An alternative to democracy?

S

shnaek

Registered User
Messages
599
I've been chatting with a lot of people lately who are as disillusioned with politics as I now am. Politicians here are utterly incapable of making decisions. We are bamboozled with reports and commissions and enquiries. No decisions. Although Ireland’s population has matured, our politicians seem to believe that the same old crap is still good enough, when we know that it isn't.
And yet, what is the alternative? They all appear as bad as each other.
When we look abroad we must ask are things much better? If mass deception (eg. weapons of mass destruction) can be forgiven and the politicians responsible re-elected - then what hope for democracy? Is democracy good enough any more, or is it time to come up with an alternative?
I have brought this up with many people and I have been surprised that many of them have agreed that democracy is far from a perfect system. But what is the solution? A system of qualified voting? Tiered voting? Anyone got any ideas?
 
Education and active participation. A democratic society is only as able as the participants, both voters and candidates. If you feel the people involved are incompetant or that you can do better then by all means ......
 
Funny, I was having virtually the same conversation with someone the other day (it was'nt you was it??). I think that one of the problems is the quality of person in politics - i don't think the financial rewards are good enough to attract visionary people.
I would also be in favour of having a lower age limit of say 38 before people can enter the Dail (or county council), at least that way, they might have had a real job prior to entering politics (that way they may get a feel for the impact some of their decisions have), it's the thing that irks me most about politics, the career politician - and unfortunately they seem to be increasing in number (a consequence of the need to have a family name when running for office?). The biggest problem with the career politician is that they cannot answer questions, but prefer to answer with soundbites.
 
Well France is a good example of a country which forces it's politicians to work towards the interests of a county. If the public aren't happy about something they protest. Yes, they may still have problems but at least their politicians are answerable to them.
 
Education is key in my opinion. When all of our society are highly educated we should be better off. People wouldnt be as easily duped and politicians would do whats expected of them.
I dont think financial rewards should come into it myself. You should take up a position or a job because you enjoy doing it or have the belief that you will enjoy what you make of it at some stage. I do believe that there are some out there who get into it for th emoney. How much them and their family and friends can make out of it.
 
Perhaps it's not just the politicians who are at fault for perceived or actual flaws in the working of our democratic system?

Complacency is a threat to true democracy - By Nora Owen
Glenbhoy said:
I would also be in favour of having a lower age limit of say 38 before people can enter the Dail (or county council), at least that way, they might have had a real job prior to entering politics
Click to expand...
You mean a higher age limit than the of 21 years old?
Marches and street based protests are not necessarily a good measure of how effective a specific democratic system is. After all such activities pander to those who can muster the most voiciferous mob regardless of whether or not they represent the majority viewpoint. Politicians are ultimately answerable to the electorate at election time.
 
ClubMan said:
You mean a higher age limit than the of 21 years old?
Click to expand...
Nope, what I meant was that there should be a lower age limit, ie an age below which one cannot run for office - obviously with eloquence like mine it's only a matter of time before I'm in office - with that and my ridiculous idea's I'd be a natural!!
 

Highly educated in what though? I assume you mean in the workings of government/the country/politics or similar? I always find it funny (funny weird, not funny ha ha!) that I know probably more about the US constitution, system of law and government than our own. That's to my shame I know, and I do admit that what I've learned from telly isn't necessarily accurate. Perhaps I'll get around to reading more of the Bunreacht one day. Definitely feel there should be more education in schools about politics in general and in particular regarding the Irish system.
 
That would be a higher age limit so. 38 is higher than 21! Maybe all that talk about education above is indeed pertinent.

What about equality legislation (and I realise that the same could be argued against the current minimum age limit of 21)?
 
Education has a huge role to play. So has pragmatism. There are tough decisions to be made in running any country. And we, the public, should reward those with the guts to take those decisions. Politicians aren't 100% to blame, the public must shoulder a good deal of responsibility too. This is why I believe democracy to be the problem, not necessarily politicians.

For example - we need proper waste management. If it's not to be incinerators, then what is it to be? We need a good road network. If it isn't to go near Tara, then where will it go? We need an energy policy. If we can't use the gas at Mayo then what will we use?

Democracy often results in short sightedness. We should have some way of defining long term goals, and rewarding those who help us move towards those goals. Democracy results in the triumph of the mediocre. Nothing gets done, the buck gets passed and the population become disinterested and cynical.
 
shnaek said:
Democracy often results in short sightedness.
Click to expand...

I think you've got it in one with this statement. Our TD's dont seem to care about what'll happen to future generations, only what will help them get elected in the next election.

By- "more highly educated" I meant in general rather than politically educated. Helping people realise how small things all add up to one bigger thing.
i.e. If people recycled properly and didnt litter we'd have more money to invest elsewhere and wouldnt have the need for incinerators.
 
shnaek said:
........... Democracy often results in short sightedness. We should have some way of defining long term goals, and rewarding those who help us move towards those goals .........
Click to expand...

Hold on a sec there love, don't be using the inadequacies of the Irish political class and civil servants as an indictment against democracy itself. Waste management, good health service, generally speaking a good social system, these are things which you'll find in abundance on the continent, and last time I looked these were all bona fide democracies.

