The concept of karl popper about civic responsibility in democratic society and there are lessons to be learned from that so as to improve the effectiveness of social monitoring and

Based on the study of his conception on the criteria for a democratic society and on the role of citizens in supervising and criticizing the work of government, the author recognizes valuable lessons for enhancing the efficiency of social supervising and criticism.

THE CONCEPT OF KARL POPPER ABOUT CIVIC RESPONSIBILITY IN

DEMOCRATIC SOCIETY AND THERE ARE LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THAT

SO AS TO IMPROVE THE EFFECTIVENESS OF SOCIAL MONITORING AND

CRITICISM IN VIETNAM TODAY

Bui Lan Huong1

1 Hanoi Pedagogical University 2

Information:

Received: 03/08/2018

Accepted: 06/12/2018

Published: 11/2019

Keywords:

Karl Popper; democracy;

open sociey; social criticism;

supervision

ABSTRACT

Karl Raimund Popper (1902-1994) was considered one of the most influential philosophers in the twentieth century His socio-political thoughts left us a number of profound lessons for the social construction of today This essay focuses on investigating K Popper's main views on democratic societies Based on the study of his conception on the criteria for a democratic society and on the role of citizens in supervising and criticizing the work of government, the author recognizes valuable lessons for enhancing the efficiency of social supervising and criticism

1 INTRODUCTION

In today's social life, the use of supervision and

criticism is indispensable in organizing a

democratic society Social supervision and

criticism are not new issues People have been

acquainted with these concepts very early and

made it an effective tool to establish the

democracy, leading to the political development

of any advanced countries around the world

Vietnam, which is currently in a stage of

innovation and integration, should reform under

the leadership of the Party to eliminate

bureaucracy as well as to overcome irrationalities

in the governmental system at all levels In order

to do so, it is necessary to have effective solutions

to arouse and promote democracy, openness and

transparency Social supervision and criticism is

the most effective way, especially in such a one –

party political system In the current age, social supervision and criticism remains one of the most important issues and requires study, especially in countries striving for democracy including Vietnam

Karl Popper (1902 - 1994) is a famous philosopher of the twentieth century who devoted much of his time and effort to studies focus on the building a democratic society Apart from the inherent limitations of his democratic ideology,

we can see that the idea of the citizen's responsibility to build an ideal society as a shining gem An objective scientific research on this content, therefore, is necessary to help us gain valuable lessons to improve the effectiveness of social supervision and criticism for all the citizens

in our country today

2 CONTENT

2.1 Karl Popper's concept of democracy

Democracy is a historical category Over 2000

years ago, the ancient Greek sage Herodôte first

introduced the concept of democracy in his work

“History” He explained democracy as "the power

of the people" Thus, democracy is a concept

originating from the slavery period in ancient

Greek society, where the first democracy of

human society was born –Athenian democracy,

deeply influenced the later democratic ideological

movements, especially from the Renaissance to

the present With a history of more than two

thousand years of development, the concept of

"democracy" has a very rich connotation, but it is

uniform in the basic content of democracy as the

power belonging to the people

In developing the theory of an open society,

Popper came to a definitive conclusion that only a

democratic and open society which is willing to

receive criticism, to criticize mistakes and to

overcome the shortcomings has opportunity to

improve itself Therefore Popper also presented

his own concept of democracy Different from

traditional notions of "democracy", Popper said

that "the important political issue is not about who

holds the power, but about how to supervise the

use of that power The basic political problem is

not about to whom the power will be given

(because no authority is reliable) but about the

most effective way to monitor power through

political institutions ”(Cornforth.M, 2002, p.494)

Therefore, refuting the question Who will rule? as

a fundamental question of political theory, he

proposed a new question: How should we

organize political institutions to prevent bad

governance from causing too much harm to

society? Popper said this was a fundamental

question of institutional design Popper explained

that the greatest preeminence of democracy is that

it ensures the ability to establish supervision of

the activities of the rulers or those of powerful

officials regardless of who they are, as well as in

the case of necessity, to deprive people of authority without using violence If there are not any democratic institutions or if these institutions are not well-developed and weak, the only way to monitor and replace the rulers is to bring a different kind of violence against their violence Historically, the establishment of democratic institutions is of course associated with resisting militarilist action From this point, Popper presented the definition of democracy as follows:

