Evaluating Critical Thinking in Democracy

Introduction

The human brain has the capacity to think. Critical thinking is one of the activities that people tend to do whether knowingly, or unknowingly from various walks of life. Critical thinking is a skill widely adopted during study of different types of literature. It involves the ability to analyse information objectively and question information that one receives. Critical thinking involves careful examination of information to identify and develop an explanation of what it means (Cottrell, 2017). This essay presents a case study analysis that critically evaluates the case presented by Roger Scruton, a philosopher, and writer for the BBC News Magazine, in his article titled “A Point of View: Is Democracy Overrated?”

Describe the purpose of applying critical thinking to the above case study.

Cottrell (2017) confirms that one reason for the application of critical thinking is to analyze a piece of writing’s point of view. In the case study presented by Scruton (2013), the central concern is that democracy is overrated. The critical thinking skill can be applied to understand the perspective of the writer and the discourse community to which the writer’s topic is part. Critical thinking would help understand why the writer says that Western foreign policy champions democracy. The opinion concerning democracy being preferred can be backed by the idea that it is the ideology that triumphed against totalitarianism after the Cold War.

According to Coughlan (2008), critical thinking can be supplemented with creative thinking skills to result in major discoveries and breakthroughs, as has been witnessed in the fields of science, innovation, and art. Even though critical thinking and creative thinking involve approaches that are totally different, the synergy effect of combining the skills results in a deeper and more enriched learning experience (Coughlan, 2008). Therefore, in the case study presented, critical thinking can support creative thinking in determining the ultimate essence of democracy. Thinking critically and creatively will cause a reader to acquire in-depth understanding of the key take-aways that Scruton seeks to present in the case.

Cottrell (2017) also identifies another reason for critical thinking, being that it allows the making of sound judgments. In the case study, critical thinking can help to develop a sound judgment by acquiring support from supporting information which the author uses to illustrate that democracy is overrated. Sound judgment develops from supporting information from the case, such as the victory of democracy over totalitarianism during the Cold War and the need to consider that there are other hidden institutions that facilitate democracy.

Also, Cottrell (2017) asserts that critical thinking is important in presenting a form of thinking that us fair and well-structured. Applying this purpose of critical thinking in the context of the case study can help one identify the structured thinking used by the author to show his argument concerning democracy’s overrated nature (Cottrell, 2017). For example, the author uses countries such as Russia, the Middle East nations, and Britain to show how democracy threatens, rather than protects human rights. In some nations, like Egypt, parties use electoral victories as an opportunity to “crush dissent and impose a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable.”

Demonstrate an understanding of critical thinking skills by examining claims, assertions, and statements made in the given case study.

A claim is a declarative statement that is either true or false. In certain cases, a claim can be referred to as an assertion, hypothesis, principle, thesis, judgment, proposition, among others. Scruton (2013) makes various claims, assertions, and statements concerning his point of view of democracy. One of the claims is that, for some time, the leading Western nations gave weight to the assumption that the solution to political conflict is democracy. Therefore, for its capability of solving political problems, foreign policy needs to encourage the growth of democracy in nations that are yet to acquire its benefits (Scruton, 2013). While the author asserts that democracy solves political problems in Western countries, he fails to provide examples of nations from the west which have benefited from its implementation.

Another assertion made by the author is that the settled feature of Western foreign policy is championing democracy. To support this assertion, the author uses the analogy of the Cold War, where democracy triumphed in the conflict against totalitarianism. Also, democracy resulted in people being liberated from states which were previously communist. The fault in this assertion is that he fails to identify the nations where people were liberated from communism. In addition, the author failed to consider that democracy, as a universal aspect, cut through not only the political but also the social and economic domains. The author, therefore, retained his focus on the political impact of democracy on states alone while giving less attention to the social and economic aspects involved.

Scruton (2013) makes the claim that democracy being considered as a ‘one-size-fits-all’ solution to political and social conflict around the world is founded on the disregard of the historical and cultural conditions. Also, it shows ignorance on the part that democracy is more deeply held by other institutions. In this claim, the author does not present the basis for his perspective, and this lends it to be subjective. It makes sense to communicate that democracy is upheld by other institutions, although objectivity is lost when the author fails to tie his claim to support from an external source of information.

The author also makes claims concerning nations in the Middle East, Britain, and Russia, and the protection of human rights. Scruton (2013) claims that “democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them.” The author, however, does not consider that there are other forces that are interconnected with democracy, which result in its failure to protect human rights. Instead of directly linking democracy to being a threat to human rights, the author should have claimed that it is a permeating factor for human rights violations. Parties in the Middle East nations rely on democracy to utterly disregard dissent and Britain had human rights protection back in the 19th Century, before democracy even became a thing. The parties in the Middle East countries only used democracy as a decoy to instigate their policies to the public. Thus, democracy needs not to point fingers at democracy for being misused.

The author claims that a totalitarian system endures by abolishing the distinction between the state and the civil society and by having control over anything that significant, which happens in the state. This is in addition to getting rid of democratic elections and imposing a one-party state. The weakness in this claim is that the author fails to give it support using a nation which has done away with democratic elections and is known to be a one-party state. Identifying a nation that fits the claim would boost the validity of the claim by putting the totalitarian system into real context.

