Submitted by phileconomicus t3_zk0fac in philosophy
cara-122 t1_izxxm0j wrote
This paper is a mess. I don’t think you do a very good job of arguing what a democracy is and why protests go against democracy. At one point you say:
“democracy is a system for achieving compromises between people who disagree on many things”
But this isn’t actually true. Democracy often leads to comprises, but by no means is it a system of compromises. Winner-take-all decisions are regularly made in democracies. I would argue that a modern liberal democracy’s purpose is to allow the people a voice in government via their representatives. In this context a protest is absolutely democratic as it is another way for a group to have their representatives hear their concerns. Using your definition of democratic action we could argue letter writing campaigns are undemocratic, which is also ridiculous.
You argue that essentially protests are unfair because they give large groups a disproportionately large voice, but for a protest to even be noticed it needs thousands of people supporting it. Most protest groups consist of less than 20 people, and we never hear about them because local news stations don’t even think they’re relevant enough for a story. There is a selection bias when considering the effectiveness of a protest because often the only ones we hear about are the largest and most well organized.
A protest does not prevent people from voting. A protest does not force a congressperson to vote either way. A protest does not interfere with any democratic process. Protests are simply a way for people to have there voices heard.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments