Topic of the month: Democracy and the problems thereof

simu

To start this off, I'll quote the original suggestion for a topic of discussion made by Dadakopf:

Does pure/direct democracy really mean the 'tyranny of the
majority'?
What should the balance between state, government and polity be? What should
the ends of democracy be?
How can democracy in modern times threaten freedom/liberty?

I'm sure people will come up with other problems they have with domecracy during this discussion as well. Feel free to add to the list.

MrHappy42 suggested that this article might stimulte some discussion. It consists of reviews of two books that call into question the effectiveness of democracy along with some information on how various philosophers have addressed the question of how people should be governed/whether they need to be governed at all.

Here are a few more links explaining concepts that everyone might not be familiar with:

Explains the difference between direct and indirect democracy:
http://www.internet-encyclopedia.org/wiki.php?title=Democracy

J.S. Mill and the tyranny of the majority: http://www.serendipity.li/jsmill/jsmill.htm

A brief explanation of Isaiah Berlin's distinction between positive and negative liberty: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/liberty-positive-negative/

That's probably enough linking for now, people could post more up later in this thread in they find it necessary. So, get discussing - what do you think the greates problems facing democracy are (if any)? Any possible solutions/alternative forms of government you think would be preferable? ... ...

chewy

methinks that the above subject is covered so often in politics that it failed to inspire anyone here, try the second subject voted on to start a idea of the month thread?

try try again simu

DadaKopf

I think maybe no one presented an argument to discuss!

How about a quote to get things started:

J. S. Mill wrote:

Protection, therefore, against the tyranny of the magistrate is not enough; there needs protection also against the tyranny of the prevailing opinion and feeling, against the tendency of society to impose, by other means than civil penalties, its own ideas and practices as rules of conduct on those who dissent from them; to fetter the development and, if possible, prevent the formation of any individuality not in harmony with its ways, and compel all characters to fashion themselves upon the model of its own. There is a limit to the legitimate interference of collective opinion with individual independence; and to find that limit, and maintain it against encroachment, is as indispensable to a good condition of human affairs as protection against political despotism.

And...

Robert Dahl in 'A Preface to Economic Democracy (1985) wrote:

Corporate capitalism ... tends to produce inequalities in social and economic resources so great as to bring about severe violations of political equality and hence of the democratic process.

Is modern Western capitalist democracy totalitarian in any ways?

simu

chewy wrote:

methinks that the above subject is covered so often in politics that it failed to inspire anyone here, try the second subject voted on to start a idea of the month thread?

try try again simu

Well, that's what people voted for. It would be totalitarian of me to go against their choice. :-)

DadaKopf

People discussed Socialism in Politics. And people discuss current affairs in Politics, not political philosophy, which has a different flavour. Of course, I know what you're saying, but obviously people voted for it, they're interested, but need something to sink their teeth into!

ApeXaviour

As they say; democracy is the worst form of government except for all the rest..

Blub2k4

"The one pervading evil of democracy is the tyranny of the majority, or rather of that party, not always the majority, that succeeds, by force or fraud, in carrying elections."
-- Lord Acton

I think that this is a very apt quote looking accross the atlantic.

DadaKopf

The problem with democracy (in the 'real world') is the gap between theory/rhetoric and reality. The values of democracy are repeated as if to preserve a veil of ignorance over how 'democratic states'' institutions operate.

Democracy presupposes a symmetrical relationship between all citizens in theory, and under different forms of democracy this may be possible, but every effort has been made by those in positions of influence to retain its actual asymmetry by fixing public access to political power. In advanced capitalist democracies, societies are split up into groups (call them classes, or interest groups) which emerge as a result of their different levels of access to resources, and their lack of social cohesion divides them into "active and passive citizens". The political class (who have access to money, education and jobs of status) participate, while the rest either don't care or can't get a look in.

So while there's an illusion of democracy - something we're conditioned to believe - power is exercised by an active minority who fix the rules of the system, reducing democracy to a small set of procedures. The only role civil society plays in the whole democratic process is to legitimise and occasionally dismiss political elites.

But wait, what about the media? Or the role the state plays in maximising market freedom? Aren't they the spheres where politics really counts? J.S. Mill viewed the media as the watchdog of the state, not its propagandist, and the media is a poor substitute for genuine political participation. And the state, well, the state has its own interest in fixing the rules of the market to perpetuate its and its members' own interests.

Real participation in democratic political life requires becoming a member of a political party, which are themselves internally hierarchical and anti-democratic. Parties themselves, due to the presence of whips and arm twisters, stifle rational dissent, which is one of the core value of Liberalism. What is representative democracy if members of parliament are buldgeoned into towing the party line instead of prompting open, free and fair debate?

What has happened is that the terrain of social choice - conceived as a triangular relationship between the state, market and civil society - has shrunk to privilege the state and the market.

The question is: under the current scheme of things, how can this problem be overcome?

Hydrosylator

The idiot vote. That's probably the biggest problem with democracy. it only works if everybody who votes actually knows what's best for the country. They don't, hence Fianna Fáil.

DadaKopf

I don't know. We also have a jury system. You're not really adding to the discussion by repeating things.

Can't people be expected to make the right decisions on the basis of human rationality, common sense, etc.?

