Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority?
Democracy presupposes that the people know what they want, what is good for them, and most importantly, that they know HOW to get them.
By questioning if a democracy works in a place with an uneducated majority, one is really questioning if
1) Uneducated people don’t know enough to make an informed choice
2) Uneducated people are too stupid to know what they want
3) Uneducated people have not been brainwashed/taught to know what they ought to want.
Venezuela VOTED for dictatorship today.
80% of the electorate are uneducated, it seems
In Singapore, both the ruling party, opposition and electorate seem to agree with this statement: (1) . They want only the real smart guys to be in power and to run the show. Its a completely elistist culture that supports the notion that only smart people knows what’s good for the country and knows what the country ought to want.
In Singapore, citizens must attend State – run schools, with State – prescribed curricula. Really supports the statement (3).
Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority?
A Venezuelan friend who just saw his country vote for a dictatorship today does not think so.
A Chinese friend, who’s country is mostly uneducated, but who has already the pseudocommunist dictatorship, thinks it can, and it must.
What do you think?
23 Responses
Subscribe to comments with RSS.
[...] Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority … [...]
I wouldn’t use the term “uneducated majority”. That presupposes that the majority is one monolithic bloc, which is generally not the case. Its a matter of having different priorities. Some are more inclined towards bread-and-butter issues. Some feel that human rights are more important. Yet others see fairness and rule of law as paramount. Others may desire economic competence above all else. Some would rather that the elected politicians reflect their social and cultural values.
The pundits now say that USA is right-of-center. Has anyone done a similar analysis of the Singapore electorate? Hopefully it will be more sophisticated than the old stale “heartlanders vs cosmopolitaners”.
[...] Freedom, Choice and a place for my Voice – Mathia Lee: Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority? [...]
Hi Mathia,
Thanks for the post…… this will be rather hard to keep short (actually, it’s REALLY long, I’m sorry), I do know that you’re trying to put up a contrast between China and Venezuela and also probably Singapore, I’ll try and do the Venezuelan bit.
Before I tackle the question, I want to give a bit of background on how the referendum happened, trying to keep it as objective as possible, and I’ll try to also answer the comment made by Fargoal above, seen from a Venezuela point of view.
We had regional (governors, majors, etc) elections on Nov 23rd, 2008. I was REALLY sick that day and barely was able to vote, but I did. The opposition won the biggest, most developed states (5 states) and Chavez won the rest (17 states). 2 weeks after those elections I was in bed rest from a surgery I had and Chavez was giving a televised address, just 1 week after he ordered the government to take over a mall in which my brother and cousin were trying to setup a Pizza Place. He said “I have been thinking and I finally agree with you, so I give the order now, that you discuss whatever you have to discuss to make sure that we promote a change in the constitution to allow the indefinite re-election for the President……”. Now, a brief short on Venezuela:
- Venezuela has been (since 1960) on an endless string of corrupt governments (we rank top 5 worldwide) that never focuses on the needs of the people. We have an 80% poverty rate, ironic when we consider we are among the top 10 in oil producing, and the second supplier of oil to the US
- Chavez made a coup in February of 1992 AND November of 1992 (he was in jail for the second one, but there was a video of him in that one). He became famous when he said (after being captured) “we have failed FOR NOW our objectives….”. Many (myself included) hailed him as a hero that time…..
- Chavez was released from prison on a Presidential pardon in 1995, in which he boycotted the elections that year.
- Chavez armed himself politically and ran for President, capitalizing on that hate of corruption that had plagued Venezuela for so long and pledged to change all that and improve and make of us a Great Country. He won by a landslide even though many people feared his left-wing approach might mean that the govt might take people’s home and redistribute wealth.
- Since then, we have no powers separation, all (Justice, Assembly, Police, Civilian Groups, even some armed groups) answer to the government
Let me make one thing perfectly clear, Chavez WON fair and square the election act celebrated on February 15th, 2009. He got over 6 million votes (YES on the only question) and the other side got a bit over 5 million votes (NO on the only question). I was in an NGO monitoring and there was no foul play on the vote. Now, I want to keep on telling you what happened:
- Chavez calls on the referendum, the next day the assembly calls on a day to discuss it (the assembly is 80% Pro-Chavez so discussion is moot).
