In the Tuesday lecture Xavier discussed for some time the use of rituals in all forms of government, including democracies. Voting was identified as one of the key rituals of democracies but wasn't explored any further as such. It's interesting to see how voting, which after WW2 became an activity to which most voters dedicated research and enthusiasm, has now taken the form of a ritual or what is the same: a habit. Habits and rituals become dangerous because of their monotony. People entrenched in historical rituals such as voting often accept them as inherent and rarely question their significance. This causes people to attend voting out of habit, without enthusiasm or knowledge, and without even questioning voting itself. Importantly, these sequels make the modern day voter a robot who, part of Foucault's panopticon, attends voting out of muscle memory and not rationality. ‘for many, Election Day is bereft of its former liturgical fullness … the carnival spirit is gone’ (Hirschbein, 1999). This, as some argue, endangers democracy the same way it helps reinforce non-democracies, by replacing the voter's passion with placidity. "Once one established practice or rule supersedes another, the old practice becomes seen as ‘archaic and senseless’ and the new one, in time, comes to feel natural" (Australian Senate, 2012-13). This cycle, in turn, will also happen with voting, and later, because nothing is forever, with democracy. Is the ritualisation of voting foreseeing the decline of stability in democracies? "Ultimately, the lament is not for a lost oasis, as it is about a perceived lack of political engagement and interest" (Australian Senate, 2012-13). The modern world is facing increasing polarisation not only within states, but also between them, and the ritualisation of voting is just one of the many signs that democracy is loosing its past fervour. Will the Chinese single-party system lead the way?
Australian Senate. (n.d.). Senate Standing Committee on Finance and Public Administration: Budget Estimates, 2012-13. Parliament of Australia. Retrieved from https://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/~/media/1506E6B7EF7E41E3B1E55B3DDBCF12C1.ashx
Hirschbein, R. (1999). Voting rites: The devolution of American politics. Praeger.
I really liked this connection you made to Foucault's ideas Joao!I thought that it was also interesting that this connection to voting was also made in today's lecture that Xavier gave around some of the cons of democracy, one of them being ill-informed voters.
ReplyDeleteI think that while we can see a clear downside to voting and democracy in some cases, such as ill-informed voters, or the public voting for short-term policies rather than long term goals and projects, the benefits of this system that holds politicians accountable far outweigh this cost.
Additionally, from an ideological viewpoint, who should be the ones who make the judgements about whether or not voters decisions are better or worse for a country? I see it as far better to preserve the ideal of joint governance, where everyone has a say as to how their country is run, even if their votes are cast out of monotomy or ritual.
I do think that you bring up an excellent point about how the ritualisation of voting is a problem for democracies and voters making informed decisions in general, but I am unsure of how a democracy can address these concerns.