On Single Party Rule or Democracy

Last week on Hardball, Chris Matthews brought up what I thought were some pretty poignant observations regarding the current political landscape in the United States:

I think this analysis is simple and spot-on, and it struck a chord with me by bringing to the fore an underlying ethos that seems to be so prevalent in ever-evolving conservative circles such as the tea party movement (and this is not to say it is not also present in much of the Democrat Party) which states, "We alone have access to the truth on how to run the country; if you're not one of us, you're out." I've always found the tea parties to be wholly uninspiring and relatively confusing; the only unifying thread as far as a political philosophy is CUT TAXES--or, if we're being generous we might be able to add KEEP THE MEXICANS OUT to the platform. Yes, people are entitled to their ideology, but why is this problematic politically?

Matthews here is pointing towards a key aspect of democratic societies that is being neglected in increasingly troubling ways both in the United States and Europe. Democracy by definition is pluralistic. I strongly believe that despite the way we typically think of democratic processes (particularly voting) as majority rule, democracy must include empowering and allowing a voice for the minority (or more accurately, minorities; and by this, I mean any person[s] either not represented by the majority, or neglected by its policies). As evidenced by the latest parliamentary election in the Netherlands, this idea can be rapidly forgotten amidst fear and xenophobia in the face of cultural change.

If we are to retain the idea of democracy any longer, we ought never adopt platforms which seek to homogenize or exclude. Rather, we should be vigilantly generous and hospitable; inviting the Other in, and seeking out any voice which is not being heard.