A critical and genuine democracy rests on an honest, vibrant discussion where opposing views are expressed and evaluated. All forms of evaluation are acceptable to the democratic spirit other than the one that reduces the other to an ignorant agent. Claiming that the other is mistaken is acceptable, but claiming that the other is ignorant is not acceptable.
The narrative of the ignorant other is an elitist and essentially anti-democratic position that reproduces a one-size-fits-all mentality that is the basis of colonialism.
The position I am arguing for, of course, allows and encourages different positions to be expressed publically and also scrutinised and evaluated publically. And we may also disagree on the criteria of evaluation. But simply because we may disagree on the criteria of evaluation of an argument does not allow us, from a democratic perspective, to attribute ignorance to the other.
We may argue that the other is mistaken and show or explain why, but to resort to the narrative of the ignorant other is an arrogant position that belies democracy. In fact, it is a very dictatorial stance that unequivocally and without reason denies any other differing stance.
One may argue that a democracy should simply be decided by a majority of votes, and if the majority outvotes an opposing position, then the position that was defeated has to be an ignorant one. We have had examples in history where a majority position, in retrospect, has been shown to be mistaken based on a certain understanding of facts and given certain moral beliefs. Hence democracy needs to respect a minority position as long as it does not contradict basic human rights agreed upon.
An expression of a position that constructs the other as being ignorant is not acceptable to the democratic spirit
At times, we are also faced with a situation where a minority position believes that the majority position is ignorant. Usually this takes the form of simply stating that the vote for a majority government was based on ignorance.
Making such a claim, in itself, is not an argument. It is simply an expression of one’s undemocratic stance. It also implies that even those who are formally educated and voted in favour of the majority position were blinded by political and/or moral ignorance. It does not even consider the possibility that, in fact, the majority voted in favour of the majority position on moral grounds. Yes, on moral grounds, irrespective of the possibility of counter claims of corruption, for example.
For example, it can be deemed more morally reprehensible when an opposing position rests its views on a partisan stance, scare mongering, outright lies and expecting those claimed to have done wrong to prove that they have done no wrong and therefore considering them guilty until they can do so, than the claims of corruption themselves. In other words, a vote for the majority may have been made on the grounds of a lesser evil.
One may retort: but does not a democracy demand that all positions be expressed publically? Yes indeed, I repeat. However, an expression of a position that constructs the other as being ignorant is not acceptable to the democratic spirit. Democracy does not mean anything goes. Expressions of disagreement and judgements claiming that the other is mistaken are all acceptable. Attacking the other who happens to have a different moral stance or different political conviction, and is therefore deemed to be ignorant, is contrary to the democratic spirit.
Labelling one as ignorant means dismissing and excluding her or him from the democratic process; dismissal and exclusion here stops that transformative cycle of democracy. In a nutshell, dismissal and exclusion undermine the same democratic process.
Claiming that another position is an ignorant one simply because you disagree with it is not democratic. It amounts to a new form of colonialism and dangerous elitism that excludes rather than includes. It creates the category of first-class and second-class citizens.
Democracy is a very complex matter. Tahar Ben Jelloun, an award-winning Maghrebi author, has warned that democracy is not like aspirin; you stir in water and swallow and all will be fine. Democracy is a constant struggle and requires intense and open discussions in the public forum. But the discussion, to be democratic, should not be based on claims of ignorance of the other, especially if the other is stereotyped and constructed as a deficit, even if we may have never had a conversation with him or her.
John Portelli is professor at the Department of Social Justice Education and co-director, Centre for Leadership and Diversity, OISE, University of Toronto.
john.portelli@utoronto.ca