Postmodernism and Democracy

The essence of postmodernism is that you can literally know nothing- truth does not exist. Therefore everything is just peoples' subjective opinions; nothing more. So we just engage in never ending conversations in which all views are equally valid (or "true") and we never get closer to the "truth".

Now what political system would naturally develop from this view? Firstly it must be egalitarian- everyone is equal. Not in the sense of each person having an intrinsic moral worth but that there is no-one better than anyone at anything; everyone can do everything equally as well if they are given equal opportunity. If someone is better at something it is due to privilege or chauvinistic attitudes. Secondly it must institutionalise the never ending conversation. The conversation needs a legitimate public face which can direct social change.

The perfect political system for this is today's most sacred cow: mass democracy. Every man is given one vote irrespective of how intelligent or wise he is- the vote of King Solomon would be worth as much as Jade Goody's. Attempts at increasing voting franchise have continued ever since the Reform Act of 1832: recently there has been a movement to give sixteen year olds the vote along with criminals too. This will not stop until it reaches its logical conclusion- all people who can engage in any form of conversation can vote. We can then look forward to the Children's Party who demand subsidies to Cadbury to keep Dairy Milk at a fair price. Democracy also allows all laws to be subject to revision- More (less) laws and regulations can be imposed depending on how the conversation is going. This can be seen by the endless telephone book sized pieces of legislation introduced every year which further blurs the distinction between right and wrong; and reduces investment by business due to the huge legal uncertainty generated.

As you might have realised though, any system supported by postmodernism must contradict their worldview since it is making a truth claim. However postmodernism itself is internally contradictory since it denies any form of truth but in denying truth they are actually making a truth claim. So democracy is the logical outworking of postmodernism given the fact that it is absolutely true. This devotion to postmodernism can be seen in the scourge of tolerance which has become an axiom of current politics. It used to mean allowing people to do things you thought were wrong or you didn't like. So I would allow Pikey's to dress abominably and drink White Lightening while arguing they shouldn't do it. Today though it has changed its meaning to agreement. No longer can I abuse Pikeys and attempt to enlighten them but actually agree that their lifestyle is good. The classic touch stone issue is homosexuality- saying it is morally wrong but allowing consenting adults to do as they please generates cries of intolerance.

Historically democracy had been considered a means to an end. Some ancient democratic states such as the city states of Greece thought the same and had nothing approaching universal franchise. Also the classical liberals such as John Stuart Mill supported democracy as means to preserve liberty. Today however democracy has become an end in itself. This has been immortalised by Wilson's words "making the world safe for democracy". Not freedom, not liberty, not justice but democracy.

So although democracy does not necessitate postmodernism, postmodernism necessitates its natural demon child of mass (true) democracy.