To answer simply, no, I would not like to live in a society without elections. Elections, at least in the United States, allow us to voice our opinions about the people we choose to make decisions about our well-being. Come each year, those who care about the welfare of their state and those who are of legal voting age come together to choose who will represent their interests. This system provides a balance. Though many think the American voting system contains its flaws, I think our long established voting system provides a balance to our society.
Consider some countries voting system lies in shambles or is newly implemented. One of the most significant new systems that come to mind is that of Iraq’s. According to an article published by the Washington Post in March,
“After the ballots are counted, voters will have provided the first conclusive evidence of what kind of democracy is likely to take root in the heart of the Middle East -- if one does at all. Beyond selecting candidates, Iraqis on Sunday will indicate whether they favor religious candidates more than secular ones and authoritarian-minded rulers over those committed to the principles of traditional democracies.”
Considering the rocky history that Iraq has endured over the past decade, mainly focusing on the horrors of the American invasion, Iraq endures a precarious voting situation. Reports from within Iraq on Election Day showed a nation still steeped with violence. This violence seemed to reflect the mood of the nation. However, the elections have also managed to bring a level of stability to the fractured nation. Women have found a new role as election supervisors and vote counters. The Iraqi nation seems to have come together with the common bond to vote. While I personally believe a democratic republic continues to be an efficient way to organize a government and provide order to it’s citizens, I do not believe it is the right system for each culture. In Iraq’s case, I think the damage has been irreparable and there is no choice but to continue towards a democratic state. This includes the presence of elections. The elections in March gave a glimpse as to the direction in which Iraq is headed.
In the United States, the existing voting system is undoubtedly flawed. A major flaw remains in the fact that we ignore those voices that have the most to say. Polling stations are located in places that are inconvenient or inaccessible by public transportation, thus making voting unattractive to those who may not be able to drive themselves to vote. Another major flaw is that voting occurs during a business day. Considering the lessons I learned in Lisa Dodson’s The Moral Underground, this fact means that all people who barely make enough to survive on will not have the time or the resources to take off work to vote. Yes, it takes more money and more resources to add polling locations, and yes, it may mean more commitment from the American public to include the votes of those people who’s votes may have not been received at first. However, voting provides a voice to many who may not have one otherwise. If America continues to ignore the voices of those who matter the most, we have failed our mission as a free, democratic republic.
In summation, a voting system is necessary for the survival of our nation. I couldn’t imagine living in a nation that prohibited it’s citizens from speaking out against those who are representative of their own ideas and opinions. Voting may not be the right system for every culture, but those that have adapted it or are in the process of adapting it acknowledge the fact that it provides a balance in society, no matter how flawed it may be.
Andrew:
ReplyDeleteI find myself nodding my head when I consider the example of the election process in Iraq as a juxtaposition to the stability of the United States election system. In my blog post on this issue, I cited consistency and potential as the main advantages of an efficient election system.
I am interested in your insights on the subjective effectiveness of democracy in different cultures. Could you give an example of a culture you would consider irreconcilable with a democratic political system?
Aubrey--I really appreciate your positive comments. After some deep thought, I really think that a society that could be irreconcilable with a democratic political system could include Afghanistan.
ReplyDeleteThough the stories in Khaled Hosseini's "A Thousand Splendid Suns" are fictional, the web that he weaves around the true political events paint a vivid portrait of post-Soviet Afghanistan. In my opinion, Afghanistan continues to remain fragmented by the problems described by Hosseini. The ethnic divisions between the Pashtuns, the Hazaras, the Tajiks and the many others continue to split the minds of ethic Afghanis. The problems marring Afghanistan today derive from the culture. Is it possible to unite a nation by trying to inject a new culture?
I feel that one of the most significant things that American's leave out when considering that their system of government ideal for other nations is cultural relativism. As we mentioned in class today, culture is evolutionary. How can a nation, which has existed for 234 (give or take) years be expected to inject it's government into a region where people have been living for THOUSANDS of years? It simply goes against all of the cultural norms that have existed in the Middle East (specifically Afghanistan) for thousands of years.
Andrew:
ReplyDeleteI agree that Khaled Hosseini's "A Thousand Splendid Suns" and his first novel "The Kite Runner" act as very accurate windows into the political and cultural framework of Afghanistan.
While I agree that there are obvious cultural dimensions to the country's incompatibility with democracy, I would argue that the tensions were largely a political creation. In history, we learn that much of the Middle East was essentially re-structured into territories by uninformed European powers. In the 19th century, it was the British and the Russians who officially established the boundaries of what would become modern Afghanistan. It seems to me that many of the ethnic and religious tensions that prevent effective democracy from developing in Afghanistan have roots in these arbitrary boundaries.
The more I study the Middle East the more I become convinced of this irony. While the West wants nothing more than a democratic Middle East, our past decisions in the area could be preventing this from occurring. What do you think? How much is this colonization and how much does this relate to culture?
Overall, I agree with the main ideas that you shared in your blog from our class discussion about democracy. I’m glad you talked about specific flaws within the democratic system because we didn’t really get to touch on that as much as I would have liked. Specifically, I like your idea of persuading the public to commit to making it possible for many working American citizens to be able to conveniently vote. Also, I agree that it is going against the values of democracy itself, by subtly preventing these people from doing so. One point I was skeptical about was your claim that “The Iraqi nation seems to have come together with the common bond to vote.” I think that the implementation of elections is definitely not going to solve all the problems of this country, but it is a step in the right direction. Also, although women are given jobs through this system, it doesn’t really fix the attitude towards them that is unfortunately so deeply driven into the culture on many occasions. That being said, I have a lot of respect for your last argument and how you acknowledged that democracy may not be the best system for everyone, but it is so successful because these nations that have implemented it, have found it to be effective.
ReplyDelete