We Outlaw Ideologies When We Should Be Punishing The Crime — So, We must Be Insane!
This article was originally published by Illumination on Medium!
It seems that lately, we use the word "Democracy" more than ever. We have idealized the concept of government by the hoi polloi in a community or state. But, within the generally defined framework, democracy, like many other sociopolitical phenomena, has had its share of social engineering.
Although we created democracy to alleviate ideological conflicts among the constituency members, it has faced significant backlash. Under the various modern democracies, directly or not, we prohibit certain ideologies by negatively labeling them and even penalizing their upholders without any wrongful acts committed.
Today, we punish people by accusing them of hate speech, racism, conspirator, and colluder.
In a Democratic system, there is a fine line between the majority rule and the tyranny of the masses. The endless stream of ideologies or groups of ideas has riddled those lines. Ironically, the distaste of the Ideological notion enroots within its uncompromising potential.
Bernard Williams, The English Philosopher, said once:
“The grounds of distaste around ideology center around the feelings, perhaps, that an ideology is something inherently totalitarian tendency, or at least, involves an uncompromising fanaticism inappropriate to liberal democracy of the British type”
Since upholders of an ideology become the majority and if threatened by the upholders of the contending doctrine, they potentially set the grounds for free Speech suppression, thus totalitarian tendencies and ultimately the tyranny of the masses.
The actual implementation of democracy demands realizing ideological diversity at the grassroots, the individual mindset. It must recognize the freedom of expression, not retribution based on the personal perspective, no matter how distasteful it may be to the majority.
The Fine Line Defining Tyranny Of The Masses And Democracy
Frederick Schauer (born 15 January 1946) is an American legal scholar who stated in one of his publications in 1992 William Law Review:
“The interest, which the First Amendment guards, and which gives it its importance, presupposes- that there are no orthodoxies-religious, political, economic, or scientific-which are immune from debate and dispute. Back of that is the assumption itself an orthodoxy, and the one permissible exception that truth will be most likely to emerge if no limitations are imposed upon utterances that can with any plausibility be regarded as efforts to present grounds for accepting or rejecting propositions whose truth the utterer asserts, or denies.”
In the manuscript, he regarded free speech, by itself, as a state of ideology. That renders Free speech an absolute phenomenon.
Unfortunately, not uncommonly within our current sociopolitical system, many regard democracy as "relative."
As Eurozine Publishes a Quote from Merkur (March 2020):
“The competing ideological utopias of the twentieth century — fascism and communism — have returned in the form of ethno-nationalism and supra-nationalism. ‘The crisis of democracy is also an expression of the hypertrophies cultivated by both ideologies, which they now articulate as democratic.’ Manow’s conclusion: diagnoses of the end of democracy should be treated with caution.”
Democracy is Hypocrite as it only applies to the benefit of the majority leaders and lawmakers. For instance, Sinn Féin, the Irish republican and democratic socialist political wing was considered a terrorist organization for almost a century.
From October 1988 to September 1994, the British government banned broadcasts of the voices of representatives from Sinn Féin. It was only a few days ago when the Sinn Féin, for the first time, held the majority seats in congress.
Instead of uniting citizens, modern democracy faces overwhelming division among people. That is why some countries return to hear the minority voice to heal such a divide.
Relative democracy provokes tyranny of the masses, suppresses the minority and personal ideology, and nurtures radicalization. It does so undemocratically by profiling individuals based on ideological reasoning punishing the beholder of doctrine.
Let us agree — We must be Insane or Hypocrite!“Someone’s rational reasoning is another person’s irrational thought.”
“Punish the crime, not the ideology. Improve communication, not prohibit it, no matter how uncomfortable it is to listen. Minimize profiling (Eliminate if possible), as it is by itself discriminatory.” — Dr. Adam Tabriz