clearly focused not only in the USA, but in a very particular area of the USA, which might suggest something of a bias regarding how those products are delivered.

Another possibility to consider is the sorts of people who have access to the Internet and who are able to present information on the Internet. What I mean by this is what I was suggesting earlier, when I suggest the Chinese might be receiving predominantly Chinese news and the Indians might be receiving predominantly Indian news. Just because there are more humans in China does not automatically suggest that all of those Chinese people have Internet access and are adding material to the Internet. In fact, something that I often have to remind people in my own community is that not everyone in Canada has Internet access either. There are a lot of people in this country who cannot afford Internet access, or who live in locations where Internet access is challenging to offer.

What I am suggesting in this last point is something like a self-selection bias. Those who contribute to the content available on the Internet clearly must have access to the Internet in the first place. Thus, the knowledge and information that is shared on the Internet is already biased toward those who have Internet access. The opinions and ideas of people who do not have Internet access is going to be underrepresented on the Internet.

It reminds me of an old discussion I had with people many years ago regarding which Operating System (OS) on a computer was most user-friendly. That is, which OS was easiest for people to use, and which was more challenging. We were arguing between Microsoft Windows, Apple MacOS, and various distributions of linux. It was generally believed that Windows was the most user-friendly, with MacOS being still pretty friendly but not as friendly as Windows, and linux being entirely unfriendly. What was often dismissed was that all the people we were considering were people who both used computers somewhat regularly, and who had generally been brought up on Microsoft Windows based computers. The significant point is this: if an individual has spent most of their lives using Microsoft Windows, but very little time using either MacOS or linux, we would expect they would be quite familiar with how to use Microsoft Windows products, as they will generally operate in similar ways. A person who used Windows 95 is likely to find Windows 98 to be fairly easy to use, similtarly with Windows XP, Windows Vista, and Windows 10. Yes, there have certainly be significant changes throughout the years, but one can generally still expect there to be a little graphic in the lower-left corner of the screen that they can click to present themselves with a menu to select applications to launch.

A similar argument applies if the individual had been brought up using an Apple Macintosh computer. For them, they’d expect to click on the top-left of their screen, instead of the bottom-left. Those who had been brought up in linux tended to be much more versatile in this regard, as linux does tend to be quite flexible and versatile in this regard, with their menu potentially being wherever they want to put it. The point here is not to focus too hard on some sort of absolute trait of “user-friendliness” without first recognizing that an individual’s past history with computers will play a significant role in what they find to be “easy” and what they find to be “challenging.” Or, to formalize this a little, it is all about what Simone de Beauvoir referred to as “situation.”

Bringing this back to the discussion of what sort of content to expect to find on the Internet, if most of the people on the Internet have been brought up with certain tools and data, they are likely to continue to preference those same tools and data as time progresses. Furthermore, if people are constantly bombarded with certain cultural choices constantly, then they are likely to slowly fall into those same choices as time progresses. As the most simple example of this that I myself am guilty of right now, this blog is written in English. (I honestly do apologize to all those out there who speak other languages for forcing you to read this blog in this dreadful language. The fact that it is the only language I happen to speak fluently is not a good excuse either.)

So where does this leave us? Many (perhaps most) of the media channels being used by many people on the Internet are “living” in the USA. These mediums are USA based, were likely predominantly used by Americans in their infancy, and are to this day predominantly controlled by USA interests. As a non-American, I have sometimes found reading the end-user agreements somewhat amusing when they have made reference to American laws, rules, and other regulations which do not apply in the country I reside. There is no “First Amendment” to protect my “Freedom of Speech” in this country, though we do happen to have a “Freedom of Expression” to fall back on. Certainly similar, but not quite the same. And also worth note is that not all countries have such rules.

This all brings us back to the original point. The USA is not the center of the universe. It never has been, nor will it ever be. It is incredibly frustrating for many people (arguably most people in the world) when it is even hinted that such things are true. For me personally, I have to acknowledge a fair bit of prejudice and privilege to the USA as a result of my particular situation, but my situation is not everybody’s situation. I recognize that for someone in China or India, for example, the affairs of the USA may be the furthest thing from significance for them.

One last thing I feel it important to mention in all of this, that I hear being screamed in the back of my head by a familiar audience member: but the USA has “the nukes.” This argument suggests that the reason the Americans hold so much sway and influence over so much of our world is directly related to the fact they happen to have weapons of mass destruction, and arguably more than any other country on this planet. This is an argument of oppression; the USA is somehow justified in oppressing the rest of the world because the rest of the world could be harmed if they do not let the USA do as it pleases. While this may be true (that the USA could deliver great harm upon a great many people if it decided to utilize its weapons of mass destruction), this amounts to bullying. And as even the Americans know very, very well, one of the first strategies of dealing with bullies is to stand up to them.