- In the next 3 weeks after he called for it, we got close to 7 mandatory televised addresses a WEEK, with the shortest one lasting for over 2 hours in which nothing but propaganda was made on his choice.
- There will NOT be new voters accepted for this elections (so new people turning 18 weren’t allowed to register)
- Funny thing: he calls for a pre-liminary date of Feb 27th for the referendum and almost all the people there (his followers) complain that it’s on a week in which Monday and Tuesday are holidays so they don’t want that date (yeah, that’s the kinda people that follow him)
- He, being the President in power, uses the full extent of his office and puts propaganda on every single company or office that the government has influence on (saw them myself). For every one ad saying NO, you could find 5 (at least twice the size) saying YES
- January comes, both parties organize marches to voice their opinion, one of the NO march is not allowed to go through their planned route (Pro-Chavez mayor). I know because the march would pass through my house, and there were so many cops in front of it I couldn’t even go out
- This change was already proposed by Chavez in a 2007 reform that was voted NO. Venezuelan law states that you can’t present the same reform twice in the same constitutional period (namely presidential period). This is argued to the Supreme Court (Pro-Chavez) and the court says that it is perfectly legal and denies the request.
- Because Chavez sees that it’s not picking up enough steam, he changes the rules and (after it has been discussed in the assembly and approved) changes the question so that not only the President but all posts elected by vote are included, so it’s 5 articles in the constitution instead of 1. That many articles with such a change should require a re-write (different procedure) but the Supreme Court (Pro-Chavez) says that it’s OK.
- The question that is selected is phrased in such a way that they use the term “enhance the venezuelan political rights” which is totally biased favoring the “YES” even though the question (by law) should be impartial. The question doesn’t even show what the articles will be changed to, only that they will be changed.
- The assembly (80% Pro-Chavez) decides to stop working and take a recess from Jan 15th until today (Feb 16th) to help campaign for the addendum.
- All public offices would be closed whenever a govt march would take place and all workers forced (a name-list would be kept) to go to a march (think Cuba), believe me, I know people that had to go march
- The Chavez campaign center was called “Simon Bolivar” (Venezuelan history icon) and that is by law (the used of history characters) prohibited to be used in such places. This was brought up, the electoral body (Pro-Chavez) said nothing.
- Chavez instituted “missions” (medic, school, helping single mothers, etc) that have been hailed as one of the best things he’s done, and it’s true, they’re very good for the poor people especially (not perfect, but very good). However, these also pay the people that participate (you go to school to read and learn, you get paid), so they used these lists to force people to vote YES.
- The vote in Venezuela IS SECRET (so you might wonder how I claim people were forced to vote a certain way), but since it’s done in machines (and a checkpoint in which your fingerprint is verified and it’s started a rumor that that machine helps keep track of who votes, rumor that has never been categorically denied to help fuel the fact that it might be true……. even though it’s not
I could say many many MANY more things, but I won’t, I fear this is already a TL;DR kinda post…… But you see, go back now to what I said before, yes Chavez WON….. but after reading all that, you have to wonder, “how could he have lost?”. I’ll say this, Chavez IS a SOCIALIST, he IS worried and wants to HELP the people in Venezuela, he’s not EVIL, but the end he wants to achieve do not justify the means he’s using to get there.
