Modern
democracy
A.
Voin
08/13/2010
A
well-known phrase attributed to Churchill, reads something like this:
"Democracy - a bad system, but better not come up." That's true, but
the question is what exactly bad with democracy, how we
can improve or at least do not deteriorate democracy, and all this in the
context of contemporary rapidly changing reality.
First of all, let me remind some truths are
well known, but I need for further analysis. By definition and in a direct
translation from Greek democracy is the power of the people. This immediately
implies that the quality of democracy depends on,
so to speak, the quality of the people. Democracy to be quality, you need
people to be conscious and civic engagement. Conscious
here means that one
takes care not only about personal benefit, but for the good of society as a
whole, as well, and perhaps above all, that means understanding by each one
what is good and what is bad for society.
Next, note that
"people power" - this is some idealized, in practice implemented in a
greater or lesser extent depending on many circumstances. The first of them is the
aforementioned "quality of people". To sway in fact is not easy, but not all want to be strained. And, if the majority
in society does not want to impose the burden of government, even if outwardly
democratic form of government is established, to speak about the
power of the people have not sense.
No less important, as I said, is understanding by the majority of processes running in a
society where they are and where to go. Finally, the important role played by
form of organization of power. It is best to provide people the real power of
the so-called direct democracy, which existed in the cities - the republics
from Athens and ending with the Great Novgorod, where decisions on major issues
was carried out by assembly of all the people in
the central square (agora in Athens, Veche in Novgorod). But even then there
were, to put it in a modern, political strategists, who managed to manipulate
the general meeting. In modern countries with many cities and extremely
overgrown population, direct democracy is impossible and there is a so-called
representative democracy where the people presenting the real power of their
elected representatives (and those that share power with appointed officials).
For the people directly is a controlling function, which he sells every few
years in the elections, when he may refuse to trust first selected and elect
new ones. It is clear that in this case, even if the people realize their monitoring function effectively, the
real power in their hands less than the
elected representatives and appointed officials.
Now consider what happens to
democracy as a result of the tumultuous changes that occur in all spheres of
modern humanity. Changing these - very much, they are swift and dramatic
(potentially, at least) and their description and analysis can be devoted many
volumes (and devoted). I will confine myself to those that are relevant to the
functioning of democracy.
The main one is associated with
scientific and technical progress the exponential growth of information, which complicate, not to say makes it impossible,
understanding what is happening not only by the masses but by the elites, including the very scientific
elite that this rapid growth and provides. The total amount of knowledge
acquired by science which becomes increasingly not embraced not only for ordinary citizens, but for
scientists themselves, resulting in a widening gap between the theoretical
baggage of people with secondary and even tertiary education and the front edge
of science. On the other hand specialize themselves
scientists is becoming narrower. As a result, discussion of critical issues for
society, not only in endless interactive broadcasts on radio and television,
creating the illusion of popular participation in governance, but the discussion
in the corridors of power, with the participation of scientists consultants,
develops usually in conversation with the deaf blind, in the profanation. It is clear to any
quality of governance this leads.
I understand that, taking in account the endless flattery all populists to people, this my statement sounds shocking
not only for the academic elite, and in general all kinds of power, but for the
masses. Especially for many participants interactive programs, with stunning
aplomb resolved in a nutshell (more than two words the transfer format does not
allow - the leading abort) any problems: "We should do like them," “You can not do anything, they have ", "You should prohibit all
", " We must all resolve”, "We must all arrest", “We must all let go", "We have to disband the
current government (no matter what), and does
not matter what will be after that", etc. So, first of all, I will try
to explain this my statement and illustrate it with examples.
In the ideal the task of management of society is to care about the
economy and culture of this society. Any policy, internal and external is a
function of this care. In this sense, nothing has changed since Athens, and
even earlier. But the content itself "care", as well as the content
of the economy and culture have changed tremendously since then. Dwell on the
economy.
