RSS

Fri, Feb 13th 2009, 13:55

Lior Petek, University of St. Gallen, Platinum Contributor (216)

Mr. Mishra employs seriously ideological and superficial reasoning.

It is ideological, because he claims to be the only one who is able to perceive the truth and moral behavior, respectively, while the majorities in the Western democracies cannot. Because of that he does not deem it necessary to explain why he thinks that certain actions by Western democracies constitute “atrocities” and by the same token why the populations of those democracies are accused of “thoughtlessness and apathy”. As famed civil rights advocate Alan Dershowitz has rightly said, what differentiates a democracy from a dictatorship it that its policies always come with a “because”, meaning the actions taken always have to be justified in the eyes of the population. So I understand why Mr. Mishra does not like Western democracies as the populations there ask for a “because” that Mr. Mishra is not willing or able to give.

It is superficial, because the context of actions taken by Western democracies is mysteriously missing or at least very insuffienctly elaborated upon. It seems that he is implicitly arguing against the theory of international relations called republican liberalism with its notion of democratic peace. However, he forgets that the theory of democratic peace states that no two democracies go to war against each other, not that they do not go to war at all. So it is telling that all of Mr. Mishra’s examples against which Western democracies apparently commit “atrocities” by the simple fact of being in a defensive war with them are either Muslim dictatorships like Iraq and Pakistan or terrorist organizations ruling their territory in a totalitarian manner like Hamas.

To conclude, maybe Mr. Mishra should be reminded of the fact that the core value of a democracy is debating (what the best policies are). If he wants to convince us democratic people that his opinion is superior, he ought to state his arguments so that we can engage in a debate.

Mon, Oct 12th 2009, 13:03

Member deleted

There are two phrases in Mr. Mishra's article that catches one's interest. First - the usage of the term "the banality of evil". Second - "corrupted democracies". The suspicion that the "bananlity of evil" upkeeps and encourages the sustainance of "corrupted democracies" does not do away with the argument that democracies encourage peace ( a nice book by Bruce Russet exists upon this topic).

The difference between this nexus (of the "banality of evil" and "corrupted democracies") and democracies as envisioned by authors like Bruce Russet merely point at the ideals that encourage democracies as well as the quantitative markers that are employed to comprehend the functioning of democracies. Usually, they are considered to be robust in most places.

Mr. Mishra's article points to the lacunae within the quantitative markers since they hide the obverse that a qualitative marker shows. The Foreign Policy magazine has come up with a study and classification of states (liberal democractic - Human Rights respecting ones) with the marker of the degree of the failures of states (with the least scorer as a failed state becoming the most desirable one). States that score least in the Foreign Policy marker would and do encourage peace - since their emphasis upon the qualitative aspects are understandably the highest including the nature of socialization of its populace.

This aspect of the socialization of populaces do indicate and ascertain the level of affliction within it - of this "banality of evil". The nexus of the "banality of evil" and "corrupted democracies" can merely serve as an exercise of the "banality of evil". Having acknowledged Mr. Mishra's concerns, one would need to discount the argument that democracies advocate war. The nexus of this "banality of evil" and "corrupted democracies" would and do. Who falls (or would fall) where is something that needs to be looked into and explored.