Vos Populi, Vox Dei?

Scofflaw

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

Following on from the Lisbon referendum, where 54% of the vote was No, and 98% of the Dáil was Yes - is it the job of elected representatives to lead, or to follow? Should they represent you in the sense of doing what you would do in their place, or in the sense of representing your interests according to their best judgement?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Kama

Lead when I agree with them, against a majorities chorus of ignorance; yet dutifully follow the popular will when it accords with my own.
That seems the best, moderate, sensible course, between the Scylla of Ochlocracy and the Charybdis of the Mandarins Rule. :rolleyes:

To my mind, follow seems better as the rule, and lead the exception;
the converse position takes an unhealthy direction, vide Blair Bush et al.
'Because a leaders job is to, y'know, lead...'

The Mob is not unique in being possessed by fits of lunacy.

O'Morris

Scofflaw wrote: »

Should they represent you in the sense of doing what you would do in their place, or in the sense of representing your interests according to their best judgement?

They should represent our interests according to their best judgment. That would include going against popular opinion when their judgment is not in agreement with that opinion. It should also include defying their party leader or party whip when their judgments are not in agreement. If our elected representatives were less timid maybe we might have a more representative parliament.

auerillo

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nec audiendi qui solent dicere, Vox populi, vox Dei, quum tumultuositas vulgi semper insaniae proxima sit.

Following on from the Lisbon referendum, where 54% of the vote was No, and 98% of the Dáil was Yes - is it the job of elected representatives to lead, or to follow? Should they represent you in the sense of doing what you would do in their place, or in the sense of representing your interests according to their best judgement?

cordially,
Scofflaw

This is a very interesting conundrum. Technically, a member is elected to represent the interests of his constituents.

Generally speaking, his constituents will have many diverse opinions and their needs will often be at odds, so it's not possible to represent the views of ones constituents in the general sense, at least not in the Dail debates.

In any case, now that most TD's are subect to their parties whips, they are no longer free to represent the views of their constituents in the Dail, and have to represent instead the interests of their party in the Dail, or risk being disciplined or expelled from the party and probably lose their seat.

I've mentioned before how I think this system, coupled with the career politician, has impoverished our political system, and I firmly believe this to be the case.

Of course, the politicians are still free to represent their constituents interests insofar as making interventions on behalf of individuals to rent tribunals, dole payments etc etc. But this is not what is meant by representing their views and interests, which is meant in the framing of legislation in the Dail.

FionnMatthew

To be honest, neither. I'm not inclined towards representative democracy in either vein, because the demos of a representative democracy in the first instance, for want of exercise, isn't capable of taking decisions, and for that reason the veracity of the contrary judgment of an elected representative in the second situation cannot be guaranteed.

All in all, political judgment goes down the tubes in a representative democracy.

CtrlSource

Kama wrote: »

To my mind, follow seems better as the rule, and lead the exception;
the converse position takes an unhealthy direction, vide Blair Bush et al.
'Because a leaders job is to, y'know, lead...'

Indeed

Kama

FionnMatthew wrote:

because the demos of a representative democracy in the first instance, for want of exercise, isn't capable of taking decisions

Just curious if you could flesh out the details on this Fionn...

Would an active and involved demos be a sufficient condition, or do you regard the representative process itself to undermine by encouraging abdication? Is there an extant political system as a preferred model? I'm sceptical on the possibility of a democratic system without representation.

scofflaw wrote:

is it the job of elected representatives to lead, or to follow?

Apropos of party whips and Libertas respectively (and I know I'm repeating myself) the larger question again: who leads the leaders?


Or should i take dirty questions like that to Conspiracy Theory?

Sand

Id lean towards it being the job of elected representitives to lead, based on the mandate provided to them by the electorate. A mandate that might be removed at the next election should they screw up. And a mandate bound by the constitution and legal protections.

