What are our political responsibilities?

Sgt. Sensible

This is a split from the Why talk politics here thread. It's a question really. Do we have any responsibilities as citizens other than casting a ballot every few years?

Another poster, if I understand correctly, claimed that only voting constitutes genuine political action, while marches or protests do not and never have any effect. I disputed this and cited the most recent examples I could think of where governments of varying legitimacy bowed to mass protests which clearly represented public opinion. I'm not just referring to protests of course, but to any form of political expression or activism, whether it's lobbying a TD, producing politically themed art or literature, consumer rights advocacy, striking, using internet forums or chatting in the pub. It's worth reminding ourselves that none of those freedoms existed until fairly recently. They had to be fought for, and in many parts of the world they are yet to be won.

Justifying the right to bear arms, Thomas Jefferson asked "What country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance?" Fair enough, but there's an obvious hole in this sort of reasoning, namely that any bunch of nutters can interpret it to mean that they're obliged take it upon themselves to act in what they claim, either falsely or sincerely, are a nation's best interests. Then of course, 'nutter' is an entirely subjective term.

So no matter how corrupt parties are or how blatantly they renege on their manifestos and do the opposite of what they were elected to do, is a vote all we're entitled to or what?

Jackie laughlin

Politics in this country is not generally corrupt. Parties represent interests and ideologies. For the most part parties do in govt. what they said they would do or what any reasonably informed person would have expected. The voter who says that he or she was tricked or betrayed is usually trying to evade responsibility for the way in which he/she voted.

silverharp

Learn to be self reliant, and don’t expect the gov. to make you happy or sort out your problems, If “they” tax to much weigh up the pros and cons of staying or leaving, having lived abroad for several years the Irish gov is just another administration that taxes and spends, thankfully the gov here is constrained to the extent that we are part of the EU and Euro, I see the gov as being of very little signifance to my life

sovtek

silverharp wrote:

Learn to be self reliant, and don’t expect the gov. to make you happy or sort out your problems,

Just about everything you do on a daily basis relies upon the government.

silverharp

sovtek wrote:

Just about everything you do on a daily basis relies upon the government.

It depends on what you mean, yes they provide services that I use however once the gov. observe the basic rule of law and carry out their functions like any liberal democracy in Europe then how or what should I get excited about.
Given the checks and balances in place being in the EU and that I do not feel that the gov. is impeeding my life then there is nothing for me to protest against. The fact that I think they are inefficient and that taxes are too high for the services provided is neither here nor there.

constitutionus

Jackie laughlin wrote:

The voter who says that he or she was tricked or betrayed is usually trying to evade responsibility for the way in which he/she voted.

tell that to the people who voted labour in 91 when springer was doing his "lets get the bastards out" routine and then hopped straight into the sack with FF. that little act of betrayal is still affecting labours vote now and is the main reason they're still smaller than FG

Victor

Those that are technically or organisationally capable have a responsibility to lead others.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=60
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=425

Sand

Another poster, if I understand correctly, claimed that only voting constitutes genuine political action, while marches or protests do not and never have any effect. I disputed this and cited the most recent examples I could think of where governments of varying legitimacy bowed to mass protests which clearly represented public opinion.

Shannon - Open to the US. Protests Failed.
Iraq - Liberated. Protests Failed.
Bush - Relected. Protests Failed.

As for your examples of protests working - Ukraines protests were simply about getting the votes cast counted, and the Orange Revolution is currently run aground the same old problem. Getting votes, winning elections. Thats where political power is forged. Votes.

The fact that youre using places like Venezeula, Nepal and France as examples of how democracy should be run (where basically votes are unimportant and all that matters is whose militia/mob is biggest) is representitive of how silly your argument is. If the people of Nepal go on to the streets, battle through tear gas and flames for their right to vote, and then dont vote....what exactly has been won? Nothing. Protests are useless without votes, its voting that matters. And thats why the Nepalese demanded the right to vote - because thats where the power comes from in functioning democracies.

You can protest all you like, but if you dont vote - who cares? The government certainly wont. Political debate here? Who cares if you dont vote? Ringing your TD? Why does he even care if you dont vote? Will he get your non existent vote next time around? TDs and governments only sit up and pay attention when votes are at stake. Its laughable to suggest that holding a protest now and again is equivalent to voting in terms of mandate or political activity.

Students and the rent-a-mob crowd go out protesting at the drop of the hat, but they are not a strong voting demographic. The older age groups/middle class are better voters, hence their views/needs form the political landscape - not college politics. And given the sort of moronic raking over of 19th century thought that passes for radical/fresh thinking in uni, thats a good thing.

there's an obvious hole in this sort of reasoning, namely that any bunch of nutters can interpret it to mean that they're obliged take it upon themselves to act in what they claim, either falsely or sincerely, are a nation's best interests.

Which is why rent-a-mobs arent representitive of anything and in no way invalidate fairly, democratically elected representitives carrying out their manifestos. To run a democracy in any other fashion is a real threat to that democracy.

ateam

Jackie laughlin wrote:

Politics in this country is not generally corrupt. Parties represent interests and ideologies. For the most part parties do in govt. what they said they would do or what any reasonably informed person would have expected. The voter who says that he or she was tricked or betrayed is usually trying to evade responsibility for the way in which he/she voted.

I would second that. In addition you will generally find that those who give out about the governement and politics know very little about it as they don't read or watch anything about it.

Victor

Sand wrote:

You can protest all you like, but if you dont vote - who cares? The government certainly wont. Political debate here? Who cares if you dont vote? Ringing your TD? Why does he even care if you dont vote? Will he get your non existent vote next time around? TDs and governments only sit up and pay attention when votes are at stake. Its laughable to suggest that holding a protest now and again is equivalent to voting in terms of mandate or political activity.

Mostly if not completely right, although incomplete. The citizenry cannot absolve themselves of political responsibility between elections.

Popular revolt need only come about when the government gets it profoundly wrong. However, comment, lobbying, making observations and proposals to sitting politicians and officials is just as important as voting. Politicians aren't perfect (lol), they need help (lolx2) from the citizenry.