Economy of Athens rested on independent
farmers - farmers, leading practically
self-sufficient farming. Their needs in the state and the power was almost
exclusively in defense against an external enemy (combined with the opportunity
through this external enemy, or just a neighbor, to receive profit). To meet the needs of this, state maintain an army of those same
farmers and they also paid a tax on its
content.
Thus, simplifying, we can say that all the governance reduces to the questions: how to take tax from the peasants on the state apparatus and army, and start
or not start a war with a particular neighbor. There was no industry, which
would produce a tractor and binder, the fuel for these tractors and
fertilizers, without which it would be impossible to provide population with
food. There was not a sophisticated
financial system, with banks, stock markets, insurance, forex and God knows
what, without which it can not operate a modern industry. It was
not complicated international, in particular, financial relations with the IMF,
with multinational companies, the diversion of capital into offshore accounts,
with the rate of national currency against the dollar, which is somewhere
beyond the ends of the earth may fall for reasons unknown and seemingly not
pertaining thereto economics of modern Greece or Ukraine, there may collapse.
Therefore, although in the agora in Athens or in the assembly of Novgorod there
were parties, the speakers for these or other taxes, for the war or against it,
and was Black PR ("This politician wants war, because conjugal infidelity of his wife",
etc.), but at least people understand the essence of discussion. But today, as
shown by the global financial crisis, not only people but also government and
relevant scientists do not understand that.
Here offended entrepreneurs and just the
shareholders, which are the majority (or
near-majority) in developed countries, may argue that they understand the
economy because they are aware of exchange rates and stock quotes, and through that they have increase in their wages. To this
I answer that, of course, compared to Athens or Novgorod peasant, the average
citizen in modern developed countries knows a lot of things, about which they have never
heared, as nothing like that had not existed than. But if we talk about the relationship
between his knowledge and that is required for a citizen of a modern democratic state,
he knows far less than the ancient Athenians, or Novgorod. At best, the modern
shareholder understands microeconomics, ie, more or less guidance on where to
invest savings in prosperous times. But he does not understand macroeconomics
and therefore do not know when the crisis occurred and all of his success so
far invested savings turn to ashes. He does not understand what in the long
term is this or that economic strategy of his government (and those who create
the strategy and explain to people that also do not understand, otherwise there
would not be a global crisis,
defaults on national economies, etc.) and therefore can not consciously choose
the power. Therefore, it is easy to the demagogues and
populists to manipulate people.
But
confusion is not limited to mere economics. The modern economy has become such
as it is thanks to scientific and technological progress and without it not
only can continue to develop successfully, it can not even maintain its current
level. That's not to mention the fact that population growth of the world
requires and economic growth to feed this population. But long ago it became
clear that science and technology, creating new wealth, creates new problems.
And these problems are more complex than the economy for understanding not only
the masses but also by scientists themselves. The fact is that rational science, by its very nature, goes from peculiar to general. In this way it is much easier
to find a practical application of its theories than to
assess long-term consequences of such use. In order to build an combustion
engine, humanity needed to develop the theoretical mechanics, theory of heat and may be a couple else theories. But in order to assess the
impact of mass burning of fuel in these engines, it is not enough an enormous amount of theoretical
knowledge accumulated since then. As a result, not only ordinary people do not
know whether climate change is a result of atmospheric pollution by exhaust
gases or as a result of processes on the Sun, but scientists can not agree
among themselves on this occasion. For the same reason it is easier to deal
with the micro than the macro-economy, which is the result of the practical
application of microeconomic theory. The situation is similar to the peaceful
use of nuclear energy (not to mention the military), GMOs, cloning, etc. In
order to understand, say, in regard to the consequences of the massive use of
GMOs, it is necessary, first, get on the cutting edge of modern genetics and a number of related
disciplines that are inaccessible to the average citizen with not only a secondary or even tertiary
education, but to the average
scientist not busy specially in genetics. And secondly, knowledge of
genetics scientist for this also is not enough. To
create a new GMO scientist genetics enough of his special knowledge. But in
order to assess the long-term effects of mass use of GMOs, this knowledge is
not enough, because the required knowledge to a much wider area, and our scientist, as I said, as a rule, is a narrow specialist. Moreover, in order to
assess these effects, such knowledge is required that modern science, in general,
does not yet possess. Therefore, all claims of geneticists like: "Guys, do not worry,
each new type of GMFs
before they run it in production, is thoroughly tested and we guarantee their
safety" or "We are
long time ating at genetically modified food
as a result of mutations in the process of natural evolution, and nothing
happened. " These declarations
not worth a damn.
