|
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.
|