An alternative to democracy?
- Thread starter shnaek
- Start date
In paraphrasing Proudhon there you left out 'the merits of talent' - one of the more important parts of the quote I believe. I think (but I am not sure) that the Koran proclaims it a sin to hire a man for a job if there is someone more qualified than him who does not get the job. Certainly ability/talent would be a valuable trait in those who hold ministerial positions, let alone in all public representatives. That said I only quoted Proudhon to illustrate that the will of the majority is not a supreme unquestionable authority. We need to constantly question it.
As far as the 'clichés' go - I started this thread to discuss democracy, not just democracy in Ireland. Even though I agree with the smoking ban I am sure there are those who would consider it a tyranny that one cannot enjoy a cigar with some fellows in a club
Far more threatening though, in my opinion, is the way that the majority are allowing the rights of everyone to be eroded in the US (eg. Patriot Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) and the UK (eg Compulsory ID cards)
Also, just because 50.1% of the population think something to be true/ think something a good idea - this does not make it so. There are more educated and informed citizens out there who are in the minority and thus their ideas/beliefs are not often heard nor listened to. Perhaps we should look to nordic countries to see how they can manage democracy and yet implement thoughful and forward thinking policies. I believe we would find it is a lot to do with the Nordic people themselves, and that is reflected in their politics.
As far as the 'clichés' go - I started this thread to discuss democracy, not just democracy in Ireland. Even though I agree with the smoking ban I am sure there are those who would consider it a tyranny that one cannot enjoy a cigar with some fellows in a club
Far more threatening though, in my opinion, is the way that the majority are allowing the rights of everyone to be eroded in the US (eg. Patriot Act - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USA_PATRIOT_Act) and the UK (eg Compulsory ID cards)
Also, just because 50.1% of the population think something to be true/ think something a good idea - this does not make it so. There are more educated and informed citizens out there who are in the minority and thus their ideas/beliefs are not often heard nor listened to. Perhaps we should look to nordic countries to see how they can manage democracy and yet implement thoughful and forward thinking policies. I believe we would find it is a lot to do with the Nordic people themselves, and that is reflected in their politics.
shnaek said:
This sounds like Menshevik theory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mensheviks
Assuming the populace is uneducated and undeserving of the power accorded within a democratic system is a rocky road to go down. History is littered with examples of people who thought this but who we, in retrospect, could consider to be ill informed (the need for the suffragettes, apartheid, forms of communism - see above).
Continental democracy generally looks to govern by consensus rather majority rule.
One of the parts but not obviously more imporatant that the others from what I can see. I would agree with a meritocracy but certainly not with the idea of the authority of religion, nobility of race or merits of riches.shnaek said:
What has the Koran or Islamic teachings/beliefs got to do with this discussion?
Note that Ireland operates a system of proportional and not majoritarian representation which should mitigate any suspicions of tyranny of the majority. Questioning/challenging the majority view on matters is a freedom guaranteed to people under a liberal democratic system. However subverting it is another matter altogether.
Aren't these ultimately matters for the populations/voters of the countries in question?
See above re. proportional representation.
Care to back that claim up with some evidence? All individuals of voting age are "listened to" when (if!?) they cast their vote. In a democracy no individual's vote carries more weight than any other's. And thank goodness for that in my opinion!
Why Nordic countries in particular?
The discussion was on the merits of democracy, and whether there is a better system of governance available to us or not. I quoted that belief/teaching because I believe it important to have the most talented and able people in the top positions - especially ministerial positions - who are making vital decisions on how our country is run. Democracy doesn't always result in this outcome. But is there an alternative? Perhaps not. Still, in a utopian society wouldn't it be great to have true leaders leading the country - decision makers, visionaries concerned with the future of Ireland and not just the next election?ClubMan said:What has the Koran or Islamic teachings/beliefs got to do with this discussion?
Maybe it's just all the wasted potential of the boom years that makes me feel this way.