For
example, we will believe a word of the geneticists about integrity of GMFs checking. But let us
imagine that after the invention of the combustion engine, scientists were also
obsessed with the desire to test it for safety. But
is it with all sincerity of their desire they might then have thought check the
effect of exhaust gases to climate change on a planetary scale, in a situation
where cars (and thermal power plants) will be much like today? And
even if they had come to this thought,
whether they would able
to check it, if even today we still can not understand what is real reason of the climate
change?
As for the fact that genetic changes
occurred and are occurring in the process of natural evolution, and nothing happened, we
are alive, let us remember
that from the stability theory is well known that where
small perturbations do not violate the stability of the system, there are more
can not only disturb her, but to destroy system. The
evolutionary mutations - these are small perturbations, and what we do with
genetically modified organisms
- it is huge compared to the natural disturbance of the
system and therefore the comparison of geneticists does not hold. To complete the
picture I will bring a couple
of specific examples.
As part of an international program
implemented ICSU (International Council for Science), which involves a lot of
research organizations from around the world, was asked to Ukrainian Institute
for System Analysis, headed by academician Zgurovskiy, develop the concept of
stable development. (In expanded form it is called "Global modeling of
stable development in the context of the quality of safety of life). Stable
development of society is reflected in this model 3-dimensional vector with
components: economics, ecology and social development. Stability is the
greater, the more this vector. Reporting to the model, Zgurovskiy outlined the
following information, based on solid factual material. As technological
development of mankind frequency of interstate, ethnic, etc. conflicts and
their destructive power is increasing. This conclusion can be drawn and not through processing a lot of information with help of systems analysis on a computer. With the
help of clubs is impossible to destroy so many people, as with the help of the atomic bomb. And here
arises a question. Economic growth, which is one of the components of the
vector of sustainable development is closely linked to technological growth. It
turns out that in developing the technology, we are increasing the
sustainability of development (on the model) and simultaneously increases the
frequency and destructive power of conflicts. So, increase in
frequency and strength of conflict it is sustainability? So why is it we need
this?
Added to this is that the model Zgurovsky
purely static, it is not considered changing the system over time. For any
scientist it is obvious that it is
impossible to investigate the stability of the process, without considering the
process in time. But Zgurovskiy - narrow system analyst, such narrow that even in our time of narrow
specialists in the science his failure to understand simple things like that
seems improbable. Even more incredibly, that the development of this model were employed dozens of people and none
of them occurred to understand that this concept
will not work. Finally, reports on the development of the concept of
periodically expelled to ICSU and, judging by the continued funding of the
program, it is favored. Now imagine that government of some country would adopt
this concept. To which the stability it would have led their country? And what
benefit would also be on democracy? Can people today actually take part in
choosing the correct path for the country in this context? The people in such
cases, spreads his hands and says: "there is no arguing against science".
Another example, well illustrates
the situation, a story with the plan of the former Ukrainian President Viktor
Yushchenko to build in Ukraine on 30 not some 50 nuclear power plants to sell
electricity to Europe. It would seem that after the Chernobyl disaster is to
turn Ukraine into a world leader in nuclear power - the idea of a
phantasmagoric. Yushchenko, nevertheless
how we gauge him, could not on his own initiative to
make such a plan, not relying on the opinions of reputable in his eyes
scientists. This authority for
Yushchenko became atomist physicist Academician Bar'yakhtar, which in addition
to the impact on Yushchenko, promoted this idea, so to speak, among the masses.