Perhaps the structures of contemporary democracies conspire against this, so, again, if this is a core problem, how could it be overcome?

simu

For the "idiot" problem, a good education system open to all would help. Everyone should have the opportunity to become literate, numerate and later, comfortable and proficient with "higher" forms of discourse, such as that used in politics. With any group of people, you're going to have varying levels of intelligence but, unless a person is profoundly disabled, it's possible to find a way of getting them to understand complicated ideas. A lot of research has been done on education and the problem of educational disadvantage but this information isn't being put to use. The solutions to such problems would require some financial investment and certainly, more imagination on the part of educators but it's not insurmountable.

Once you start teaching kids about politics and history and so on, you have to be sure that groups with certain interests don't skew the currucula to meet their own ends. So, the process of creating school programmes should be open to the public, the people involved diverse and so on.

The above sounds a bit boring and familiar and it is. I think that the idea of dramatic change appeals to people because they get dismayed at how astray the world seems to be and change seems impossible unless drastic measures are taken but often, small changes at a local level can be more helpful and have more far-reaching consequences than dramatic revolutions, whether in terms of making our so-called democracies closer to true democracies or even in providing humans with basic needs such as food, shelter, medicine etc.

But, now for something more radical (despite what I wrote above :-))- what if there were no more political parties? Do we need them at all? Their abolition would allow for more diverse views to be represented in parliament and people involved in politics would no longer have to "stick to the party line" on issues they felt strongly about.

DadaKopf

Abolishing political parties might be an idea, but it'd probably require a new system of democratic governance, too. Or may even require a shift from market capitalism to something else.

Max Weber, old as his theories are, and more recently Joseph Schumpeter, reckoned that political parties emerged because (1) they're the most efficient form of political leadership suitable to republican/liberal democracy, and (2) because the industrial revolution brought around a form of social organization based on efficiency through the division of labour.

However, various writers have challenged the views of recent democratic theorists (influenced by Weber and Schumpeter) on the basis that this limits political participation. Basically, they think limiting political participation to those who have adquate resources is motivated by a historically embedded fear of the poor.

Ironically, the most innovative democracy experiments are undertaken by the poorest of the poor, like the Zapatistas.

chewy

i was going to add this the other day but i think even the last few posts it been talked about how about discussing talking the money out of democracy?

or is that resources? media access

and what localising democracy making a system where the greatest power is with local (town level) gorvnerment and least power at the top?

is the zapista a (sub)form of democracy? or a form of cracy... politcal /social organistion?

simu

Some stuff on the Zapatistas here:
http://flag.blackened.net/revolt/andrew/zap_asr.html
http://chiapas.mediosindependientes.org/display.php3?article_id=108018

I don't find it all that strange that it's the poorest of the poor who are trying to find better expressions of democracy. The indiginous people of Mexico have been treated so badly that they have nothing to lose by changing the way things are run. The problem in more developed countries is that people feel comfortable enough and fear that any change in the way their countries are run would mean a lowering of their standard of living. Even the poorest people in the western world aren't poor enough to have no illusions - the most deprived families are still being sold the dreams big companies want them to dream and any feelings of resentment at the way society is structured tend to be expressed in ways that make their situation worse rather than better.

Effectively we do live in a plutocracy.

So, what to do about that? Being negative, I'd say that we won't see a change in the current system until we all end up living from hand to mouth in an ecologically battered world having used up all our resources, destroyed countless cultures and habitats etc.

But, skipping that for the moment, what other features would be needed in a true democracy?

The media - regulations would be needed to ensure no individual would have undue influence over media content. The internet gives some hope that this is possible - anyone can start a blog to diffuse their ideas (you'd also have to ensure computer access and literacy for all). What if the traditional media such as newspapers and tv stations ceased to be and people got all their information and entertainment from websites? Ideally, these would allow people to interact and would end the traditional one-way diffusion of news.

Companies - would have to be accountable to the public, not just to shareholders. Maybe have limits on how large they can grow (once, a company, grows over a certain level, part of it has to be cut off and started as a new, independent company the way you cut saplings off trees) and on how many business ventures an individual can be involved in. (Many people would consider this an encroachment on their freedom but could it not be argued that by controlling more than a certain percentage of trade in a given area, a person is depriving others of the right to get involved in trade themselves?)

Wealth - there would have to be a comfortable minimum standard of living for all and limits on how much wealth an individual could hold. Once a person's wealth reaches a set amount, anything else they earn goes to the government coffers. The current ideology that idolises billionaires is ridiculous. There comes a stage when a person has enough wealth to live (and live well) for their lifetime and they don't need any more money. Maybe it would be possible to have a new way of measuring status rather than it being based on money as it is at present - you could have a karma system like we have on boards across society, maybe:-).

No doubt there are numerous problems & objections, these ideas would need a lot of refinement if nothing else!

SkepticOne

simu wrote:

But, now for something more radical (despite what I wrote above :-))- what if there were no more political parties? Do we need them at all? Their abolition would allow for more diverse views to be represented in parliament and people involved in politics would no longer have to "stick to the party line" on issues they felt strongly about.

But what would such banning entail? Would it simply be the removal of legal structures? Wouldn't the current political parties simply continue without these structures (e.g. as other organisations exist as societies, associations, coops etc.)?

In any case, in the current system, technically you vote for individuals not parties. These individuals may or may not be members of a political party and can join or leave a political party after being elected. Would abolishing political parites not require putting (further?) limits on the right to free association.

DadaKopf wrote:

Abolishing political parties might be an idea, but it'd probably require a new system of democratic governance, too. Or may even require a shift from market capitalism to something else.