Another claim made by the author is that there is a delicate network of institutions that affect political freedom. These institutions are the judicial independence, the institution of property rights, freedom of speech and opinion, and legitimate opposition. A communist state lacks political freedom because a judge would be directed to give a verdict, which is favoured by the ruling party. The institution of property rights is crucial to political freedom because it yields mistrust among people and leads them into conflict and suspicions among each other, creating a situation that a communist party would enjoy alone. The legitimate opposition is necessary for political freedom because, without it, a top-down dictatorship can be instigated, which deteriorates the state of a civilized government.

Using critical thinking skills, evaluate the ideas expressed in the case study, and develop valid arguments using your understanding of the topic.

Scruton (2013) argues that democracy is overrated. He uses a variety of claims (mentioned above) to support his argument. Indeed, from his perspective of argument, the claims are true and supportive of the main idea. However, thinking critically will help to test the soundness of claims made by the author as well as seek every side of his argument (The Open University, 2008).

One claim made by the author is that democracy is a threat to human rights and not a way of protecting them. However, according to Kinsella & Rousseau (2008), nations that uphold democratic governance are restrained in their decision-making by the political costs of deploying force domestically. In fact, before using military force, democratic leaders tend to make a cost-benefit analysis in order to avoid political repercussions that are dangerous in the domestic arena (Kinsella & Rousseau, 2008). When political costs are incurred and human lives lost, a ruling coalition will be ruined, and opposition groups become more mobilized to act. Therefore, Kinsella’s & Rousseau’s (2008) perspective conflicts with the author’s claim in the case by showing that with democracy, human rights will be protected. This means that the case which Scruton (2013) presents concerning the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is not a democracy because it disregards aspects of democracy by blocking out opposition and imposing “a way of life that for many citizens is simply unacceptable.”

The argument that democracy is overrated, and the Western foreign policy champions it as the solution for political conflict is widely challenged by a variety of authors. In a report published by the organization Agenda for Humanity, good political leadership is necessary for the end and prevention of conflict. In a more detailed explanation, the organization asserts that the political solutions, together with sustained leadership, unified purpose, and investing in inclusive and peaceful societies is crucial towards bringing an end to human suffering (Agenda for Humanity, 2019). In a study by Aremu (2010), the African continent contains nations that are democracies although they still have political conflicts for various reasons. The main reason that attests to conflict in every nation the pursuit of interests that conflict each other. In order to solve political conflict, Aremu (2010) brings to focus the need for having a sincere and committed leadership, equitable resource distribution, promoting the rule of law, poverty eradication, access to education and availing employment opportunities for the youth, among others (Aremu, 2010). Therefore, in the case study, it would be correct to argue that democracy is misunderstood, and together with other means, it can result at the end of political conflicts.

According to Scruton (2013), a totalitarian system endures by abolishing the distinction between civil society and state. This claim was given a less comprehensive explanation by the author. In addition to the fact that a totalitarian system gets rid of all kinds of democratic elections, the author failed to consider that in such a system, democracy functions under the rules which are recognized actively by a minority alone. Also, the masses in a totalitarian system are regarded as being politically indifferent, and they were of less importance in the nation because they are representative of the nation’s backward political life. These kinds of system take advantage of the masses, which are already isolated and are disconnected from the system. Totalitarianism capitalizes in the lost hope in democracy, which can be seen from signs such as low turnout for voters and a general pervasive feeling of helplessness (Farnam Street, 2019). The totalitarian system, having recognized this, manipulate the people by instigating random terrors which will serve to weaken any form of connection with other people.

The author makes the claim that there is a delicate chain of institutions which affect political freedom. These institutions are judicial independence, the institution of property rights, freedom of speech and opinion, and legitimate opposition. What the author fails to consider, while making the suggestions, that different continents have different supportive institutions to democracy. For example, in India, the supporting institution for democracy is an external force of social contradiction, which is the colonial rule (Beteille, 2011). The supporting institutions for the French democracy include the ideals like fraternity, equality and liberty.

Summary

To conclude, the purpose of applying critical thinking in the case study varies from the need to evaluate and understand the author’s point of view, together with merging critical thinking with creative thinking for a deeper understanding of the content in discussion. The author makes several claims to support the argument that democracy is overrated. For example, he claims that democracy is supported by institutions such as legitimate opposition, among others. Also, critical thinking skills evaluate the claims presented to help understand the topic. One critique to the claims is that there are more institutions which the author has not mentioned in the case, that affect different nations differently.

References

Aremu, J., 2010. Conflicts in Africa: Meaning, Causes, Impact, and Solution. An International Multi-Disciplinary Journal, Ethiopia , 4(4), pp. 549-560.

Cottrell, S., 2017. Critical Thinking Skills: Developing Effective Analysis and Argument. Palgrave MacMillan.

Coughlan, A., 2008. Creative and Critical Thinking. In: Learning to Learn. DCU Student Learning Resources.

Kinsella, D. & Rousseau, D., 2008. Democracy and Conflict Resolution. In: Bercovitch: Conflict Resolution (Handbook). SAGE Publishers, pp. 477-493.

The Open University, 2008. Thinking Critically. In: Walton Hall: The Open University.