Quote:
Originally Posted by microbet
Well, it's absolutely impossible to call our democracy legitimate before 1920, pretty much impossible before 1964, and probably still impossible. It's probably a fair point to make though that it's been getting less legitimate for the last 8 years or so.
There's many competing claims for the honour, and in these days of Trump etc. it may well have lost top spot, but I've long thought the worst aspect of modern western politics is the idea that democracy is a monolith that has been achieved.
Up to the early 20th century there was often a history of electoral reform in the west, as more and more people had more and more power to affect the way the countries they lived in were directed. However, since roughly the point at which women got the vote on the same terms as men, the general idea seems to have become that democracy is unlocked. Further meaningful reform is not a serious issue.
As a British person, one of, if not the, most depressing episodes of my lifetime was the referendum on a form of proportional representation. Not that I thought it was an astonishing advance, just the utter indifference with which it was received means the question of serious voting reform is probably done for a very long time.
I can understand how, given current issues, such structural reforms are not at the top of people's minds, but if there was a constant idea that democracy was an ideal to be always moving towards rather than a status attained long ago, debates about voter registration and gerrymandering etc. might be able to be more easily situated in a progressive context. Democracy is a process whose sensible goals evolve over time with societal and technological advances. Maybe this is already a consensus on the left. Hope so.