“I understand democracy is not something indeterminate like the power of the people or the power of the majority, but it is a system of institutions which allows the social supervision towards the rulers and dismiss them at the will of the non-rulers, allowing them to conduct reforms without the use of violence, even against the will

of the rulers."(Cornforth.M, 2002, p.496) Democracy is the best kind of political system because it has gone a long way to solve problems, such as through non-violent measures, in order to get rid of the weak rulers by voting to remove them from their position (William Gorton, kn) While many researchers argue that the principle of plurality is one of the basic characteristics of democratic society, Popper stated that democracy cannot be fully characterized as the rule of the majority, although the regime of general elections

is the most important one Because the majority can be ruled in an authoritarian way In a democracy, the power of rulers must be limited and the standard of a democracy, according to him: "the rulers - the government, can be dismissed by the governed without bloodshed Thus, if the rulers do not defend the institution in which they guarantee the minority the ability to operate for a peaceful change, then their rule is an authoritarian regime ”(Popper, 1971b) Dictatorialism "consists of polities from which the governed cannot escape in any other way but the path of a successful revolution" (Popper, 1971a) Popper's concept of democracy is not as abstract

as the so-called "dominant people" but rather as a combination of regimes The combination of

regimes is: the people can govern the government,

including the electoral regime; rulers’ rights are

limited; the governed have the right to change the

rulers without bloodshed; the governed can carry

out reforms by means of peace and democracy, a

regime empowering or dismissing the rulers’

rights Therefore, according to Popper, checking

whether the current government institution is a

democratic institution means determining whether

people have established a regulation so that “those

without power can also discuss and examine

individuals in power, supervise their way and

appoint or dismiss them ”(Cornforth.M, 2002,

p.499)

Popper's conception of democracy was built in

parallel with his criticism of violent institutions

and his differentiation between these two types of

institutions According to Popper, the two most

fundamental characteristics of democratic

institutions compared to the violent ones are,

firstly, the development of a mechanism to

supervise authorized individuals and to eliminate

them if they do not complete their mission and

secondly, the allowance to achieve reforms

without resorting to violence

However, Popper was very reluctant to divide all

governments into democracy and tyranny There

is, of course, a clear difference between the rulers

of democracy and those of tyranny But that does

not mean that we can divide state institutions

clearly into democracy and tyranny simply based

on the difference between democratic and

tyrannic measures We can only distinguish

relatively to a certain extent to determine the role

of governments in social progress and political

evolution to "democracy and freedom" C Marx

stressed that the most important thing in assessing

forms of governance is the distinction between

governments in terms of which class relations

they encourage and which class relations they

facilitate

Popper's fundamental limitation in the definition

of democracy is that he defined it simply as

"social supervision of rulers" but did not mention

how that supervision can be divided between classes in society because he ignored the existence

of classes and the ways by which the entire people conduct and protect the interests of their class through institutions, including democratic institutions Arguments in favour of democracy would always be false if we ignore the existence

of classes and class struggle According to Marxism - Leninism, democracy is regarded as a form of state that has class nature, so it is impossible to separate the state from the class If democracy as a state regime is directly associated with a certain ruling class based on a dominant productive relation then democracy will always have class nature and will never be purely democratic for all classes The class nature of democracy is reflected in class relations and class struggles to address the question of who democracy is for and who democracy and authoritarianism should be limited to Each class explained democracy, theoretically and practically, by different ways and levels, depending on their positions, views and interests