So yes, if after all that, you can’t think how can 6 million vote for such a change to the constitution is
- because they’re voting for whatever he tells them to vote (read: uneducated, because blind voting just because someone tells you to is stupid–mind you, this applies to both Pro-Chavez and Against-Chavez people),
- because they’re getting rich off it and want to keep him in power (read: uneducated and opportunistic, because they don’t care for the country at all),
- because even they don’t feel affected by this outcome because you live in the countryside or another country (read: uneducated and selfish, and totally individualistic)
- because they genuinely agree with the question and feel that this change should be made/not made (read: totally fair and acceptable)
Based on the earlier comment by Fargoal, they ARE uneducated and monolithic, maybe the REASON for them to be considered uneducated varies, but they are (at least here in Venezuela). Unfortunately elections have become tests of popularity more than about the issue being voted on, people vote based on the candidate/party proposing rather than the actual proposition. Chavez has polarized us so much that I can bet you that as much as 60% of the votes are cast blindly (on both sides). And while I do defend and praise democracy, I do feel that sometimes the people aren’t prepared enough for the choices they have to make. I’ll say what a friend told me once: the only reason we defend democracy so much is because it’s the best we got, but mind you, it’s the best we know of NOW, but in the future, it might not even be the best……….. So no, at least in Venezuela’s part, Democracy cannot survive with uneducated voting……
[...] Freedom, Choice and a place for my Voice – Mathia Lee: Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority? [...]
Thanks Fargoal and Alejandro!
There’s so much we can learn from each other’s country’s experience.
(Btw, for those of you who didn’t already know, Venezuela is exactly 12 hours from Singapore, and on the equator too. We have lots in common. )
Its really interesting that Alejandro made this statement ” Unfortunately elections have become tests of popularity more than about the issue being voted on, people vote based on the candidate/party proposing rather than the actual proposition. ”
This has been a line often used Singapore leaders (or leaders of other single party nations) to justify their policies.
And yet, very interestingly, here we see a Venezuelan, who supports democracy ( which was why he voted AGAINST the establishment of a legalised dictatorship), saying exactly what a dictatorship would say. Would Chavez use that line too, I wonder?
Fargoal, I agree, Singapore might be a lot more diverse than we try to make it out to be. I don’t think the “uneducated majority” model fits with singapore. I think we have a very educated majority. What I question, in singapore’s case, is whether our majority has been TAUGHT what they OUGHT to want, and that comes out at election time.
I’m thinking along the line of our “core” values of meritocracy, of putting economics as priority, of the Confusionist ideas of hierachy and respect.
It’lll be interesting to hear more views. Hopefully someone from China, or India, or Philipines, or Malaysia etc etc will reply too. Ah Bengs and Ah Peks, I’ll love to hear your views too.
I am American. A lot of Americans are uneducated. They were especially uneducated and illiterate 200 years ago when the country was young. But it still seemed to work out all right in the long run. Longer than any dictatorship has anyhow.
Your question could probably be better answered partially with statistics. There are a few examples where dictators got voted in. Like Hitler. But overall I think the excuse that uneducated people should be governed by the “educated” mostly demonstrates that the supposedly educated leaders are not fulfilling of the main duties of being a competent leader: educating the populace. At least in countries where the dictators have been in charge for a few decades.
I think the more educated an electorate becomes, the less easily swayed they are by propaganda and tribal affiliations (ie, voting for someone based on his/her race/religion). An educated electorate is also more critical of politicians of both sides. They won’t simply buy the govt’s claim that they are the best because of what they’ve done in the past; neither will they buy the opposition’s argument that they should vote opposition just to ‘check’ the govt.
All this means that politicians need to improve themselves to win over a more educated electorate.
“Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority?”
I think it can, just look at the now well established democratic countries, eg. USA, UK, AZ, Japan, France… These countries also had uneducated majority when democracy started. The now Singapore, undoubtly, has much more educated people compared to these countries of the past.
Another example, when Bush got elected, I heard people around criticize that most of the people voted for him were living in country side and uneducated. Someone may still believe Bush didn’t do a good job, however, the US democracy system still works so well.
I think whether voters are well educated or not doesn’t determine whether democracy can work, it will works as long as the general rules (rules that worldwide accepted but not made by someone privately) of voting is strickly followed.
Alejandro says there is no foul play in this election. But to me, the foul play already took place when Chavez refused powers separation.
