manner of exclusion clauses in practice. Liberals only reluctantly converted to
democracy in the nineteenth century when they felt that extending the franchise
would not undermine the rights of property.
The argument has been advanced even after the Second World War that
democracy could mean a ‘tyranny of the majority’ and that democracy should be
‘redefined’ to involve a vote for competing elites to make decisions. In fact, increasing
political participation is necessary for democracy and the argument for compulsory
voting in elections should be taken seriously. It is misleading to argue that democracy
involves either direct participation or representation. It involves both. Although
representation does not require that those elected ‘mirror’ the precise proportions
of the population, empathy between representative and elector is crucial.Chapter 5 Democracy 115Democracy and political correctness
Political correctness (PC) swept across American universities in the 1990s and occasioned much
controversy. Although it has not made the same impact in British universities, it is often used
in conservative discourse as a response to feminist and multicultural arguments.
Political correctness is considered by its critics to be a negation of democracy. There is no
doubt that what has given PC its unsavoury reputation is the problem of dogmatism. Feminist
and multicultural arguments have been advanced on occasion in an anti-liberal manner that
has enabled conservative-minded publicists and thinkers to identify emancipatory causes as
being inherently illiberal in character. However, it could be argued that it is counterproductive
(and indeed contradictory) to try and advance good causes through intolerance (and even worse
harassment and the threat of violence). Emancipation should be liberating – to make it dreary
and painful is to crush it and distort it.
The cause of anti-racism or the cause of feminism, for example, is not advanced by pushing
people into positions for which they are not qualified. The policy of affirmative action –
promoting people because they are black or women or belong to a disadvantaged minority –
is a risky one which only works at the margins and can easily backfire. The question is always:
what is the best and quickest way of making our public and private institutions more
representative of the population at large? Given the regrettable fact that elitism and prejudice
have existed for so long that some even think that they are ‘natural’ and ‘normal’, there are
no quick and easy solutions – no shortcuts. Would that there were.
The insistence that the right kind of language is used is helpful insofar as it changes people’s
attitudes and behaviour. But what if it does not? What if people use their ‘correct’ language
but still continue to behave in the old way? Democracy, alas, requires more than a change of
language if it is to advance.
Democratic causes are those that empower people. If this is done in a way that commands
wide support, we all benefit. Democracy can only advance if it tackles those who are hostile
to democracy. PC needs defending both against those who advocate racism, sexism or
homophobia, etc. and against those who ruin good causes by acting in an illiberal and
un-emancipatory manner. The best argument against those who promote good causes in an
intemperate and divisive way is to tell them that they are not PC!
Focus