This is your democracy

[shnaek]

I just read this thought provoking comment in this article (http://lewrockwell.com/orig9/oneill6.1.1.html#note1):

"If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when "the right people" are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time. Look around you at the people who are elected, and look at the actions of these people. This is your democracy, and the destruction and domination occurring under its imprimatur are the natural consequences of the view that the desires of the mob should override the rights of the individual."

And that is pretty true. This is our democracy - Ireland as it is right now. Elections come and go, and this remains our democracy. Thus it follows that the only way to change it would be to change our democracy.

I think there is an appetite amongst the people for this change. But no appetite amongst politicians. I have read interesting proposals both here and on Politics.ie in the past as to changes we could make to make our system more accountable. To make our system function as best it can.

Elections aren't going to change anything here. We need to change the system.

 

[Latrade]

I agree, but I agree with Churchill more, "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

I think the quote you reference has a small, but significant flaw in the argument it creates (emphasis mine):

If you are inclined to believe that democracy will function justly when "the right people" are elected, then bear in mind that each political party is elected precisely because its candidates are regarded as the best people available by the majority at the time.

I don't hold that as true, I don't think the majority actually do elect people on that basis. Also there's no connect between that supposition and the preceding point, democracy will ensure the right people are elected, if the right people are up for election.

Unfortunately, for whatever reason the right people don't, or if they do, they aren't the popular choice.

The fairest system (as opposed to the "best" system) has to be where there is freedom for anyone to up an elected representative and freedom for all to make that choice. Unfortunately in that system for numerous simple and complex reasons, there is little incentive for the right people to put themselves forward into that role.

I'm not sure what changes could be introduced to change that. I can see plenty of problems. Like for example here and even the US where the biggest incentive for elected officials is re election, not representation of the greater good. Ivan Yates made a good comment the other week that it sums up our elected representatives that Enda Kenny's first question on the phone each morning is enquiring what is going on back in Mayo.

So we could tinker around the edges to fix that type of problem, but then there's still a problem with getting the right people to come forward for election or representation.

Maybe the old Roman Senate system is the best or the Aristocracy (based on Aristotle's vision not British royalty bloodline) where a smaller group of "betters" make the decisions. But then look how that ended and we're back to the Churchill quote.

 

[shnaek]

Those are good points. Thing is, who are the 'right people'? The 'right people' for you and I aren't necessarily the 'right people' for the majority. The majority seemed pretty happy with FF for a long time there.

But perhaps it's the people (voters), rather than the system that needs to change? That is a much harder change to achieve.

We could change our system so that politicians could only serve two terms. I don't know if that would work.

We could also remove most powers from central goverment and give them instead to provincial parliaments, giving them powers like the cantons in Switzerland. Though if we did this we would need to ensure that there wasn't more bureaucracy as a result.

I think a good start in all of this, and the easiest start to make, is to encourage a more responsible attitude from top to bottom. The problem here is that nobody is ever held responsible at the top, so the voters then feel that they too don't have to take responsibility for their actions either.

Our own senate should have been based on Aristotle's vision, but instead is based on zero vision. A change needs to be made there too.

 

[Chris]

I'm always surprised at the reactions and discussions I end up with when I tell people that "thank god we do not live in a democracy". Essentially, all we have is democratic elections, which is fine by and of itself. More importantly, in most western countries there is the system of a republic in place, or something similar. What the republic does is ensure that 50% plus 1 vote do not get carte blanche when it comes to ruling, and it does this by imposing certain laws. Now, the problem lies in how those laws are formulated and what they do and do not restrict. This is precisely what the article refers to in saying "the destruction and domination occurring under its imprimatur are the natural consequences of the view the desires of the mob should override the rights of the individual."
What we have is mobocracy due to a lack of restrictions on government.

A great read if you have the time is "The Myth of the Rational Voter: Why Democracies Choose Bad Policies" by Bryan Caplan.