Political Functionalism
philosophised at 11:59 PM
Like it or not, immigration will continue, and the demographic of every country on earth will change. Any attempt to stop the flow of labour will inevitably fail, just like the isolationist and protectionists' attempts against global trade. The ease of information transfer also broke down the boundaries between countries, and more and more people become not merely connected, but hyper-connected. Globalization is unavoidable, not just on the economic side of things but also demographically and ideologically. Societies will become more and more pluralistic in terms of culture and ideology.
There is a contradiction in cultural pluralism and democracy (or specifically, liberal democracy). As capitalism has shown, people are motivated primarily by self-interest, and it's wishful thinking to believe otherwise. People can occasionally be nice and giving, as in how people donate to charity so readily for the greater good, but there's a reason why our economies aren't run like charities - people are self-interested.
And democracy feeds on the differences of the population. The theory goes as follow: people have different viewpoints, and democracy ensures that people are able to voice their viewpoints, discuss openly and ultimately come to a middle ground.
And here the contradiction arises. Democracy proposes that people will naturally gravitate towards a compromise. However, if people are ultimately motivated by self-interest, the differing viewpoints will naturally diverge from one another, seeking to tilt the balance towards themselves. As the number of differing viewpoints increases, a common ground may be harder and harder to find - and the society may not wait around for the political equilibrium to establish itself.
In a laissez faire economy, consumers are said to be able to vote with money, signalling to the market which goods to produce more and which goods to produce less. This political analogy can perhaps be turned in on itself when talking about democracy. A completely liberal political system faces the same problem as a completely unregulated free market - market failure. Self-motivated consumerism will neglect the external costs to the society and environment. A completely unregulated tobacco industry will result in a major abuse in tobacco, where people only consider their own costs and benefits before buying a cigarette. Public interests are generally not taken into account when making purchase decisions. Yes, there are people who spared a thought for others, excusing themselves to have a puff elsewhere, but you can not run an economy based on the goodwill of people. You need regulations.
The same can be said of the political system, especially as societies become more heterogenous and globalized. The political 'market failures' are all too evident today in many democracies - the poor and the minority being excluded and marginalized, too much political capital going towards maintaining the 'too
The caveat here is not to veer towards fascism and totalitarianism, just like how a command economy may be indeed more disastrous than a completely free one. A balance needs to be struck, freedoms need to be traded off, both among themselves and against other goals like stability.
I argue for what I call 'political functionalism' (It may go by other names but I'm not able to find the correct label for such a view). I believe that a political system should be a practical solution to problems we face in society. We change our political institutions to best adapt to the changing circumstances.
Realise that political functionalism and democracy are not mutually exclusive - if a culture or a society demands for a democratic state, then by all means create one. Eventually, all states may very well become democratic, not because democracy is the true utopian ideal, but rather it's the system that functions the best. Similarly, if the situation calls for a more paternalistic government, then we should not feel the repugnance to create one.
The current Western-style democracy is the complete opposite of my idea of a perfect system - it is committed with a lofty ideal, and then indiscriminately try to impose the system on whatever society it comes across, regardless of their circumstances. It is uncompromising and rigid on various fronts, especially regarding the enshrined values of individual freedoms that are virtually inviolable, no matter what the situation is. Realistically, it is a monistic system that tolerates no other values or the possibility of any compromise, and I henceforth question: can such a system that declares itself the 'End of History' truly withstand the test of time?
