If the state is bad then democracy is good because it imposes a constraint on the state. If the state is an objective good then there will be no need for democracy because the state will always know what is in the best interests of the people. Assuming the people know what is good for them democracy is good and a good state will have no reason to reject democracy. It is only if the people do not know what is good for them that democracy threatens a good state. Anti-democratic states are either bad or know more than their people.
If we assume that the state doesn't know more than its people then there is no reason for a good state to oppress democracy and reject proportional representation. Only if the state is objectively bad or knows more than its people would there be a reason (for it) to promote first-past-the-post but since we have no way to know that the state knows more than the people (and that in general people know what is in their own interests) only a bad state would promote first-past-the-post.
If an anarchist is someone who rejects all state (for them all states are bad) then it is perfectly natural (for them) that a state might promote fptp because for the state to be bad is not unexpected. State-promotion of fptp is not shocking to an anarchist because for them it is consistent for the state to reject democracy.
No comments:
Post a Comment