Just cos Irish people, collectively, don't know how to wipe their own arses don't blame the political system in place.
 
In fairness Howitzer the continent is hardly a shining indictment of democracy at work either - they've got good infrastructure because the Yanks gave them a hand after WWII, they do have good health systems in general, but that comes at a price as we know. However if we look at the majority of them, they have corruption issues that leave our little tribunals looking like molehills. Italy, Spain, France and Germany spring immediately to mind. Maybe the Scandanavians have it sussed, they always seem to come out well in the various quality of life indices.
 
Well it certainly has nothing to do the political systems in place. It's societal. You get what you pay for. Ireland has the lowest PAYE rates in Europe. And you can't just say, 'well look at how much we put into our Health System last year', these things take decades to get right.

If the priorites of a society are purely short-term then obviously you're not going to end up with great infrastructure, or even a will to change towards a sound infrastructure.

You could argue that from 1800 to the early 1990's the Irish infrastructure had been slowly crumbling away, that things like the Health System existed simply to provide employment. So under the circumstances of a failing economy you're always going to end up with short term policies.

The boom years of the past decade have seen a disproportionately poor increase in social services relative to the general upswinge in people's personal finances. Whilst we all feel a lot richer I sure as h ll wouldn't want to fall seriously ill in this country. Again, this has nothing to do with democracy per se, more the electorates desires. Do you want a new car or decent roads to drive it on. New car please, vroom vroom.

What are the principle outcomes of 10 boom years? People paying 1500 a month on mortgages? Here, how about taking 5c in the euro extra out of people's pay packets. Maybe then property prices wouldn't be as high, you don't have to rely on the ECB raising rates to take money out of an enconomy. So there's only so much you can spend in infrastructure before it starts getting wasted, you could argue we're already at that point, so instead you run massive budget surpluses and spend the money 5, 10, 20 years down the line when things aren't so rosey. This is exactly what Norway is doing with it's oil income.

God, this letting off steam forum is great!
 
Well said Howitzer.
You left out our crumbling/overcrowded schools though. Seriously, compared to the UK, educational facilities here are unbelievably poor.
And you are right completely, our infrastructure suffered years of neglect, instead of creating employment in the 50's and 60's when approx 1M people left the country by the creation of capital projects that would benefit the country (both in the short and long term), what was one of the principal policies of the govenment in power at the time - "emigration" - i kid you not, the reason being that "money from americkay" was worth approx 10% of GDP at that stage (all figures from memory here so probably wrong).
And once again you've hit the nail on the head with regards to our low tax rates, they are indeed low, and of the money thrown at public services (especially health and education) a large percentage has been eaten up in the form of higher wage bills. A politician however can't point this out and try and recommend change - who'll vote for the guy who wants to increase taxes?
But since there seems to be some consensus that short termism is the problem not democracy per se, should we only have elections every 20yrs?
 
Have those who bemoan the quality of our politicians ever thought of getting involved in politics themselves? Have those who blame politicians for short-termism thought about blaming the voters who vote for the short-term?
 
I don't necessarily think the problem is democracy itself and that we need an alternative to it, the problem is that democracy is a somewhat utopian set of ideals whose implementation is flawed. We don't need to replace democracy rather improve upon its implementation.
 
ClubMan said:
That would be a higher age limit so. 38 is higher than 21! Maybe all that talk about education above is indeed pertinent.

What about equality legislation (and I realise that the same could be argued against the current minimum age limit of 21)?
Click to expand...

Since the 21 year age limit derives from the Constitution that would trump any Irish equality legislation.

I imagine there might still be possible equality issues arising out of some of the international treaties we are signatory to especially some of the EC ones which were approved in constitutional referendums.
 
RainyDay said:
Have those who bemoan the quality of our politicians ever thought of getting involved in politics themselves? Have those who blame politicians for short-termism thought about blaming the voters who vote for the short-term?
Click to expand...
I would say that politics is not financially attractive - money not bad, but no real security of tenure, in addition it's pretty cutthroat, I know I would'nt like to think my colleagues/boss would treat me in the same way that many politicians (of the same party) treat each other.
Media intrusion which has been getting worse as the years go on is probably enough to discourage most people.
As for blaming the voters, yeah, but as I heard a description earlier this evening - "democracy should be like getting the option between different types of painkiller, however in reality, the choices are all just aspirin."
 
RainyDay said:
Have those who bemoan the quality of our politicians ever thought of getting involved in politics themselves? Have those who blame politicians for short-termism thought about blaming the voters who vote for the short-term?
Click to expand...
That is my point exactly. The voters and the politicians must share blame, but as voters we get the government we ask for. This in itself does not show well for democracy. Nor does it in the States, nor in Palestine - just a couple of examples. Stuart Mill wrote about the tyranny of the majority. This is an extremity, but it serves to illustrate the tendency that the majority are not necessarily right. Perhaps more education is key here.

A decent point. But how do we improve on it's implementation?

To quote Proudhon: "Democracy is nothing but the Tyranny of Majorities, the most abominable tyranny of all, for it is not based on the authority of a religion, not upon the nobility of a race, not on the merits of talents and of riches. It merely rests upon numbers and hides behind the name of the people."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register