“Open Society And Its Enemies” : the US & the World

“Party unity is important but not as valuable as an open debate about how best to change course.” — Hillary Clinton.

On reading Joe’s post on Hillary Clinton: Democrats Do Not Blindly Follow Like Republicans, I am reminded of my Delhi University days where I was studying for my honours degree in political science in the mid-1960s…the days of Vietnam, flower children, the Beatles, the rise of ultra-communism in India (Naxalism)…

It was then that I read Karl Popper’s two-volume book The Open Society and Its Enemies (the book happened to be my textbook).

In Karl Popper’s definition an “Open Society” is one which ensures that political leaders can be overthrown without the need for bloodshed, as opposed to a “closed society”, in which a bloody revolution or coup d’état is needed to change the leaders.

The Popperian concept of the open society stems from his philosophy of science. Since no one has the perfect knowledge on the perfect government, the next best thing is a government that is ready to change the politics it runs.

An open society also has to be pluralistic and multicultural, in order to benefit from the maximum number of viewpoints possible to the given problems. Popper was a great advocate of liberal democracy.

Liberal democracy is a form of representative democracy (either a constitutional republic or a constitutional monarchy) where the ability of elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law, and usually moderated by a constitution which emphasizes the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals and minorities, and which places constraints on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised.

Of course, these are basic things. But we need to remind ourselves about these because of the threats even the democracies are facing today as the “democratic” leaders themselves tend to adopt the strategies that could endanger “Open Societies”.

A major threat that we find today in democracies, including India, is the growing intoleration to “inner party democracy”. If democratic functioning is discouraged within a political party, then it is tempting for the top leaders to become dictatorial, and the policy decisions are left to a coterie surrounding a powerful leader.

Hence, Hillary Clinton’s exhortation for the need for open discussion on major policy issues within political parties, merits attention.

Incidentally, my cousin (a great friend/admirer of Hillary Clinton) has become a ‘pucca’ New Yorker. During her two decades of stay there, she has been informing me of Hillary’s views (and I take all political views with a pinch of salt – that’s me an old cynical journalist).

Meanwhile I share a photograph of Hillary Clinton with my cousin’s two kids – Riti and Vishal – sent to me only yesterday.

Finally, related to this post is another interesting article in New Scientist about “overconfident people are more likely to wage war but fare worse in the ensuing battles”.