Democracy is not merely the “power of, by, and for the people.” It is not enough just to claim that, in democracy, the will and the interests (the two in no way automatically coincide) of the large majority determine state decisions. Democracy—in the way the term is used today—concerns, above all, formal legalism. Its minimal definition is the unconditional adherence… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (7)Page 1 of 1 pagesDemocracy “Its minimal definition is the unconditional adherence to a certain set of formal rules which guarantee that antagonisms are fully absorbed into the “rules of the game.””
Who, besides you, has established this definition? How have you arrived at this definition and can you support it?
Posted by Nus on May 21, 2003 at 10:47 AM predictably, the first comment is concerned with establishing definitions, rules of the game, respect for the procedure… precisely the things that zizek was talking about in respect to the amerikan formal legalism, or today’s democracy.
perhaps other amerikan readers will concede a few flaws, but also point to the greatness of checks and balances, the long tradition of civil liberties, all the while passionately condemning mr bush (son of a bad man) and eagerly awaiting the next election to vote against him.
other liberal-minded readers still may even recognize that mr bush is not the problem, and that the next elections cannot undo what amerika has unleashed on its continent and across much of the world.
yet that assumes that the amerikan liberals would actually desire to undo the exploitative power system of which they are an integral part. it is far more likely that they would rather “move on”.org and “win without war.” in that modest goal, they have the overwhelming odds of success. good luck fellas
Posted by bojinka on May 21, 2003 at 11:29 AM “the first comment is concerned with establishing definitions”
Actually the story opens by alleging this definition.
You do realize that one cannot converse with anyone other than oneself without established definitions of terms?
Do you mean anything in particular by “liberal-minded” or does that terms apply to Bush? Is that because you have defined the term to your satisfaction? Would you deny me the same?
Established spelling works best too. Did you know that you misspelled America?
Posted by Nus on May 22, 2003 at 12:54 PM thank you for taking one more step toward what is really the most crucial discussion in these times. Even at the time of Ameica’s establishment it was recognised that a majority could constitute a tyranny just the same as a monarchy or an oligarchy could. That is the background of our constitution and it is the reason that the constitution is the most important element of our governmental structure. In my lifetime I have seen the constitution scorned and eroded by every type of politician and official in the system. The guarantee of due process has been turned in to a mockery of itself and life liberty and the pursuit of happiness have lost all meaning. Religious freedom tramples all over the concept of not establishing a state religion. Very small minorities have been responsible for atrocities like the war on drugs, the war on guns and the war on immigration not to mention the wars on other people all over the world based on their political and business preferences. I personally wish that the focus would switch from establishing democracies to researching more foolproof constitutional values that would get the governments of the world out of our homes and keep them away from our thoughts. I believe that I heard that the European union has now taken up just this line of research. Strange that it would come at a time that the new world order folks are criticizing them for being old fashioned.
Posted by lars on May 27, 2003 at 4:45 PM Today, I ran across Zakaria’s prominently placed, brisk selling book “Illiberal Democracy” at the bookstore. I was intrigued with all the praise from people as diverse as Henry Kissinger and Peter Jennings. A brief glimpse at its contents was enough to disgust me! Zacaria cloaks his utterly reactionary preference for an authoritarian, corporatist technocracy in the thesis that such elite-enforced discipline is essential to making democracy possible. A truly Orwellian idea if there ever were one, on par with the notions that “War is Peace” and “Freedom is Slavery.”
On another note, I saw that his critique of American religion was absurdly vague and sweeping in its assessment of a very complex reality of which I doubt he has much direct knowledge. While his clear dislike for Christian fundamentalism may superficially mimic the substantial critiques of it and other facets of right wing populism that have been offered by political left, it differs in that Zacaria clearly is full of profound contempt for popular movements per se.
I am deeply grateful to know that Zizek shares my revulsion to this “intellectual"--who perfectly fits Chomsky’s description of a statist reactionary, all the while he attempts to position himself at the political center.
Posted by Mike on May 31, 2003 at 11:35 AM Democracy is still a power over those who do not understand it.
I a cop hit you in the head and nobody tells you he should not do that, then democracy is no use to you.
America has great individuals as all countries do, but the US pushes national feelings to far without asking question, so they get no answers or if they get answers, well ask the French & Germans what happens.
Land of the free home of the brave, what about an apology to the orgional Americans and the Africans shipped in.
This step desperated needed before talks of democracy in the US will stick with me and more importantly, it would the soul some good.
Posted by alexander on May 31, 2003 at 6:35 PM “Land of the free home of the brave, what about an apology to the orgional Americans and the Africans shipped in.”
How many apologies do you want?
You do realize that not only the US government but many individual citizens have made apology to both Amerinds and Afriamers.
You got your apology. It apparently meant nothing to you. Why then, do you want another one?
Posted by Nus on Jun 3, 2003 at 1:42 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- The Audacity of Rhetoric
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism? - China’s Valley of Tears
Is authoritarian capitalism the future? - The Disturbing Sounds of the Turkish March
The true problem with "militaristic humanism" resides not in "militaristic," but in "humanism," in the way a military intervention is presented as humanitarian aid - The Dreams of Others
By tying the drama to a mere personal whim, The Lives of Others fails to capture the true horror of the GDR - In You More Than Yourself
The revolutionary potential of the Internet is far from self-evident
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2003 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