“在教育落后的地区能否实现民主呢？”
我认为答案是肯定的，仅以目前成熟的民主国家为例，美、英、澳、日、法，当民主在这些国家初行之时，大多数选民教育程度就是低下的。现在的新加坡人，毫无疑问，要比以上国家当时的国民们受过高得多的教育。
再举一例，当小布什被选为总统时，身边有许多人批评选他的多是些教育程度低下的乡下人。也许这些朋友依然认为小布什没把总统干好，但是，美国的民主体制依然运转良好。
我想，民主能否顺利运行并不取决于选民的受教育程度。只要民主规则能被严格地遵守，那么民主体系就能运行。这里讲的民主规则指的是被全世界广泛接纳的标准，而不是仅由某些人自己私下里拍脑袋制定出来。
Alejandro说这次委内瑞拉的选举并没有舞弊。但是，在我看来，自从查韦斯拒绝分权，舞弊已经开始了。
Mathia – to respond to your comment, I would like to think that the majority of Singapore citizens are exercising their pragmatic instincts when they vote.
Once I heard a ruling party member say that Singapore families are now very smart. They desire more opposition in Parliament, but they want to hedge as well, so some actually split the vote within the family, e.g. the parents vote the ruling party but the children may choose to vote opposition. Example of pragmatism at work.
I would like to think that democracy will survive in Singapore. (I am saying this as a dispassionate observer of our country.) We have an increasingly sophisticated and diverse electorate. The old stale propaganda can only get less and less effective (witness the downtrend in voter support, except for 2001 elections after 9/11). Every generation throws up a new group of leaders (even from the opposition). For instance, I don’t think anyone heard of Sylvia Lim ten years ago, but she’s now a rising star in opposition politics.
Mathia, of course he used it!! He turned the election on a popularity test for himself….. and not on whether he should have the power to run for president indefinitely…. and popularity he has, and won’t likely lose in the short term
Along, two things:
- I claimed there was no foul play in the actual day of the election, but part of the reason I made the list of all the stuff that happens here is to show you that the foul place happens everyday and happened everyday prior to the election
- I think the voter’s education plays a big part, because how good a democracy works is, in big part, a reflection of how the candidates or leaders in that democracy let it work. You mentioned the US, but have you noticed how US elections work? Uneducated electorate reflects differently in different places, in the US most people vote according to party (Dem or Rep), so 80% of the results, you can have it before the first voting takes place (California, NY, Oregon, Washington St, the entire northeast coast will always go Democracts, while Texas, Montana, Idaho, Mississippi, Alabama, Louisiana will always go Republican)…. and it’s the “swing states” (Ohio, Florida, Colorado, among others) that actually decide the election. Obama brought up many voters that never voted before, but still this didn’t change, also, in the 08 election, 90% of blacks voted for Obama, and most of those votes came based on race more than likely……… the end result of the election was known days before the voting happened…….. so democracy can “survive” with an uneducated electorate, but it only takes one wrong choice so that it doesn’t work….
This has to be my favourite post by far. There’s a United Nations discussion going on here, and each country is represented by their own citizen. Did I ever say I love citizen journalism? I’ll say it again. I do,
I suspect (and its true for the contributors i know personally) that all the contributers are the cream of the educated crop of their country.
So its really interesting to see how the socio political environment actually affects the thoughts of these contributors. To distill the essense of their thoughts to the question “Can Democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority?”
Venezuela — where 80% of the electorate are uneducated, and just voted in a law that allows Chavez to be re-elected indefinately ie. dictatorship
Allejandro — Democracy does NOT WORK with uneducated masses, because they are poor, and can be bought at a low price. They vote for whoever provides these immediate benefits than for long term gains they might never taste.
China — where 80% of the electorate are uneducated(?? not sure) and poor (am sure). No meaningful voting. Increasing incidence of protests, but squashed by the authorities.
Along — Whether the electorate is educated or not, DOES NOT MATTER, if the system in place is flawed. If the system in place is fine, then you might get one bad leader, but it will be temporary and rectifiable.
