Economic justification II.
Found an old Yawningbread article contesting the idea that economic growth is the end that justifies any (political) means.
Click on the link; read the article before you read the rest of this post.
I thought that the argument needed an additional premise: that an inviolate Constitution is desirable. Quoting from the article:
(The "frame of the state", I take it, refers to the idea of a Constitution, the set of principles that are non-negotiable. For example, in the United States, if the Legislature passes a law that the Judiciary judges to be "non-constitutional", the Judiciary has the power to compel the Legislature to repeal the law.)
The presumption is that the "frame of the state" should not be changeable. Whether is "should" or "should not" is a question of political ideology; the United Kingdoms, for example, does not have a Constitution. The article asserts (without arguing much) that having an immovable Constitution is desirable, is good.
Singapore has a Constitution, but parts can be rewritten, if the majority in Parliament votes in favour of the decision to do so. Given the current situation, with an automatic majority vote for any decision (members from the same party are enforced by the Party Whip to vote as the party leadership determines), many political commentators argue that the Constitution is non-viable.
...
Another point: I thought the argument in the last section rather weak. The article criticizes Lee Kuan Yew for using a Straw Man fallacy: LKY's summary of "the West's" opinion is deliberately over-simplified so that demolishing it is easy.
OK, let's accept the article's critique for now: LKY's drawing a link between a multi-party outcome and a democratic process is simplistic. However, having invalidating the link, the article goes on to argue how having a multi-party system as outcome is a good indicator of a democratic process. I think the author contradicts himself here.
Click on the link; read the article before you read the rest of this post.
I thought that the argument needed an additional premise: that an inviolate Constitution is desirable. Quoting from the article:
But the government's responsibility for economic growth and wellbeing has to be discharged within the frame of the state and its preemptive obligation to provide justice and security. And justice includes human rights and fair political processes.
(The "frame of the state", I take it, refers to the idea of a Constitution, the set of principles that are non-negotiable. For example, in the United States, if the Legislature passes a law that the Judiciary judges to be "non-constitutional", the Judiciary has the power to compel the Legislature to repeal the law.)
The presumption is that the "frame of the state" should not be changeable. Whether is "should" or "should not" is a question of political ideology; the United Kingdoms, for example, does not have a Constitution. The article asserts (without arguing much) that having an immovable Constitution is desirable, is good.
Singapore has a Constitution, but parts can be rewritten, if the majority in Parliament votes in favour of the decision to do so. Given the current situation, with an automatic majority vote for any decision (members from the same party are enforced by the Party Whip to vote as the party leadership determines), many political commentators argue that the Constitution is non-viable.
...
Another point: I thought the argument in the last section rather weak. The article criticizes Lee Kuan Yew for using a Straw Man fallacy: LKY's summary of "the West's" opinion is deliberately over-simplified so that demolishing it is easy.
OK, let's accept the article's critique for now: LKY's drawing a link between a multi-party outcome and a democratic process is simplistic. However, having invalidating the link, the article goes on to argue how having a multi-party system as outcome is a good indicator of a democratic process. I think the author contradicts himself here.
posted by cp at
6:47 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home