Many of the "right" decisions were made by leaders acting against the popular mood. One of the earliest examples would be Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, who cautiously decided on avoiding open battle with Hannibal at all costs when then popular Roman mood was to seek out and defeat him - leading to catastrophe after catastrophe. Or Themistocles, who lied and cheated in his successful effort to fool the Athenians to build the navy that defeated the Persians at Salamis when the majority of Athenians refused to recognise they faced any danger from the Persian Empire.

Essentially, the vast majority of people pay little attention to politics, economics or social issues on a regional, let alone national scale, and when asked to address a serious political issue most peoples response is "Huh? What? What was the question again?". I simply do not trust the judgement of Bazzo, whose normal reaction to any question is "Ye Wha!!!" over the judgement of even the most corrupt Fianna Fail operator. Mobs often have their views heavily influenced by fear, tribalism and petty hatreds - not the bedrock for liberal democracy in my book or informed decision making.

Worst come to worst, a politician cannot circumvent the laws of the state or the constitution, and in X amount of years they can be voted out. In the interim, they should lead. Its what they are paid to do.

Scofflaw

Sand wrote: »

Id lean towards it being the job of elected representitives to lead, based on the mandate provided to them by the electorate. A mandate that might be removed at the next election should they screw up. And a mandate bound by the constitution and legal protections.

Many of the "right" decisions were made by leaders acting against the popular mood. One of the earliest examples would be Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus, who cautiously decided on avoiding open battle with Hannibal at all costs when then popular Roman mood was to seek out and defeat him - leading to catastrophe after catastrophe. Or Themistocles, who lied and cheated in his successful effort to fool the Athenians to build the navy that defeated the Persians at Salamis when the majority of Athenians refused to recognise they faced any danger from the Persian Empire.

Essentially, the vast majority of people pay little attention to politics, economics or social issues on a regional, let alone national scale, and when asked to address a serious political issue most peoples response is "Huh? What? What was the question again?". I simply do not trust the judgement of Bazzo, whose normal reaction to any question is "Ye Wha!!!" over the judgement of even the most corrupt Fianna Fail operator. Mobs often have their views heavily influenced by fear, tribalism and petty hatreds - not the bedrock for liberal democracy in my book or informed decision making.

Worst come to worst, a politician cannot circumvent the laws of the state or the constitution, and in X amount of years they can be voted out. In the interim, they should lead. Its what they are paid to do.

Voted out or impeached (depending on system). I think that probably comes closest to my own view - that they should lead, constrained by law and the mandate they have been given.

cordially,
Scofflaw

auerillo

Sand wrote: »

Essentially, the vast majority of people pay little attention to politics, economics or social issues on a regional, let alone national scale, and when asked to address a serious political issue most peoples response is "Huh? What? What was the question again?".

While this is not an unusual view, I wonder what evidence there is for it? Certainly, wherever I go the majority of people are interested in politics as they realise it is important. issues like the lisbon treaty engaged the whole country and I find it hard to understand why some claim that most people are not interested in politics, and whether there is any evidence for that vioewpoint or whether its an assumption backed up with anecdote rather than evidence?

Sand wrote: »

I simply do not trust the judgement of Bazzo, whose normal reaction to any question is "Ye Wha!!!" over the judgement of even the most corrupt Fianna Fail operator.

I'm not sure I would agree or disagree with that. In any case, the most corrupt fianna fail operator is still subject to the party whip and is not free to vote with his own conscience or free to express the will of his electorate. He has to tow the party line when it comes to voting in our parliament.

Kama

Like auerillo, I'd like a little more than anecdote. Its an intuitively appealing story, but as an appeal to naive realism that this is the case it doesn't seem supported.

I also have a difficulty with the move from this as a descriptive position 'there are ignorant uninvolved people' to the normative position of 'the people are followers and need to be led'. I suspect causality runs in both directions; 'leaders' are encouraged by uninvolved, bystander publics, and bystanding is encouraged by the tendency of leaders to lead as they see fit.