USA — where theoratically, they have an educated majority, but in reality, half the country considers the other half “uneducated”. Where 200 years ago, in the infancy of American democracy, those deemed uneducated ( slaves, blacks, women etc) were not given the right to vote. Where the founding fathers were a really educated bunch who came up with a fantastic constituition.
Daniel — Democracy WORKS with an uneducated majority, because the USA is successful today, though it started out with an uneducated majority.
- An uneducated majority demonstrates that they voted badly, because they voted for leaders who did not fulfil their responsibility of educated their populace.
Singapore — Whose leaders claim that the next generation of leaders must be appointed by current leaders, and only the educated elite can lead. Who claim that fair elections are not really fair because they become popularity contests, by uneducated people.
Fargoal, Gerald Giam — Democracy does NOT work with an uneducated majority, because the uneducated are susceptible to propaganda ( Are the Educated ones educated with propaganda??? ) whereas an increasingly educated electorate forces the government to dispense with propaganda and come up with substance.
Mathia — Interesting that the Singaporeans talk about the educated electorate IMPROVING the CURRENT govt through their demands, rather than the electorate CHANGING the govt to a BETTER one….. I’ve never heard anyone talk about IMPROVING Bush through criticism……just REPLACING Bush…. Is that a product of our propaganda? LOL.
– Fargoal also mentions “split” votes within the families. I’ll like to offer an alternative to the “hedging bets” theory. I’ll like to suggest that the older generation were educated by the Independence-era propaganda, while the younger generation are more susceptible to Opposition, and Alternative Online News propaganda….
I’m wondering, if all that is being reflected by the various nationalities are just reflections of different propaganda (governmental and non-governmental) used….? So the uneducated and educated are merely molded by different sets of propaganda?
Mathia – not quite United Nations. You’re missing the powerful and numerous African constituency and of course the Europeans
You’re right.
Yoo hoo!!!! Africans! Europeans! Indians! Middle Easterns! Comments????
btw, i’m leaving for europe this Sat. I’ll try persuading someone to comment ; )
Hi Mathia
This is for your information only and nitpicking aside, I’m glad that your blog is attracting more and more comments/visitors. In some ways, it is becoming a platform for more nuanced and thoughtful discussion. I believe its largely because of the way you frame the issues, i.e. usually in an open-ended and exploratory manner. A lot of socio-political blogs are good to read because of the in-depth analysis, but after reading them one may not necessarily feel like commenting as such.
Personally its been a real pleasure to engage in these invigorating discussions and I hope to continue to do occasionally.
I’m actually based in New York so if you are ever in town do drop me a note and I’ll be glad to buy you a cup of coffee. Can catch me at peaceloy@yahoo.com
Cheers
Hey Fargoal,
Thanks for the invitation, its really nice of you too! I’ll definately look you up if I ever go to New York = ) . And when you do come back, we could meet up for a drink too!
Thanks for your compliments too. I really enjoy reading all your posts. Its wonderful to be able to discuss this way, with people from all over, whom you would have never met in real life otherwise.
I think that’s been my favourite part of my whole blogging experience. Making new friends! = )
Cheers
[...] Freedom, Choice and a place for my Voice – Mathia Lee: Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority? [...]
Well, I am disturbed by Chavez, but it’s presumptious to assume that just because people vote for someone we disagree with, democracy does not work.
To say that the vote was not a free and/or fair one (like certain countries closer to home) is a valid criticism, but it doesn’t mean democracy is “wrong”.
[...] Can a democracy work in a place with an uneducated majority? [...]
its not really abt the educated or uneducated, you guys r off the mark me thinks.
ur venuzuelan friend said it best, its how polarized the voters are.
“…Chavez has polarized us so much that I can bet you that as much as 60% of the votes are cast blindly…”
just look at singaporean society, the gulf between the haves and the have nots.
that’s the real face of this issue.
btw, another interesting perspective; i know many educated pple who are ignorant.