In presenting his conception of an ideal society called the “open society”, Popper proposed the method of building that society in a "progressive social work" This work is characterized by the gradual repair and supplement, exploration and advancement at the same time The task of progressive social construction is to reform society step by step According to him, the task of progressive social constructions is to design social structures, as well as to renovate and use existing social structures, like the main task of normal construction is to design, repair and improve machines In order to achieve the goal of this progressive social work, there are two conditions

in terms of the realistic basis: Firstly, economic intervention; secondly, political democracy With these two conditions, Popper concentrated on the foundation of building a democratic society Thus, when building an ideal society - an open society, Popper always attached great importance

to political democracy However, the difference in

his thinking compared to other political

researchers is that he did not consider democracy

to be the goal of social construction but only one

of the two key conditions for building society, in

which the responsibility of citizens to participate

in building democracy is significantly important

2.2 Citizens' responsibility in a democratic

society from the perspective of Karl Popper

Karl Popper's idea of civic responsibility in a

democratic society was not systematically

presented or reserved by any chapter But when he

presented his ideas about an open society, it was

the requirements he made to build, according to

him, an ideal society and the responsibility of the

citizens in supervising state’s power

implementation and the criticism towards public

policy in an open society that emerged as the most

valuable part of his concept of democracy

The most fundamental difference between "open

society" and "closed society" is the ability of

individuals to rationally respond to the problems

they encounter Members of a closed society are

forced to act in accordance with orders which are

considered as divinely commanded The signature

characteristic of a closed society is the belief in

the existence of some certain mysterious taboos or

restrictions The system of these restrictions is

similar to social laws and similar to the laws of

nature that people must strictly obey and

absolutely must not violate

In contrast, citizens in an open society must have

a critical attitude towards these restrictions and

make their decisions on the basis of mutual

discussion, based on human intellectual capacity

The presence of rational criticism principles gives

citizens the ability to consciously guide social

development, and manage the "gradual social

transformation technology", creating state

institutions suitable with the actual needs of

citizens For that to be achieved, citizens must not

be passively but proactive, as the success or

failure of the government lies in their

responsibility The democratic government -

elected by the people and responsible to the people - protects the rights of individuals, so that citizens in a democratic society can fulfill their citizens' obligations and responsibilities and contribute to the strengthening of society Citizens must at least be self-aware about the important issues that society is facing in order to participate

in discussions and to vote wisely (Popper, 1971b) According to Popper, the meaning of democracy

is to allow reform without the use of violence However, if the maintenance of democracy is not considered the first priority in any fight on this battlefield, the potential anti-democratic trends which always exist can cause the breakdown of a democracy A thorough understanding of these principles should necessarily be attained for the prevention of the risk that democracy could face

K Popper particularly emphasized the right to choose a leader of the people This concerned his deep skepticism about any type of centralized power Therefore, he accentuated the role of institutions that can minimize the abuse of power and the control of power Popper argued that over-concentrated power will produce degeneration and the purpose of democracy is to prevent over-concentration and abuse of power According to him, a true democracy must be a curb of power, and the supervision of the people to state officials The argument continued that democracy can balance its many powers by supervision, that politics is a matter of regime, a matter of law making, and to ensure democracy it is only possible by relying on the regime to control power Popper proposed two situations where

violence can be used to ensure democracy First,

only under the domination of violence that it can

be used to fight against violence itself Second,

after achieving democracy, if a democracy is attacked by domestic or foreign forces, citizens have the duty to protest and even use violence Popper did not object to the use of violence in constitution and protection of democracy and freedom

According to Popper, all issues in an open society

are not predetermined by history, history itself has

no purpose or meaning The so-called purpose and

meaning of history is created by people He

insisted that although history itself has no

purpose, we can rely on our own condition to

assign certain purposes to history, “the truth also

does not have meaning, it is our decision to make

a truth is meaningful” (Ly Quoc Tu 2005, p.106)