What sort of system would you have in mind, and can market capitalism be abolished while still preserving some form of democratic system?

simu

SkepticOne wrote:

But what would such banning entail? Would it simply be the removal of legal structures? Wouldn't the current political parties simply continue without these structures (e.g. as other organisations exist as societies, associations, coops etc.)?

Well, you'd get rid of political parties as organisations that have resources - money, buildings etc. Elected representatives could still find that they have more in common with some of their colleagues than others and prefer working with these colleagues but there would be less pressure on them to conform to ideas of these colleagues that didn't please them.

People standing for election would have to convince the public to vote for them by their own merits and not just because a party chose them and spent money on publicity for them.

Sleepy

While an individual can be smart, a population almost never is. The people of most countries (ourselves included) simply don't know what's good for them. Simu makes a good point that:

For the "idiot" problem, a good education system open to all would help.

However, making education available alone will not make this problem go away. We have one of the world's highest regarded education systems in Ireland yet the country is still run by half-wits.

Elements of meritocracy need to be brought to bear in order to combat this problem. If you're not qualified to be in government, you shouldn't be allowed to run for it. Personally I'd suggest a minimum of a third level degree (preferably something relevant e.g. art historians need not apply) to run for parliament running up to a masters in a relevant field required to hold any ministry.

And finally the part that really takes care of the idiot vote: only allow those who have completed secondary level education have a vote. It should be noted that to make this a proper solution, sociology and politics should replace religeon on the secondary school curriculum.

ecksor

I take it that there's no minister for arts or culture in your little world then.

Sleepy

ecksor wrote:

I take it that there's no minister for arts or culture in your little world then.

I donn't see the need to be honest ecksor. Were we to maintain the status quo of not taxing artists (though I'd ammend that to artists that earn below a reasonable salary) you'll always see art coming through. Sure, it's nice to provide some funding for the arts (and the National Lottery is a great means of doing this) but I for one couldn't tell someone that their child can't have a life-saving operation because we gave Macnas/the GAA another donation instead of hiring a doctor. Could you?

ecksor

Last time I checked there was no shortage of money for life saving operations in Ireland, but the money was poorly administered and there was a top heavy and overbureaucratic set of organisations in charge of spending it, so I don't find your argument particularly relevant although it does seem a bit cheap and emotive.

Anyway, this is a discussion about democracy, not about Ireland. Nor is it about what is and isn't a relevant thing for government to be concerned about once it is elected into office.

If you're keen on a meritocracy, can you tell us when we know that the education is sufficiently open to all (and I don't consider the current Irish system to be such since we still have problems getting people of certain backgrounds into third level education) as to be truly representative and why does having a degree in something like art history mean that you haven't proved yourself not to be an idiot for the purposes of running for parliament. I find the implication quite odd in terms of holding a cabinet or administrative position (although I see some logic, I guess there's an ideological difference between us on that one) but for merely running for parliament then I don't see the logic.

GuanYin

ecksor wrote:

Last time I checked there was no shortage of money for life saving operations in Ireland, but the money was poorly administered and there was a top heavy and overbureaucratic set of organisations in charge of spending it, so I don't find your argument particularly relevant although it does seem a bit cheap and emotive.

Pretty accurate assesment.

I actually know of one hospital where they insisted on refitting an office to allow more people to fit into it and ordering new blinds for all the admin area.
Despite all this, they didn't actually have enough people to fit in the office and the people there already were opposed to the move.

This sort of idiocy is the problem with the health system. Hospital administration is hated by just about everyone. The staff, the doctors, the patients and the politicians. The admin then combats this by saying, feck you all anyway, we'll spite the lot of you.

But I digress, no, in most cases hospitals have the required money but refuse to divert it to the right areas. No auditor should hang a hospital admin for moving a surplus in one account into the budget of an ICU etc etc....

simu

Sleepy wrote:

However, making education available alone will not make this problem go away. We have one of the world's highest regarded education systems in Ireland yet the country is still run by half-wits.

It may be well-regarded but all it requires of its students is that they learn material off by heart and regurgitate it at exam time. It does not teach critical thinking and encourage creativity. It also alienates a significant number of people from learning due to a near fascistic insistance on petty rules.

Elements of meritocracy need to be brought to bear in order to combat this problem. If you're not qualified to be in government, you shouldn't be allowed to run for it. Personally I'd suggest a minimum of a third level degree (preferably something relevant e.g. art historians need not apply) to run for parliament running up to a masters in a relevant field required to hold any ministry.

Graduates don't necessarily have a better understanding of what's best for a country, especially in a place like Ireland where the chances of becoming one depend mostly on being born into a wealthy family. Farmers, for example, don't really need degrees but does that mean they should have no say in how the country is run?

simu

I thought people might be interested in Arrow's Impossibility Theorem. It deals with the problem of setting up vote counting systems as fairly as possible.

Sleepy

In order to perform a job, one must be qualified and trained to do it. It is on this basis that I would block a arts history graduate from parliament. Government of a people requires knowledge of economics, sociology, law and an understanding of the political system. What can an arts-history qualification bring to governance? To my mind, nothing. You wouldn't get them to administer a UNIX server because they're not qualified to do it. So why would you consider them qualified to take part in governance for which they're equally unqualified? This is why I believe in meritocracy: the qualified person for the job is the one that does the job. Whether that be a minister, a member of parliament or the ordinary voter.

Our education system may not be perfect but we don't live in a perfect world. Which would you consider the more likely to get the results you desire in relation to education? A population where you can't vote if you don't stay in school or our current system?