Mathia — Interesting that the Singaporeans talk about the educated electorate IMPROVING the CURRENT govt through their demands, rather than the electorate CHANGING the govt to a BETTER one….. I’ve never heard anyone talk about IMPROVING Bush through criticism……just REPLACING Bush…. Is that a product of our propaganda? LOL.
>> maybe its because they know bush will be gone in 4 years, or at the most 8. try telling the north koreans to replace the great leader. maybe we’re just settling for what we can get here.
– Fargoal also mentions “split” votes within the families. I’ll like to offer an alternative to the “hedging bets” theory. I’ll like to suggest that the older generation were educated by the Independence-era propaganda, while the younger generation are more susceptible to Opposition, and Alternative Online News propaganda….
I’m wondering, if all that is being reflected by the various nationalities are just reflections of different propaganda (governmental and non-governmental) used….? So the uneducated and educated are merely molded by different sets of propaganda?
>> for things like elections how does it make sense to hedge bets? hedging is traditionally used to reduce the degree of loss in the case of an unfavourable outcome. given that degree of loss does not come into play in sg elections and winner takes all, if families really do that they are the dumbest people i have ever heard of.
its more about their different value systems and the generational gap. and the (natural?) willingness of youth to take a gamble, because they have more time to screw up their lives.
you cant call it propaganda in the western countries; sure there are political ads, but both sides of the coin are free to do that.
why hasnt anyone brought up the 1933 nazi enabling act yet?
some very educated people lived in germany during that time methinks.
This is by far the best post I have ever taken part in.
The issue is one that I´ve been pondering over for long and today i happened to find this place to check that many others have come to quite the same conclusions I have drawn.
My points are 1- that True and effective Democracy can only be the direct result of both a very well educated populace and well educated candidates and representatives at all levels of government. 2- only informed and educated Voters can decide best for the common good of all the citizenship and the fate of the country as a whole. 3- ONLY when leaders, political candidates to run for elections work hard “to win over” votes to their side by debating, and presenting political solutions and schemes to problems affecting the citizenship of a country is a democratic republic strengthened.
CONCLUSION: 1- Voting must be only a right (not a mandatory rule imposed on all citizens as in some countries) for only citizens “genuinely” INTERESTED in the Common Good can best decide for the best candidate and will have made their choice by having been informed well all along the previous years not just at the time around the campaigns. 2- the right age for voting should be raised to 30 years-old (or else their vote should be worth “half a vote” thus distributing and correcting for all the deficiencies said while at the same time attracting them to participate in public affairs).
So, any citizen interested in the common good to be effective at voting must have achieved two things in life: ONE IS “SENIORITY”, not just the biological age, but time enough to have experienced and lived thru a series of stages both as an individual affected by society and as an individual who has effected changes in society, (sth that job-seekers publish in newspapers ads when they require a person to have “seniority” a concept which refers not to age per se but both to a good labor experience and a good insightful personal/spiritual growth that can only be ahcieved after many years because both qualities take time to develop (incidentally, this is the reason why the very opposite concept also exists, which is when employers seek after, say, Junior engineers with young readiness and creativity to fit the position offered, sth not developed thru the passing of time or age); THE OTHER IS “EDUCATION OR QUALIFICATIONS”, only time can give most citizens the frame needed to finish formal courses of studies and to be able to establish a carreer, time can only give people the chance to inform themselves of public affairs, to achieve a critical stanpoint on any issue with both current and retrospective insights.
IF NONE of the conditions aforementioned are required of voters in a society, then eventually, democracies will fall into a spiralling decay into deformed pseudo-democratic states where either unveiled or veiled oligarchs get to manage and manipulate the masses to rule for only a few covert elite of wealthy businessmen and socio-political class.
I cannot see how junior, uneducated, misinformed and disinformed, disinterested, self-centered citizens, ( and I believe most people between ages 15-30 have more than two of all these qualities) can have what it takes to get to VOTE based on grounds that fortify a democratic republic.