Activism

A main argument in favor of democracy in John Stuart Mill's article is the kind of society it creates – an active one.

He claims that democracy, as the rule of the people is the best way of governing since it involves everyone. It does not include only a despot or a small group of influential people (aristocracy). In the other forms of rules the decisions are being made for and you sit passively in your house – not involved. In democracy, Mill says, people are forced to engage in their future and the future of their state and are ought to actively participate. This affects the behavior of the people – it not only that in voting they become active but rather they become active people (which is desired).

I am afraid I don't know how much of this is actually present in Modern democracy. I don't see leaving your house once every few years to vote as being active rather than passive. In what other way does democracy encourage activeness?

I can tell about my surroundings back home that I barely know anyone who is actually active in politics, including me. I grew in a society where instant media surrounds me – every round hour there's a news flash on the radio. We have the internet access 24 hours, the news channels on TV and a newspaper on our doorstep every morning. Yet it seems that many times they just pass by us… especially teenagers.

One reason for this I can think of is lack of political or activist education. This was never something that has managed to really catch my attention. We used to have a "news hour" every Friday in primary school and junior high but it somehow remained quite superficial.

On the other hand – you cannot make people interested in something they're not.

Why are we not interested?

This is exactly the problem with Mill's argument – I think many people feel they do not really have much say in their government's politics. It is a problem with representative democracy – it does involve a small group of people that decide for everyone else. Yes, once every 4 years we get to choose those people - but that doesn’t require much. Moreover, many times people feel the choice they have is between a douche and a tard sandwich. It is not a real choice and they personally really do not matter much in the future of the country because so much has and will be decided for them.

Take India for example – How can democracy make 1.3 people active? Would all of them been active it was complete chaos. But then again – how can 535 people represent this huge country?

I'm sure so many people are actually passive because in the biggest democracy in the world they don't count for much. A proof for that could be how political families have ruled the country, for example the Nehru family, for FOUR GENERATIONS, only Indira and J. Nehru together for more than 30 years! What kind of choice does this leave for the common people? (I hope what I mean comes across though I'm having some hard time to phrase it)

It seems to me that democracy can only help you reach activism in small and distinct groups. Otherwise – it might just lead to the opposite…