In his public speeches and in print, he argued that nuclear energy should be
developed, despite the fact that there was already
Chernobyl. Remarkable, he did not deny that
the danger of man-made disaster grows in direct proportion to the amount of
energy derived from a unit mass (say, a kilogram of matter). Therefore, the
risk of explosion at a nuclear power plant in the thousands or millions of
times greater than the risk of an explosion in the heat one. Arises naturally in this issue, why take
such risks or how to reduce them, Bar'yakhtar allow by such construction:
Explosion
Chernobyl occurred because the engineers and physicists worked at this plant
were not professional enough and morally, as they were not prepared to KPI or any university
in the capital. But all will be well if the training of
such specialists will be transferred to the KPI, together with the
appropriate addition of salaries to teachers.
Stunning
simplicity of his proposed solution to the problem just smells bad. But its
implementation in such a "simple" form can turn into a tragedy far
greater than the national scale.
By the way, on the basis of what
kind of moral theory is academician Bar’yahtar going to raise morality graduates KPI (even one faculty)
thousands of times? On the basis of Marxism, which was taught (and now teach)
students KPI as just such a theory, and those who did experiments at Chernobyl
in violation of the rules before the explosion were "armed" with it?
Based on the ideas of nationalism (national excellence), old as the world with
its sins? On the basis of Christianity, with its thousands of denominations,
each one with own treating of doctrine, and behind which the religious
wars, the Inquisition, Domostroy, etc.? Or, on
the basis of ideas of the sexual revolution, under the influence of which in
Ukraine, like mushrooms after rain, multiplying casinos and brothels stripbary
all degrees of obscure?
Of course, Ukraine - is not the whole
world and we can assume that in advanced countries, the debate about nuclear
power is a more serious level. But, first, the Chernobyl-type catastrophe cover
the whole of mankind, irrespective of the country in which they occur. Secondly, what is, in fact, the situation in
advanced countries different from the Ukrainian? Well,
there is no such glaring contrast, are not taken immediately after the
Chernobyl build 50 new nuclear power plants. But real understanding of the problem, as well as real its discussion, there is no there. There is simply a kind of moderation, a greater caution. This is evident from what is
happening. Well, scared after the Chernobyl
disaster, and some time not to build new stations. And to the extent
that, as Chernobyl thing of the past, the fear is forgotten and little by
little, but more and more begin to build. That's the whole depth of
understanding and discussion. However, recently in the
world begins to dawn the understanding that for solutions to global problems it is not enough to attract scientists specialized in one field of science and we hear a lot of talk about the need for
interdisciplinary research, the need to develop mutual understanding among
representatives of various scientific disciplines, finding a common language
for all. And there are many interdisciplinary seminars, conducted many interdisciplinary forums, conferences,
etc. But what is this abundant interdisciplinary activity, can be seen from the
above example with the concept of sustainable development. The creator of the
concept Zgurovskiy is also head of the
permanent interdisciplinary seminar in the same KPI and he is also the chief
adept of idea that a common
language for scientists from different disciplines provides a system analysis,
a specialist in which he just is. How the system analysis help
him in formulating of the "Concept of Stable Development", shown above.
Likewise, his interdisciplinary seminar does
not helped him to understand that it is impossible to talk about stability, not considering development of process over time.