From such a view, he required us to be the most

responsible for our words and actions, and the

effects of our actions to history This concept of

Popper, according to him, is fundamentally

different from the point of view of historicalism

Historicalism proposed that the movement of

history is in accordance with the law of nature,

without the interference of decisions and choices

of individuals and people just need to follow the

footsteps of history In contrast, Popper argued

that decision makers should be solely responsible,

and not to blame the abstract history for their

decisions With that responsibility, people should

nourish their logical reasoning and conscience

Thus, for Popper, citizens in a democracy have

not only rights, but also responsibilities to

participate in the political system In turn, the

political system protects their rights and freedoms

Citizens in democratic society have the freedom

to exercise their rights within the framework of

the law under the condition that their expression

of their freedoms does not harm other citizens In

that sense, "the freedom to move his fists is

limited by the position of the nose of the person

next to him" (Cornforth.M, 2002, p.566)

Like the defenders of democracy, Popper also

puts democracy in line with equality According

to Popper, equality is created by democratic

institutions so in the absence of equality,

democracy will disappear Real democracy

associates with equality because in democratic

principles implementing measures to establish the

supervision of those in power from those in

ruling, those who are ruled must have equal rights

in participating in such supervision and if it is not

so, the supervision established is considered defected from a democratic perspective In that sense of equality, universal suffrage and representative ruling regime are really the measure of supervising democratic equality Every member of a democratic society has the equal rights to participate in the elections and to choose their delegates to position into the legislature It means that no class is excluded from the democratic supervision process It also means that in order to be passed by the legislature, the laws must have equal relations with every citizen,

so that everyone has the right to be legally protected and should be equally punished for violation of the laws

From the above analysis, Popper emphasized the relationship between freedom and responsibility

in his socio-political philosophy According to Popper, an open society is the society that brings the most freedom It extends the ability to look for differences, the possibility for self-consciousness and personal development This broad freedom of action is associated with responsibility for one's own decisions, as well as the responsibility of the state on the basis of the idea of participation in democratic institutions Only through the implementation of such responsibility can the development and maintenance of an open society

be possible Responsibility here is not limited to one person's responsibility for their own political community, but also for global responsibility and accountability for the future Therefore, in the perspective of K Popper of this subject, we can find universal and intergenerational ideas to enrich the debate about justice

2.3 Lessons learned from Karl Popper’s concept of civic responsibility in democratic society to improve the effectiveness of social supervision and criticism in Vietnam today

Supervision of government activities means monitoration, detection, consideration, evaluation and recommendations for the performance of official duties by individuals, agencies and organizations working in the government

apparatus “Social criticism is criticism in general,

but wider in scale and force, of society, people

and scientists about the content, directions and

policies, solutions for the development of the

economy, science - technology, education, social

development of the whole society, the State and

associated organizations” (Ngô Văn Dụ, Hồng

Trà, Trần Xuân Giá, 2011, p.182) Thus, the

object of social criticism is the directions and

policies promulgated by the Party and the State,

and the implementation of those policies The

scope of social criticism ranges from the

directions and policies on economy, politics,

culture, ideology to domestic and foreign affairs;

therefore it is necessary to gather the synergy of

the whole society for social criticism to be

effectively performed

Supervision is to answer the questions of how the

policies and laws are implemented, what affects

the implementation can have on the

socio-economy and whether the rights of people are

guaranteed Meanwhile, social criticism is to

answer whether that the proposed directions and

drafted policies, guidelines are suitable, whether

they meet the requirement the ever need of

innovation of the country, the international

integration and the expectation of the people

By understanding the basic views of K Popper’s

perspective on democratic society and from

examining his concepts of the standard of a

democratic society and the responsibility of

citizens in building a social society, we can draw

significant lessons for the implementation of

monitoring and social criticism in Vietnam today

as follows

First, citizens must be responsible for their own

votes in electing qualified representatives to

participate in the government apparatus

Voting is the process of choosing individuals to

hold official duties in the government based on

people’s decisions This is the common

mechanism that democracies currently use to

allocate positions in state apparatus, especially in

the executive, judicial, and at all levels of government

Each citizen must be responsible for the ballot in their hand to choose people’s representatives who truly deserve, to take on the responsibility that people entrusted with their own future by voting Every citizen must be responsible for the election