The (American) Center of the Universe

crimsonLeave a comment

I start with an apology. If you exist in a location where the going-ons in the United States of America (USA) do not significantly influence your day-to-day life, or if you do not even know what is going on in the USA, then what I will be writing about today may be of little interest to you. Furthermore, I am jealous if that is the case. You see, where I live in the world, the things that go on in the USA significantly affect my day-to-day life. To the point that it seems like the USA is the center of the universe. I know it is not actually the center of all things, but for me it seems to be much of the time.

I do not live in the USA; I live in Canada. I grew up in Alberta, to be precise. Anyone who knows the stereotype of Alberta may now believe that I am a redneck, right wing conservative. Of course, if you’ve been reading my blog posts up to this point, you should also realize that this couldn’t be farther from the truth. Perhaps it is because of my upbringing and environment that I rebelled later in life, likely falling much more on the left side of the political spectrum. If you’ve been reading my posts, you will know that I value freedom pretty highly. It is ironic, I suppose, that the USA considers freedom to be particularly important as well.

A lot is going on in the USA presently. Aside from a raging pandemic, there is widespread racism, violence, and an impending presidential election about to happen. Actually, technically, the election has already begun as many have already submitted their early ballots for the election. This, of course, makes all that is going on all the more controversial. However, I will not begin here. I will begin about four years ago, with the previous election, which resulted in Donald Trump placed into the office of the president of the USA.

I remember when it was announced. I was in a university pub, surrounded by philosophy and political science students. If you are not familiar, there is another stereotype related to university students, that they are all liberals. The group of people I found myself surrounded by expressed a strong, sort of liberalism with the announcement. Being all intelligent, critically thinking university students, they could not imagine the travesty that had occurred that resulted in Trump’s success. Something must clearly be wrong in the USA if he got elected as their president.

For the next couple hours, discussions ensued regarding how best to prevent this tragedy from ever occurring again. It culminated in the suggestion that all Americans should be forced to take a political science/elections class in high school, so that they would know how to critically assess potential candidates and would then only elect those actually worthy of office. If it is not clear, the very discussion belays a subtle opinion that the students overlooked: they had already prejudged the situation and decided that Trump was unfit for office.

Now, four years later, I’m sure that many people would suggest that their greatest fears have been affirmed. Trump’s management of the pandemic, alone, raises grave doubts as to his political fitness. The controversy that suggests he knew that COVID-19 was a lethal disease, but chose to play it down in order not to incite panic within the population. And there’s the issue of how he has chosen to deal with the Black Lives Matter movement, recently sparked by the killing of George Floyd by police in May. There are plenty of examples of issues Trump has chosen to deal with in unconventional and controversial ways. However, there is still an issue that seems to have escaped the entire discussion.

I am considered a Canadian. I live in Canada. My life revolves around Canadian affairs in my Canadian environment. So why am I spending so much time paying attention to and worrying about the USA and what goes on there? Is the USA the center of my universe? Should I be doing more to prevent the re-election of Donald Trump as president of the USA? Is there to be a call to arms, or a rally to protest, or some other movement that needs to be raised?

No.

While I can sit here and think about and discuss what is happening in the USA, ultimately that is the limit to what I can do. I can talk. I can listen. I can express my opinions. It is easy for me to criticize events in the USA and suggest that were I their president, I would behave differently. However, I am not an American. I was not elected by the population of the USA into the office of presidency. And, admittedly, I am not very familiar with the American political system, how it works, nor how I might navigate it in order to get elected.

I am not an American. I do not live in the USA. I do not actually know what the majority of people in the USA think about their president, nor why they may have elected him. Yes, there is talk about election fraud, both in the current and previous election. Yes, it is possible Trump has been playing the system in order to keep himself in office much longer than I may believe he deserves. However, this may simply be an example of a man who, unlike me, really does understand the American political system. He certainly has figured out how to milk the American economy for all he could. While these actions may be morally reprehensible, following the morality that I tend to support, this is far from suggesting he weaseled his way into office without the support of the American people.

I am not an American. I have enough trouble dissecting the Canadian political system, trying to understand how it can even be called “democracy” with all the representation going on. But my lack of understanding does not automatically suggest that the Canadian political engine is about to break down and fall apart. Similarly, the American political system may be functioning precisely as it was intended. The American dream seemed to suggest that anyone could make it in that country; all it takes is for one to buckle down and work hard, and they can be successful. Perhaps it is the precise understanding of “buckle down and work hard” that might need to be reexamined, similar to how Darwin’s survival of the fittest does not suggest that the fittest are those who are physically the strongest.

I say today what I said four years ago: the American people will do what they think is best. Four years ago, they elected Donald Trump as their president, regardless of how I or my peers in Canada may have felt about it. Right away, they will make their decision known again. If there is a problem with election fraud, as Trump himself is suggesting, then those same American people will react as they feel is appropriate. There could possibly be a bloody civil war or other large rebellion, if it turns out that Trump does not have significant support by the American people. Or, it may simply turn out that Americans really do want a guy like Donald Trump as their president. Who are we, as non-Americans, to criticize the democratic choices of the American citizens?