In light of the foregoing try again to
cover the whole situation and formulate more precisely the problem facing
mankind in this context. The rapid and accelerating all the scientific and
technical progress and rational nature of science, which consists in the fact
that it is easier to come up with practical application of theories, than to
provide long-term consequences of this application, resulted, firstly, in the
terrible rapidly changing reality in which we live (including ourselves). This
very rapid change creates a variety of global problems, to recapitulate that
does not make sense (there
are many talking and writing about
them), as well as exacerbating old ones, such as ethnic and other
conflicts. All this creates high volatility of what is happening on the planet,
threatening the very existence of mankind. Secondly, it led to the fact that we
have ceased to navigate all of these changes, we no longer understand where we
go, where we need to go and what will happen
to us tomorrow. And "we" here - is not only the common people and not
just rulers, leading him, but also scientists, who by rank, must understand. The consequence of this
misunderstanding is the loss of democracy, its effectiveness and advantages
over other forms of power. This leads to an increase in the popularity of the
idea of a return to totalitarianism in any of his form: the Soviet, Nazi, even
monarchist. Especially popular is this idea in Russia, but also in Western
Europe the growth of neo-fascism is not neglected. This is else one factor of instability in the world. The growing chaos in the world manifests itself not only in economic crises,
persistent armed conflicts, widespread terror, etc., but also in spreading the
primitive, akin to the medieval, superstitions, apocalyptic mood (the media and
the Internet filled with messages that on the earth flies asteroid,
which will destroy it, that it is expected polarity
of the magnetic poles of the earth, which will
leed to a total disaster, it is expected collision of plates in the
earth's crust in Iceland, which will create
a wave
a la deluge, tomorrow will start nuclear war between America and China, etc.
etc.) and in complete apathy and indifference to what is happening. And these
sentiments, in turn, increasing instability of the situation.
To this we must add what I have described in the article "The
global crisis of humanity and scientific and technical progress", distortion of values of Western society
and mankind as a result of technological progress. When the lack of understanding and apathy combins with lack of
spirituality
and immorality of society, including
its political and scientific elite, and this is when Humanity continues to increase its transformative
(and destructive) power, the situation becomes
practically
hopeless. Take for example the same nuclear power and GMOs. Government
decision-makers in these areas, or people, these decisions are ostensibly
discussing, in these matters simply are not competent. Scientific experts, who
had chambers in these areas are divided into two categories. Some do not
realize that they can not guarantee the safety of nuclear power plants or using of GMOs, and with great aplomb convince the
government and people to receive wrong and dangerous
decisions. Others understand it, but they do not care about long-term
consequences for humanity, they are only interested in their personal career
now. And they are even more than the first self-confidence and zeal to convince the government and people to the
same bad decisions, because it will help their career and material well-being, will increase funding for relevant
scientific fields. And people who are not able to understand all this, or pop
their ears, or bad-mouth the authorities and scientists, including those few
who genuinely cares about common welfare and is
capable of something to understand and explain it to them.
So what in this situation can still be done? First
of all, you need to make possible the foreseeable picture of modern science,
the foreseeable for scientists themselves, for the rulers and the people. Part
of this problem is to find a common language between representatives of different disciplines, to find clear
criteria for separating science from pseudo-science, which today, almost like at the Middle Ages, takes the mind of the
ordinary and not ordinary people, exacerbating an already great chaos in our
minds. Also it is to find criteria for
separating the theory from the hypothesis (today scientists offen assert us that the science, the theory has proved
so-and-so, the safety of nuclear power, GMOs, Hadron Collider, etc., whereas
the theory which is referred to is not a theory, but not proven the hypothesis), to find a way to
determine the applicability limits of the proven theories. It is also important
to distribute it all in the humanitarian sphere, in which thousands of
denominations of one religion (and only one God and the truth is common),
hundreds of schools of philosophy and dozens of directions in psychology and
psychoanalysis, and between them there is no common language (as opposed to the
natural sciences, where at least some common ground still exists). Today scientific criteria in the
humanitarian field are publications in a respectable scientific journals, which each school has its
own and therefore what
is science for
one
school, is not
science for another. But criteria for the same respectable journal in the decision to publish or
not publish is
a number of references to already published work. In this approach,
the most outstanding humanitarians, particularly
philosophers, to be considered
ungifted, because they just links to other little, if any (Nietzsche,
Freud, etc.), as new, still does not recognized such philosphers, not to publish and not
to recognize . And imitators,
endlessly, but useless citing the great and not great predecessors become respectable, published etc. According to the single
method of
substantiation of scientific theories (of which more below) a
new fundamental theory can not be built on axioms and the concepts of previous one,
and therefore, such
theory does not require references to the predecessors to present the theory
itself. (It can do this only to explain why the old
theory is not suitable).