I don't accept the argument that it's closed to certain sections of the population. Our country provides free second level and cheap third level education at present. The student maintenance grant, whilst inadequate, is under review and a fairer system of distributing the grant allocations is needed (particularly to prevent the obfuscation of income levels that can be achieved by the self-employed). However, Irish banks will lend you the money to go to college. That's how I got my education and I'm grateful that I didn't have to get into the same levels of debt as my American counterpart would have.

Simu wrote:

It also alienates a significant number of people from learning due to a near fascistic insistance on petty rules

Could you enlighten us as to what is so terrible about the Irish education's system's adherance to rule and order? If anything our teachers need more help teaching discipline to certain elements of our society.

I believe there are many courses on agricultural science in third level institutions around this country, Simu. Personally, I'd consider graduates of these courses more qualified to look at the big picture instead of regional or personal interests.

simu

Sleepy wrote:

Could you enlighten us as to what is so terrible about the Irish education's system's adherance to rule and order? If anything our teachers need more help teaching discipline to certain elements of our society.

I've seen "difficult" students driven out of schools when teachers decided that it was easier to expell them for breaking petty rules rather than make an effort to get to know how they could learn and what was preventing them from participating properly in class. I won't go on about it here because it's not really relevant.

You have great faith in third level degrees, a faith I don't share. Many graduates wouldn be far worse at running the country than less educated people who have experience working with community groups and so on. Would you deny such people the right to run for election? Why not just let all candidates share their views and let the public decide?

Why did you chose a (I presume you mean bachelor's) degree as your criterion? Why not a Master's degree or a doctorate? Would people who barely passed be considered as worthy of being involved in politics as those who got firsts?

If entry to government is restricted to any one group, it's inevitable that they'll use the power they have to further their own interests, imo.

Sleepy

We'll have to agree to disagree on the dilemma of the "difficult" student in school. To my mind, if they're not able to behave themselve, they don't deserve an education as I'd rather just see them suffer, than have the entire class suffer. You obviously feel differently on this matter.

I don't think I stated that I set the level at a degree. Any form of relevant third level qualification would satisfy me on this front. How would working with a community group qualify someone to be part of the running of state? To my mind it would only further the chief problem with Irish politics: it's inherrant colloquialism and I believe that anyone educated beyond a secondary level will have a greater respect for the big picture. A good example of this would be that Jackie Healy Ray would never get elected under this system!

simu wrote:

Why not just let all candidates share their views and let the public decide?[/simu]
Because the public at large are idiots. Democracy is just a nice term for mob rule.

ecksor

The "difficult" student very often is in the wrong class or has an undiagnosed learning disability.

Sleepy

And?

If they're in the wrong class or happen to be undiagnosed as dyslexic or whatever does that excuse them from anti-social behaviour?

I'm completely under-challenged in my job. Does that give me the right to start belting the guy beside me? No. It doesn't.

ecksor

And nothing, it wasn't clear if you had grasped the point that simu was trying to make. I think you did, in which case your point of view is very clear now.

If you start belting the guy beside you then you should be treated as a responsible adult who is behaving anti-socially. If a small child or adolescent is in a frustrating situation that they haven't developed the skills to cope with or understand and anti-social behaviour ensues, then the best thing to do (for both the child and society) is to attempt to find the root cause of this behaviour and fix that rather than immediately blame the child. Anyway, I've read enough of your posts to know that we won't see eye to eye on this one, but I do wonder how you're able to deride democracy as being a form of mob rule when you're quite happy to toss aside certain individuals onto society's scrapheap because it causes less hassle for the majority. There seems to be a contradiction unless perhaps you feel that the 'mob' are the uneducated peasants whose decisions you find yourself having to abide by and not groups of well educated and under-challenged intellectuals such as yourself? The question relevant to this thread is how do we ensure that a meritocracy actually works correctly and doesn't just end up providing more problems than the forms of democracy currently in use around the world. Since you seem to want that ruling class to be something to which you belong to then it seems that you are backing up simu's earlier comment:

simu wrote:

If entry to government is restricted to any one group, it's inevitable that they'll use the power they have to further their own interests, imo.

Sleepy

ecksor - my point is that by only allowing those who are educated enough to be part of a government to be so you will get a better quality of governance.

Through a better standard of rule, you will find less money squandered (a good example being the wastage in the current health system that I think was already brought up in this thread, I would also suggest the ludicrous splurging of state funds on pet projects of politicians acting only in the interest of their constituency at the espense of society in general, hello Jackie Healy Rae). This funding can then be diverted into providing better education, health etc. etc. etc.

Through this better management, more people become educated. Through the fact that you don't have a voice without an education, more people stay in school. In time, there will be no-one left out. Then, when you have a properly educated society, democracy has a chance. Until then, you need to take the power of the vote away from those unqualified to yield it and the ability to run for government away from those that aren't qualified to be part of a government.

[aside]

ecksor wrote:

If a small child or adolescent is in a frustrating situation that they haven't developed the skills to cope with or understand and anti-social behaviour ensues, then the best thing to do (for both the child and society) is to attempt to find the root cause of this behaviour and fix that rather than immediately blame the child.

I see your point here and agree with it to an extent. However, if the child hasn't learned how to accept discipline at home, and is unable to learn it in a classroom, I have little sympathy when that child's mother runs to the Star and tries to sue the Department of Education. It's not their fault the child can't accept discipline, it's the parents'.

