Democracy, Now In 3D

When I watch gay scenes in movies, I feel disgusted. Not because I actively chose to feel that way, but maybe because of the society I was brought up in. Yet, despite my discomfort, I watch these movies anyway to understand them. Because understanding is the first step toward breaking free from social conditioning. And liberals would recognize that. They would appreciate a person questioning his/her own biases instead of blindly following them.

But here’s my point. Even if society completely eliminates the stigma around queerness, there is a chance that there will always be people who feel discomfort. If they still fight for queer rights despite their inherent disgust, does that make them bigots? Some would say yes, ignoring the reality that human biology plays a role in shaping our reactions. This is where the liberal movement risks perversion. When it sacrifices understanding for moral grandstanding, when it chooses purity tests over reality.

The philosophy of justice and the philosophy of science are the recipe for creating a truly democratic society. Skepticism emerges from the philosophy of science and it is essential for critical thinking. But skepticism without a sense of justice, compassion, empathy, and understanding is dangerous. It becomes a Frankenstein’s monster that turns science into an instrument of power rather than progress. Skeptics without understanding become conspiracy theorists, flat-earthers, anti-vaxxers. Skeptics without a sense of justice and empathy become Trumpists, neoreactionaries, libertarians, nihilists, doomers, defeatists. But while it is okay to be cynical or pessimistic, skeptics should still show some hope for humanity, even if they find it irrational. Skepticism becomes a problem when people believe humans are inherently evil and nothing can be changed. They are right that humans are not inherently good, but they are wrong to imply that humans are inherently evil. We are neither. We have a tendency to shift towards either end.

This is where the philosophy of science comes in to help. A philosophy where there is no morality but only objective understanding. Humans should be studied objectively without perverting that study with morality. Though we should aspire for moral righteousness, believing beforehand that humanity is good will lead to disillusionment when confronted with historical atrocities like Nazism. People who believed humans were inherently good often jump to the opposite extreme, concluding that humans are inherently evil rather than understanding the human condition. This kind of behavior is common among teenagers who are beginning to understand how the world works but fail to engage with its complexity. If true democracy is to be achieved, the philosophy of science and the philosophy of justice must go hand in hand. Without the other, one alone is destined to be perverted by opportunists. Scientific and technological advancements make morality affordable, ensuring that ethical behavior is accessible to all. However, when scientific progress stagnates, the cost of morality rises, and most people can no longer afford to prioritize it. In times of economic instability, self-preservation takes precedence over ethical considerations. Most people remain moral as long as they feel economically secure, once that security crumbles, morality often takes a backseat. This argument may seem too materialistic and unappealing to the idealists, but it is a reality worth acknowledging. Without stability, morality erodes, not because people are inherently bad, but because survival becomes their primary concern.

Justice itself is hollow without understanding, compassion, and empathy. Strict justice without these qualities will only instill resentment rather than true non-performative forgiveness in people. True justice must take sides to uphold its own principles but must also remain unbiased and understanding of both sides. No one is unbiased in this world. The important thing for justice is to be as close to unbiased as possible.

Then, on another axis, we have the economic spectrum of capitalism, socialism, and communism. Democracy has nothing to do with them. It exists on its own independent axis. If we ground our beliefs in the philosophy of science and the philosophy of justice, then the economic axis shouldn’t bother us. We should look at all economic policies and balance them with a view of justice and scientific evidence, picking up policies that make sense at a given time rather than subscribing to rigid ideologies.

This way of thinking will reduce the oversimplification of economic ideologies. Instead of thrashing one system entirely, we should focus on the unique conditions and problems that each country faces and implement policies that make sense for that time period. Take India, for example. After independence, India still had feudal structures, insane poverty, and barely any industry. If it had gone full capitalist, power would have concentrated in the hands of the already wealthy elites, worsening inequality. The 1990s reforms worked because the previous decades built the basic institutions, industries, and an educated workforce. There was actually something to liberalize. Without that, the country would have just been a giant sweatshop for foreign companies with no real development. The problem was mismanagement, ideologue thinking, and the play of powerful people concentrating power. Fabian socialism was containing the powerful people from grabbing extreme power, but without strong democratic foundations, it was destined to fail at many levels. But that doesn’t mean capitalism would have done a better job for this specific case study.

The discussion isn’t about socialism versus capitalism. It’s about managing things properly with a country’s unique position in mind. Liberalizing the economy was important for India, but that doesn’t mean Fabian socialism had nothing to do with the country’s growth before that. The issue was that India was run by ideologues who were unwilling to discard policies that no longer worked. We must learn to discard ideas when they stop being effective and not look at things in black and white.

This is where the axis of science and justice play a crucial role. They break people free from their rigid economic ideologies and encourage them to look at the bigger picture. Different countries at different times have different needs. But in today’s world, capitalism seems to be the only soil where democracy can exist, but not necessarily flourish. Justice must be the fertilizer that makes the capitalist soil favorable for democratic growth. Completely doing away with capitalism and embracing communism-esque ideologies without critical thinking will only cause more chaos. Democracy, as history shows, has only been able to exist in the drought lands of capitalism. We just need to humanize it and enrich the drought land with loam. This is a long and difficult process, but it’s the only way forward as of now. On the other hand, the far left’s demand for the total collapse of the system is dystopian, a short term adrenaline rush that does not create lasting change and overlooks reality.

Now comes the third axis of our model: freedom. Freedom is what allows science and justice to function properly, without it, the entire structure collapses. Economic freedom, however, must be balanced based on how it affects science and justice. If granting economic freedom increases social injustice, like the exploitation of workers, then corporate freedom should be regulated. If corporate freedom does not hinder science and justice, then businesses should be left alone. The state’s only duty here is to protect the interests of science and justice.

Science is crucial because without advancements in technology, governance will remain unequal and inhumane. Justice ensures that workers are protected, while science alleviates their problems, Ideally eliminating work altogether in the future through automation and re-education for the unemployed. This may seem like science fiction and destabilizing, but a democracy should be visionary, and science provides that vision. Justice is there to control who benefits from technology: corporations, governments, or the people. The world is already headed in this direction, but right now, corporations in the West and authoritarian governments elsewhere are poised to reap the benefits of AI and automation. Unless people wake up, leave nihilism behind, and focus on the fight for justice, democracy will fail.

Stopping investment in AI and automation is foolish, like an ostrich burying its head in the ground. The future of democracy depends on who controls technology. Go to your nearest politician and talk to them about it. Engage. But don’t restrict technological progress entirely, because if we don’t develop it, others will. It would be like sitting back and waiting for the Nazis to build the atomic bomb. Politicians only care about their careers and legacy, so tell them to cut the bullshit and talk business. Don’t be stick to a particular party and become tribalistic, stuck in your echo chamber.

At the end of the day, democracy isn’t self-sustaining. It requires constant effort, engagement, and a delicate balance of science, justice, and freedom. It needs people who are willing to fight for it.