The absence of a common language and scientific
criteria (validity) in the humanitarian field can not hope to end the conflict between
supporters of different religions, denominations, secular ideologies
and systems of morality and values.
But can all this be done? I contend that
it is possible. Representatives of
natural
science have still a common
language and sooner or later the world community in this field takes a certain hypothesis
as a theory, and the rest discarded. Hence, there is a method by which they do
it. This method actually produced by natural science in
the process of its development. However, until now this method was not
presented explicitly and worked at the stereotype of natural scientific
thinking. (The latter is exactly led today to a significant
weakening of mutual understanding between scientists and to
erosion of borders in the area between science and pseudoscience,
between theory and hypothesis, etc.). But if this method is in principle
exists, then it is possible to identify it, describe, report
explicitly. That's what I did in my work on a general method of substantiation of scientific theories (Philosophical
Investigations, ¹ 3, 2000; ¹ 1, 2001; ¹ 2, 2002, and a number of articles on
the Internet: www.philprob.narod.ru, etc.), based within my epistemology
("Íåîðàöèîíàëèçì", Kiev, 1992,
Part 1). This method provides a common language to natural science scholars: the hypothesis,
which eventually gets support from the “general method” becomes a proven
and recognized by the world community of scientists in the relevant field of
science theory. This method also gives scientific criteria allowing to separate science from pseudoscience,
clarifies the meaning of the truth of scientific theory and allows to determine
the minimum limits of its applicability before we encounter the so-called
refuting experiment. (In the case of hadron Collaider and others like him a refuting experiment could end by the destruction of humanity).
This method allows you to do much more comprehensible modern scientific world view. Primarily it can be done for scientists themselves, but if you
enter it into the education system (and it can start to express even in school
and in universities can be given in increasing volume), then for the wider
masses. Let me explain why and how it can. One of the pillars of a “general method of substantiation" is axiomatic building theories. It is known even from a school course of Euclidean
geometry, that the system of axioms defines all derived from it in the future
of the theorem, the conclusions, including those that have not yet been
written. Thus, examining out the system of
axioms, you get (with the appropriate skills) view of all the theory. That allows you to
quickly enter into any new area of knowledge. Enter, of course, not at a level
that will permit you to work in it
professionally, but at a level sufficient to specialists, scientists could not
hang you noodles on the brain, such as discussed above in the examples. And
this is what is necessary for normal functioning of democracy, to demagogues can not easy manipulate the people. Of course, each reader literate in
science has long been itching language to say that not all scientific theories,
even in physics, presented in an axiomatic form. To this I will explaine that a person, owning a general method of substantiation, can relatively easily distinguish the
axiomatic basis in not axiomatic
theory. Of course, he can not do it on a strict
level (otherwise all still not axiomatic
theory long ago would have already been converted into axiomatic). But he can do it on the level sufficient to understand what in principle can be proved in the
framework of this theory, and what this theory has
no right to claim.
I also showed the possibility of using
this method with appropriate adaptation in the humanitarian sphere. And showed it in investigation of
the Bible ("Îò Ìîèñåÿ äî ïîñòìîäåðíèçìà. Äâèæåíèå èäåè",
Kiev, 1999), Marxism ("Ïîáðèòèå áîðîäû Êàðëà Ìàðêñà èëè íàó÷åí ëè íàó÷íûé êîììóíèçì", Kiev, 1997),
modern bioethics ("Bioethics or optimal Ethics”, the Internet), etc.
Finally, I showed that no system analysis
nor
synergetics,
let alone the dialectic, claiming to be the common language between scientists
from different disciplines, with all due respect for their achievements, can
not play this role and only the general method
of substantiation of scientific theories can do it. ("Ñèñòåìíûé
àíàëèç", «Ñèíåðãåòèêà è åäèíûé ìåòîä îáîñíîâàíèÿ», «Äèàëåêòèêà»- articles on the
internet).