Again, this is where I think education comes into play. A more rounded secondary level education which prepares children for the real world from a non-denominational point of view is necessary. If teenagers are going to continue to get pregnant at sily ages we need them to have learnt how to be a parent whilst in secondary school so that we can hope the next generation will be brought up not to repeat their parents mistakes.

[/aside]

simu

Sleepy wrote:

I would also suggest the ludicrous splurging of state funds on pet projects of politicians acting only in the interest of their constituency at the espense of society in general, hello Jackie Healy Rae).

Are graduates immune from such splurging? Is it not more likely that graduates would feel entitled to special treatment if their "superior" status was enshrined in laws of their country?

Through this better management, more people become educated.

What if these graduate rulers feel threatened by people from formerly uneducated backgrounds making their way into universities and try to prevent them from doing so? Graduates are not immune from avarice and, from the point of view of increasing their personal wealth, it would make sense for them to limit challenges to the power they would find themselves holding under this system.

Through the fact that you don't have a voice without an education, more people stay in school.

This is already the case to a certain extent yet school dropouts exist. What if uneducated people turn against the system instead of trying to get on the right side of the social divide such a sytem would create?

To take a real life example, most big businesses are run by graduates and yet we often hear of such businesses involved in worker mistreatment and environmental damage cases. Why is this so if gradutes are so suited to ruling well? Do you think things would change if all students were required to take a few modules on ethics before they graduated and became CEOs?

Sleepy

SIMU wrote:

Are graduates immune from such splurging?[/SIMU]
No, but surely you'd agree that someone with a qualification for a job will generally be better capable of doing that job that someone without one? By this logic, they are less likely to waste money on poor decisions.

What if these graduate rulers feel threatened by people from formerly uneducated backgrounds making their way into universities and try to prevent them from doing so? Graduates are not immune from avarice and, from the point of view of increasing their personal wealth, it would make sense for them to limit challenges to the power they would find themselves holding under this system.

An interesting point. I'd agree with you that graduates would be no less susceptible to corruption than non-graduates. I don't think they'd be any more susceptible to it either though.

Obviously the laws put into place to create this meritocracy would have to be partnered with legislation ensuring that discrimination on this basis couldn't be created in any other element of life.

I would imagine that better management of the country's finances would leave better funding available for the Garda force too and an increased police force could help tackle the problem you suggest of people turning against the system. I honestly don't think that this would be any significant number of people though. I may be wrong (and am open to correction on this) but how many non-criminals don't actually complete secondary school?

On your point about CEO's being graduates, I don't think this is particularly relevant. In business, a CEO's responsibilities are to his shareholders. In government the TD's responsibilities are to the country as a whole.

DadaKopf

Sleepy, I thought we had a national panel of experts based on meritocracy - it's called the civil service.

Theoretically, all this amounts to public oversight of a state panel of experts, whose power over policymaking is checked by the constraints placed their boss by the pressures of public access to political power through elections and the media.

The primary role of the Minister is to respond to the multiplicity of demands vis-a-vis his own department and to the expert advice of the civil service. Interestingly, asking a neoliberal economist to take charge of the economy would yield very different policies to that of, say, sociologist whose focus would probably be on social matters more than competitiveness.

What you're in fact saying is that you don't trust poor and stupid people to run your country. You'd much rather an educated, probably middle-class, 'impartial' 'expert' to run departments that most matched their professional training. This undermines the central value of democracy as a political system that does not discriminate against difference and does not place arbitrary barriers in front of people who want to have a say in how their lives are lived, as members of a community and as individuals.

I think your argument is flawed because you assume 'experts' are impartial. The various different disciplines (economics, politics, medicine, art, natural sciences etc.) are not natural divisions, they're reflections of social relations, of intentional political acts for a great many reasons. For example, why is it that neoliberal economics is reigning supreme even though many, many economists know its principles are deeply flawed? Do pure economists really care about people's real quality of life, or a balance sheet?

What you seem to be advocating, deep down, is social segregation. Dividing people into groups and setting/limiting their potential for democratic participation on the basis of an effectively arbitrary set of disciplinary divisions. And who makes these decisions?

SkepticOne

I think it would be good to discuss the ends of democracy at this point.

If we limit the discussion for the moment to national government, for me, the general goal should be that broad policy (socialist, capitalist, authoritarian, liberal, etc.) of the state should be in line with what the majority is most comfortable with. This might be tempered with constitutional limits on governments in order to prevent tyranny of the majority such as constitutionally guaranteed freedoms.

DadaKopf

Kind of what I was trying to get at. I forgot to ask the question, what should be the balance of power between civil society, representatives, ministers and the civil service?

Yeah, the question is: are the Values and Norms of democracy supported by the Rules and Procedures that comprise the institutions?

SkepticOne

Right, so if we have established that the goal is not necessarily to have the best person for the job but rather that the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people, no, the current system at best only partially achieves this.

Mainly the issue of money and vested interests which distort the available (or percieved) options available to people in choosing representatives, imo. I'm limiting my answer to representative systems.

I'm not sure that banning parties is the most practical way of dealing with this as money would still find its way into the system, possibly in ways that are harder to track than currently. It has been suggested that parties should get state funding based on prior success in elections but, for me, this has the problem of raising parties above what they are at present. In addition, how would independents be handled?

The current system doesn't, to my knowledge, recognise parties but simply allows them to exist. Individuals are elected, not parties. I think it would be a shame if this were to change. The question is: how to make it so that members of parties don't have a distinct advantage over independents at election time. I'm not sure what the answer is to this.