Indeed. The proportional representational system is a superior one to majoritarian.ClubMan said:
As I stated earlier, the debate is about democracy, irrespective of borders. The US and UK are simply well known examples of democracies. Feel free to chose any, not just Ireland.ClubMan said:
Do you really believe that casting your vote is equivalent to being listened to? If Dubya and Blair can be re-ellected after lying to the public then who is really listening? If certain proven corrupt politicians in Ireland can be re-ellected because the meeeedia can't tell us what to do - then who is listening? Sounds to me like a lot of people are casting their votes asleep.ClubMan said:
Just because they were mentioned earlier as good quality examples of democracy and forward thinking in operation. I tend to agree on the face of it, but of course the matter deserves much more thorough investigation.ClubMan said:
Am I to conclude, Clubman, that you believe our system of democracy is as good as it gets - or would you make any changes to it yourself?
Education and experience is the answer. I fully expect to be lashed for this but I reckon voting in all elections should be restricted to those with third level qualifications and the over 25's.
This would reduce at least a little bit the prospect of people being fooled too easily by image and sounding good instead of going for substance and hard action and results.
This would reduce at least a little bit the prospect of people being fooled too easily by image and sounding good instead of going for substance and hard action and results.
And indeed a lashing you shall get Theo!! Do you really think that 3rd level education adds anything to one's ability to vote wisely? I certainly don't think that just because I had a few extra drinking years with no responsibility means that I am better qualified to vote wisely than a school leaver at age 16. I do believe however if we could have a situation wherein politcians came from successful careers (from a variety of walks of life) it would add to their ability to run the country. Take our current cabinet for example:
Bertie - first elected age 26 - accountant??
Harney - first elected age 24 - politician
McDowell - barrister previously
Cowen - elected age 24 - solicitor
Martin - elected age 29 - teacher
Cullen - elected age 33 - politician?
Ahern - elected age 32 - solicitor
Coughlan - elected age 22 - politician
Hanafin - elected age 38 - teacher
Brennan - elected age 33 - accountant
Dempsey - elected age 34 - teacher
O'Dea - elected age 30 - accountant
O'Donoghue - elected age 31 - solictor
Roche - elected age 40 - lecturer
O'Cuiv - elected age 42 - Manager
So as you can see very few of the people have experience of the real world, I'm not castigating them all, but I do think it would be advantageous (for all of us) if most of them had experienced an actual career prior to politics.
How representative of society are these people? I have no doubt that if we looked at the opposition we would find a pretty similar pattern, with teachers making up the majority of politicians - they have a major advantage:
They can take time off work to pursue their political career and return with full pension rights and job status (as can any civil servant I believe). In addition, they have plenty of time off to canvass etc (not having a go at them btw)
Yes - the Seanad is one of the great anti-democratic institutions of our state. My alma mater (DCU neé NIHED) is campaigning for an extension of the franchise to a slightly bigger subset of the general electorate. I would prefer if they did not do this in my name or better still campaign for universal suffrage for Seanad elections.
I agree with rainyday that the problem is the electorate, not the politicians. I think that the political representatives we have are, on balance and across the spectrum, better than we deserve. They are more liberal and farsighted than the people they represent. That is not to say that they could not be better. I also agree with Glenbhoy's excellent post above.
Hmmm Theo,dodgy ground re 3rd level education being a prerequisite for a vote.
How about anybody who works being allowed the vote(incl those with a hx of working,ie those retired at a "reasonable age").
As regards the politicians,well we get what we deserve.The British ,Americans,Irish deserve Blair,Bush & Bertie respectively
I also think that if peolple don't vote,they should be punished(correct me if I'm wrong,but Belgium have this system?)
How about anybody who works being allowed the vote(incl those with a hx of working,ie those retired at a "reasonable age").
As regards the politicians,well we get what we deserve.The British ,Americans,Irish deserve Blair,Bush & Bertie respectively
I also think that if peolple don't vote,they should be punished(correct me if I'm wrong,but Belgium have this system?)
Some of the biggest egits I have ever met have decades of third level experience and no idea about the real world. It reminds me of the old Garret Fitzgerald line "It might work in reality, but does it work in theory?".Theo said:
I don't see how.Theo said: