March 31, 2008
A democracy? What have we wrought?
One of the great fallacies abroad is thinking that any regime
today can lay claim to being democratic. None are. Though we say
they are democratic and that they are democracies, they are
actually republican government?representative democracies. This
means that certain people are elected to serve the interests of
the people at large. These representatives make the decisions
for the people rather than the people making them. And these
representatives are elected for a period of time during which
period they cannot be removed except for what amount to crimes
or malfeasance.
If we had real democracies, the people would make the decisions
on any policy of government. It would be the people as
legislators?and enforcers, by the way. But that doesn?t go far
enough either. If we truly had a democracy, that is, a system of
government responsive to the desires of the people, then an
official would have to wear a device that would track what the
people want. And when a majority is reached either to do an act
or not do it, the official would have to either do it or cease
doing it depending. And that would be true even down to the
level of what is said or not said. If the people do not want a
particular official to use a particular word, the will of the
people would rule. Vox populi, vox dei. The wishes of the people
are the only thing that matters.
Government, however, would not be possible if this were the case
even though now this is much more feasible to do. (Some people
are advocating just this type of thing by the way. And all this
concern about polls to augur by is much of the same thing.) No
treaty could be negotiated, nor legislation could ever be passed
and no criminal could ever be apprehended, tried and convicted,
if this were the case. It would be government by committee and
that committee would be the committee of the whole people. And,
pardon the expression, it would be a rabble.
As it is, representatives are elected for a term of years and
the people are not allowed in to express their wishes except for
every 2 years, 4 years, or 6 years depending. This allows an
insulation from the people that is intended to create a space
for the representative to act in the common good. This means
that the common good should be the interest. The people will
vote on it later by voting on the representative. By that time,
however, passions may have cooled, the result may be clearer or
the argument made might have a better chance of carrying the
day. The point is that sometimes the people demand what is not
good for them, or they sometimes demand what is not good for a
sizeable minority of people. The mob is still a distinct
possibility.
Is this elitist? Well, yes. But the elitism was to have been
moderated by an intelligent people, a people who were involved
and understood the issues and went to a meeting from time to
time on some problem of government or society. But even so this
is the form of government we have and it has worked very well
over the past centuries. And it is only when the public good is
not the primary focus of government that we have had problems.
Usually, the people arguing for this kind of thing argue this
way because they think they have a greater chance of getting
power by yoking themselves to the people. Wherever the people
go, they go?and they will swear they were there first. But it is
demagoguery, literally. And it can create the likes of a Hugo
Chavez. And this sort of reasoning can also form the basis for a
regime like Vladimir Putin?s in Russia. (Protect me and give me
some stability and we will forgive your use and possibly abuse
of power. But that argument though is for another time.)
So is a policy something the people want or isn?t it. Maybe it
is or it isn?t but that ought not be the issue–whether it is
good or bad for the country ought to be the focus of attention.
And, if it is good, a statesman, as opposed to a politician,
would bring the people along with him?or her.
Comments Off