Another possible issue with the current system is that after all the TDs have taken their seats they then elect the Taioseach. Is this too removed from the wishes of the people? Should there be a directly elected head of state with significant powers?

Sleepy

DadaKopf, as someone who deals with the Civil Service on a daily basis, I know for a fact that very few of them could be classified as "experts" in anything other than wrangling junkets and wasting tax-payers money.

What you're in fact saying is that you don't trust poor and stupid people to run your country

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. I don't trust stupid or unqualified people to run my country.

I don't consider expecting someone to be qualified and capable of doing a job as an "arbitrary" barrier. If you can't understand the issues at hand, you shouldn't have a say in their running.

Neither did I ever state that I think experts would be completely impartial. I've already stated that I don't think someone qualified to do the job would be any more, or less, corrupt than our current shower of incompetents. They would, however, be better qualified and better able to do their jobs. This can only be seen as an improvement.

SkepticOne, your own logic is seriously flawed in your assumption that the role of government is to see that "the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people". Under this system, how does one judge the will of the people? By the majority? What if the will of the people is that all of a certain minority group be excluded from the protection of the law?

The government's role is to ensure that the country is run in a manner that works best for ALL of the population. To my mind, this aim is best met by having a government capable of running the country to best meet the NEEDS of the people: free education, free healthcare, good law enforcement and a thriving economy.

SkepticOne - you make a good point about state funding of political parties. This is something I could never tolerate. It's too open to corruption as I'd imagine you'd regularly see changes in these laws the year before an election year. You also seem to advocate the promotion of independants. I'm afraid I can't agree on this. Flawed as it is, the current system of having political parties ensures some level of consistency of opinion from the government. Independents lead to trouble, particularly when you've the likes of Jackie Healy Ray holding the balance of power. Certainly, there should be more political parties (I know I'm going to have trouble in deciding who to vote for in the next election because I don't believe any of our current parties accurately reflect my own political beliefs), but encouraging more independents to run would lead to an extremely fractitious and unstable parliament.

To deal with the issue of the influence of big business on governments, I would simply ban any political donation over a set amount (say €5000 or so), leaving the parties to have to fund themselves through their own membership/those running.

Another possible issue with the current system is that after all the TDs have taken their seats they then elect the Taioseach. Is this too removed from the wishes of the people? Should there be a directly elected head of state with significant powers?

An interesting point. The drawback would, of course, be the possibility of having a head of state with a parliament made up with a majority of opposition parties could lead to nothing being done. Imagine, if you will, Michael D Higgins as Taoiseach with this power. How many of his bills can you see the current seating TD's allowing through the Dail? With his party a vocal but small minority, I could see him encountering serious problems in getting anything done. I think that's why the current system is in place, to ensure that the leader of the country has the ability to do his job.

DadaKopf

To deal with the issue of the influence of big business on governments, I would simply ban any political donation over a set amount (say €5000 or so), leaving the parties to have to fund themselves through their own membership/those running.

You're confining your analysis to the party system. The influence of business extends further than that.

The state itself relies on revenues, primarily through tax, to exist. Therefore the state has an institutional self-interest in maintaing economic growth and competitiveness. Political parties differ on how that should be achieved but the effect is the same - the state and its operators (both elected and non-elected) will acquiesce to the needs and demands of producers of wealth and, often, actively work with them to create the conditions required for the state survive. These decisions cause unwanted side-effects in society, which particularly affect its most vulnerable members; the state is, in fact, incapable of providing the needs of all because the state's needs rest on the few who contribute most to a country's economic vitality. The ability of the state to maintain its own institutional apparatuses and to provide welfare is undermined, and with it the system's legitimacy.

Very often nowadays, the influence of 'big business' is exercised indirectly through national and international lobby groups like UNICE and the European Roundtable; more indirectly through the OECD. Another area of concern are academic institutions, whose funding is increasingly coming under the influence of corporate donations; here the problem of power/knowledge arises - business interests are also exercising power over knowledge, transforming solutions into one-dimensional market fundamentalism.

It's probably unlikely that banning or limiting business donations to political parties will eradicate this problem since the problem is so all-enveloping. It's probably at best a much-needed stop-gap but no solution.

Sleepy

DadaKopf, to a large extent I agree with that post. However, I think that if a government is smart enough there should be no reason for a favourable environment for business to harm the public. For example, in large part I agree with the low corporation taxes we offer. It's brought employment to Ireland, and for the most part these jobs are skilled positions. So, how does one offset the loss of tax revenue this entails? To my mind? A third tax bracket for those earning 100k+ and bringing artists that earn more than the standard industrial wage into the tax system (hello U2, Enya, I'm looking at you).

SkepticOne

Sleepy wrote:

SkepticOne, your own logic is seriously flawed in your assumption that the role of government is to see that "the country is run in in some way consistant with the will of the people". Under this system, how does one judge the will of the people? By the majority? What if the will of the people is that all of a certain minority group be excluded from the protection of the law?

I was going over a point I had made earlier "If we limit the discussion for the moment to national government, for me, the general goal should be that broad policy (socialist, capitalist, authoritarian, liberal, etc.) of the state should be in line with what the majority is most comfortable with." I was talking about the role of democracy here, not the state or the government. I was trying to clarify what we mean by the word in a system similar to ours.

Sleepy wrote:

The government's role is to ensure that the country is run in a manner that works best for ALL of the population. To my mind, this aim is best met by having a government capable of running the country to best meet the NEEDS of the people: free education, free healthcare, good law enforcement and a thriving economy.