of the country's leader

More importantly, after selecting a worthy representative, citizens should continue to carry out their responsibilities as supervisors of the performance of such delegates and how effective they are in completing the tasks given by the Party and the people It is important to elect competent delegates into the government apparatus, but it is even more important to monitor their performance

to prevent bureaucracy, corrupted manifestations

in order to maintaining the transparency of cadres

in the Party and in government In past years, anti-corruption effects have been carried out very aggressively by the Party and the State, many degenerated party members have been punished properly, corruption cases have been tried publicly and transparently under the close monitoring of the people, making the people's faith in the Party in the government to be increasingly strengthened and improved This is the result of the effectiveness of social criticism

Second, the role of citizens in monitoring government activities through the implementation

of social criticism should be determined correctly

Through the feedback of the people should the party committees and authorities be aware of the extent of social consensus and adjust accordingly Guidelines and policies are products created by people, thus, they can be subjective Without social feedback, it is difficult to realize the extent

of social consensus; and when a policy is issued without any feedback, it does not mean that the policy is appropriate Non-feedback can either be the presentation of agreement or objection Therefore, if social criticism is not pushed to become a normal socio-political activity, it is

unlikely that there will be feedback from people

even when a policy is considered unsuitable The

good news is that in recent years, there has been

lively discussions in the society whenever the

Party or the State issued a certain policy that the

majority of people found inappropriate

Nevertheless, we need to be more aware of the

important role of monitoring and social criticism

to implement it seriously and systematically to

achieve the highest degree of efficiency

Third, citizens should be mobilized to actively

learn and thoroughly understand the Party’s

directions and guidelines, the State’s policies, and

to maintain political stances when participating in

social supervision and criticism

Currently in Vietnam, social supervision and

criticism is the basic function of the Vietnam

Fatherland Front The supervision of the Vietnam

Fatherland Front and socio-political organizations

is the monitoration, review, detection, evaluation

and recommendations of agencies, organizations,

officials and party members, elected

representatives, civil servants, and public officials

on the implementation of the Party's guidelines

and policies and the State's policies and laws The

social criticism of the Vietnam Fatherland Front

and socio-political organizations is the review,

evaluation, proposal of political opinions and

recommendations for draft guidelines and policies

of the Party, policies and laws of the State

In order for social supervision and criticism to be

truly in-depth and effective, citizens need to

improve their understanding and to actively

explore social issues of the country Citizens also

need to maintain their objectiveness, political

stance and trust in the Communist Party in order

to prevent hostile forces from taking advantage of

social supervision and criticism to incite people in

joining protests against the State We love our

country and want the country to develop but that

affection needs to be legally and vigilantly expressed

3 CONCLUSION

Karl Popper’s ideology on the responsibilities of citizens in a democratic society has various levels

of content but in the scope of this article, the author decided to focus on exploiting the content

of citizens' responsibility in monitoring the power implementation of the State and social criticism of the policies issued by the State to achieve valuable lessons for the application of Vietnam to contribute to improving the effectiveness of social supervision and criticism, and therefore, to build a socialist rule-of-law state “of the people, by the people, for the people”

REFERENCES

Cornforth.M (2002) Open philosophy and open society (Do Minh Hop, translated) Hanoi: Social Sciences Publishing House (The original book was published in 1968)

Ly Quoc Tu (2005) Karl Raimund Popper (Quang Lam, translated) East-West Linguistic Culture Center: Thuan Hoa Publishing House Ngo Van Du, Hong Tra and Tran Xuan Gia (2011) Learning some terms in the muniment

of 10th Congress of Vietnam Communist Party Hanoi: National Political Publishing House

Popper.K.R (1971) The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol.1 London: Princeton University Press,

Popper.K.R (1971) The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol.2 London: Princeton University Press, London

William Gorton (k.n) Karl Popper: Political Philosophy Accessed from

http://www.iep.utm.edu/popp-pol/