The role of government, of course, is to govern (;)), but would you not agree that how the government governs, should ideally be consistant with the will of the people and that the reason free education is provided is because that is what people want, not because someone has decided it is what people need.

Sleepy

SkepticOne - apologies, I misconstrued your point. I see your point though it scares me. I couldn't ever conceive of socialism or an authoritarian government being a good thing *shudders* but yes, I agree with your statement.

In general it is necessary for the government to give the people what they want because, most of the time, people want what they need. Other times, the government has to be able to make what in layman's terms are the tough decisions. Moves that are unpopular with the electorate yet necessary (e.g. raising taxes etc.)

DadaKopf

I think it's probably appropriate to introduce the theme of distance into the discussion. There tends to be a distance between political leaders and the populations they represent, act on behalf of. Sleepy, you already mentioned how you think societies generally know what's best for them. Why then should we rely on experts to know what's good for us? The quality of expert advice is often shown to be dirt poor.

Would it be a better idea to introduce direct democracy as a solution to these problems?

Interestingly, David Starkey (Uber conservative royal historian) called for a return to an Anglo Saxon model of governance in Britain - small (semi-)autonomous regions ruled by direct democracy. A contemporary example is Zapatismo in Chiapas, Mexico.

I suppose, given current constraints etc., could we imagine this working at all?

I think it's worth opening the debate out.

SkepticOne

Sleepy wrote:

In general it is necessary for the government to give the people what they want because, most of the time, people want what they need. Other times, the government has to be able to make what in layman's terms are the tough decisions. Moves that are unpopular with the electorate yet necessary (e.g. raising taxes etc.)

However, in the context of democracy, I would argue that giving people what they want has to be the end in itself. It could be that what people want is not consistant with what they need, but what they want is the only thing we have to go on. If the aim were to give people what they need, then we might start talking about health, education, etc., but I think it is fairly clear that we are moving away from the idea of democracy.

On the other point, in a representative system, of course, governments need to make tough decisions on occasion, but the job of the democratic system is to make those representatives accountable for their overall decision making to the people.

If the country ends up in a good or bad bad for whatever reason, can we as a people say, "well, we were presented with a reasonable set of alternatives and we made our decision and these are the consequences for which we are ultimately responsible"?

This is another point I think is important - that within the idea of democracy is the notion that the people are ultimately responsible for the way the country is run.

1. There is the a state or some entity over which decisions are made.
2. This entity has certain powers over individuals and can impose rights or duties on individuals.
3. Those who are affected by the powers of the entity can effect the decisions made in such a way that the decisions reflect what they want.
4. These same people are ultimately responsible for the actions of the state.

Sleepy

DadaKopf, I can't imagine it working at all. You'd end up with train tracks being different sizes, the regions suffering massively, different speed limits all over the place and in general so many local by-laws that it would have a disasterous effect on a country.

I should admit here though that ultimately, I think the goal of world politics (and I'm talking a timescale of centuries here) should be that of one governing body for the world. No trade barriers, no local laws etc. just one world operating for the good of all.

Society in general may know in general terms what's good for them (i.e. good healthcare, education etc). But a lack of education or relevant qualifications prevents them from knowing how to achieve these things.

Sleepy

Skeptic, sure, theoretically democracy is a good idea because all those involved have a level of self-determination. However, it's been proven over and over again to be ineffective. It's much like communism, nice in theory but in practice human nature (and stupidity) screws it up.

My argument that meritocracy is that it works much the same way as democracy, it just eliminates some of it's problems, i.e. the election of the nice but incompetent/dim and the restriction of the vote to those who understand the different options they are presented with.

DadaKopf

Sleepy wrote:

Skeptic, sure, theoretically democracy is a good idea because all those involved have a level of self-determination. However, it's been proven over and over again to be ineffective. It's much like communism, nice in theory but in practice human nature (and stupidity) screws it up.

My argument that meritocracy is that it works much the same way as democracy, it just eliminates some of it's problems, i.e. the election of the nice but incompetent/dim and the restriction of the vote to those who understand the different options they are presented with.

In the real world, meritocracy would probably mean the exclusion of the majority by the rule of the few. Even Plato knew this!

Another comment: political systems can never be 'proven' - that sentence is nonsense. Without getting into an argument about philosophy of science, social systems are always, at best, provisional.

Of course democracy is incomplete and unstable. It's a system that's based on transformation and incompleteness.

I mean, direct democracy has worked perfectly well all over the world throughout history when it suited past socio-economic structures. What you're in fact arguing for is a limited conception of democracy suitable to today's socio-economic structures.

In fact little has changed since the industrial revolution. As you mentioned above, 'slower' forms of democracy wouldn't work under current conditions because of the exigencies of industrial capitalism, complex interdependence, perceived necessity for standards setting, and the existence of a culture-ideological hegemony. Even back in the 1800's, Weber lamented the creeping spread of bureaucracy, career politicians, hierarchical and exclusionary meritocracies (that institutionalised new managerial forms of power) and the need for national prestige, power, leadership, efficiency.

Hardly democracy, surely. Just a competitive elitist system of governance with just about enough 'participation' and social spending to prevent a revolution.

I dunno about you, but I like to think there are still better alternatives given these constraints.

Just 'cos things are the way they are doesn't mean they're forever, as history seems to show (historiological debates considered).

One governing body for the whole world? Same problems apply, although George Monbiot has an interesting proposition. And don't get me started on free trade - that's for the politics forum.

simu

DadaKopf wrote:

Interestingly, David Starkey (Uber conservative royal historian) called for a return to an Anglo Saxon model of governance in Britain - small (semi-)autonomous regions ruled by direct democracy. A contemporary example is Zapatismo in Chiapas, Mexico.

I suppose, given current constraints etc., could we imagine this working at all?

Interesting. I think that such structures could, perhaps, work well using direct democracy and modern communications technology to keep in touch with other regions and share ideas. You mention that these regions might be semi-autonomous. From this I take it that certain policy areas requiring cooperation over large geographical zones would still be governed from a central point or perhaps from different central points?

It certainly seems preferable to a monolithic world government. Such a government would require armies of bureacrats to run and would imply a complicated hierarchy, the people at the top of which would have far more influence on decision-making than those at the bottom. Also, such a government would almost certainly overlook the needs of minority communities (not that I'm in favour of complete cultural relativism - I think the best idea is to let people live however they decide to live as long as certain, stated human rights - along, say, the model of the UN declaration of human rights - are respected).

Sleepy

DadaKopf - I think to say that meritocracy would end up with "exclusion of the majority by the rule of the few" is a bit silly. In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel. Thus, were you to impose this type of meritocracy, it wouldn't last long.

I concede that proven was probably the wrong word to use, let me ammend the sentence: Demorcracy has been shown to be ineffective as a form of government. Our own country is a prime example, England is another, if the state's oligopoly counts as a democracy it's another. Virtually every deomcratic country I can think of is an under-achiever.

You seem to like the idea of a government run by hitting the red button on your Sky Digital remote. Where everyone has their say on everything. The same problems I identified in the current system would exist, and probably far more obviously under this type of direct democracy. When idiots can vote, the wrong decisions are made. It comes down to the central premise of meritocracy: only those qualified for a job are allowed to do it. If you don't have the necessary intelligence and education you can't be considered fit to vote. Why should you be let have a say if you don't understand what it is that you're having a say in?

simu, can you not imagine the amount of duplication of work and levels of bureacracy that such "semi-autonomous" regions would entail? Certainly it would be far more than a single central government would require. That said, there are problems with the idea of a "world government". I just think it's something we should be working towards, kind of an EU for the world (i.e. a United Nations which included all countries and actually worked).

simu

Sleepy wrote:

simu, can you not imagine the amount of duplication of work and levels of bureacracy that such "semi-autonomous" regions would entail? Certainly it would be far more than a single central government would require. That said, there are problems with the idea of a "world government". I just think it's something we should be working towards, kind of an EU for the world (i.e. a United Nations which included all countries and actually worked).

Humans aren't robots whose main reason for existence is to reach a state of maximum efficiency! People would be doing similar work in different parts of the world but in each instance, they would have to apply themselves to the particular circumstances of their own particular region and they would see the consequences of this in their daily lives as opposed to them being hidden among reams and reams of statistics. People would be able to share their experiences and advice with other regions facing similar problems.

In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel. Thus, were you to impose this type of meritocracy, it wouldn't last long.

It's quite easy to keep uneducated masses amused with bread and circuses and repress brutally the few who dare oppose you.

Virtually every deomcratic country I can think of is an under-achiever.

What do you mean by this? What would an "achieving" country be like?

If you don't have the necessary intelligence and education you can't be considered fit to vote.

How do you define and measure intelligence? Who decides what constitutes "education"?

DadaKopf

Ivan Illich and Paulo Friere argued that "traditional education" was a form of indoctrination by the powerful to maintain social hierarchies for the purpose of control.

This is the opposite of what they advocated which were new forms of participatory education that were supposed to blast away the disciplinary walls that keep people apart.

This is close to the point I've been making all along regarding Sleepy's argument.

I think most people would agree that the function of the education system is to equip people to enter the work force. In this case, the system by its nature limits people's choices.

Isn't this counter-democratic?

Sleepy wrote:

In any political structure when the majority aren't being listened to, they rebel.

I reconfirm everything simu just said and have to comment that what you just said isn't always the case. See above.

Sleepy

Well, if a people are in the majority and don't rebel, surely they're too stupid to be let have a say in the first place?

I grant you that the education system at present is a joke. However, this can be easily changed. It's just a matter of changing the sylabus. When subjects as useless as Irish and Religeon are given such a disproportionate amount of time in schools, of course more important areas of education will suffer. As long as universities are left to fund themselves by tailoring their courses to suit multinational's needs, of course people will be less qualified to rule themselves.

However, which voter is going to cast a more informed vote ceteris paribus, one with something of an education or one with no education at all? My major reason for believing in meritocracy is that I believe a large amount of the voting carried out in this country is ill-informed. How else could Sinn Fein be doing so well? How else could Fianna Fail have such an iron grip on power?

Sinn Fein having no policies whatsoever and Fianna Fail's inate corruptness should rule them out of the minds of any educated electorate, yet we as a nation still vote for them. Why? Because a massive percentage of our electorate don't know or understand a thing about government policy, economics, law or it would appear, common sense.

Meritocracy is a means of changing this. Educationg people about the things that affect how they should be governed (or govern) and only allowing those that have this education to take part in the electoral process. To me, cold hard logic dictates that this would produce better results than our current system of ignorant democracy.

Sure, it's not something that could be put in place overnight, nor do I see our government taking the necessary steps towards putting it in place (they'd never see power again if they did) but it would work if only our government were honourable enough to work towards it.