Death of Democracy?

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

I read in the indo a couple of weeks back that Biffo stated there would be?

I was under the impression that it hadn't been ruled out, but that it also hadn't been decided on for certain. I'm open to correction.

No, not an election under the circumstances you've described. I'd consider an election different to a constitutional change/referendum anyways.

This is what I have a problem with. The word "democracy" means, in simple terms, "rule by the people." By that definition, "undemocratic" can only mean "inhibiting the people from ruling themselves."

In order to see a repeat referendum as "undemocratic", you have to introduce a definition of "democracy" that has no bearing on the root words "demos" and "kratos". Once you do so, the term has lost all useful meaning anyway.

They slightly changed the Nice Treaty in order to make a second referendum justifiable. Completely unchanged treaty going for a second vote would have been seen as taking the piss and the media would have reacted more strongly against it.

On a point of order, they didn't change the Nice treaty one bit; but that's only marginally relevant, because we were voting on a constitutional amendment rather than on the treaty itself. The constitutional amendment was substantially altered, specifically to take account of some of the concerns that had been expressed around the time of the first referendum. Undemocratic? Hardly.

Politics is a game really, and within a democratic system there are certain rules, but there are also ways to bend the rules and play the system, which leads us to the kind of media circus, roadshow politics, lobbyist scenario which is on display in the vulgar US elections. Not the spirit of democracy as envisaged originally.

You want undemocratic? How about the party whip system? That's much more undemocratic than (shock, horror) asking people to vote on things.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

Democracy is the people having the right to elect those who govern them.

You might want to reconsider that. Strictly speaking, that would mean that having referenda is unconstitutional. We elect "governance"...they should then do their job and govern us.

Our democracy also has rights enshrined in our constitution, which I agree with.

So you also see democracy as the right for the people to make some decisions seperate to their elected governance...okay....thats the "slight reconsideration" I was mentioning.

Lets leave aside the sticky question of where to draw the line for a moment....

The right to allow the people to vote when changing this core document is essential in my opinion. Otherwise the government could just decide to remove the parts about the right to the inviolability of one's dwelling, or the right to life, which has a wide ranging effect on many laws and rights enjoyed in this country.

Excellent point.

Now...show me where in the constitution it says how often we are allowed to suggest changes to the constitution, or the same area thereof, and how different one suggestion has to be from another before that limit does not apply.

'Cause if it ain't there, then its a question for governance...and for them to make such a decision is exactly what we elected them for...which would be democracy in action, really.

Time Magazine

The real issue here is that "democracy" is all too undefined. Is it democratic that despite Al Gore getting 500,000 more votes in the 2000 election, the presidency went to Bush? Perhaps not. The logic behind this is "one man, one vote, one motion" is more persuasive than "let's respect individual states' independence". Of course if you use this ideal, Ireland should not have anything approaching a veto of Lisbon. So if you want to complain that suggesting a second vote is undemocratic you should be quick to defend the legitimacy of the USA's college electoral points.

Of course there's something wrong there. The reason is that democracy is ill-defined, and certainly not synonymous with "good".

Kernel

oscarBravo wrote: »

I was under the impression that it hadn't been ruled out, but that it also hadn't been decided on for certain. I'm open to correction.

Perhaps I interpreted the article incorrectly, as far as I remember I was half asleep while reading the paper that day anyway. Call me a cynic, but when Biffo says that he doesn't rule out a second referendum, I take that to mean that there will be one!

oscarBravo wrote: »

In order to see a repeat referendum as "undemocratic", you have to introduce a definition of "democracy" that has no bearing on the root words "demos" and "kratos". Once you do so, the term has lost all useful meaning anyway.

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics here. As I mentioned, the 'spirit' of democracy is where the issue of the second referendum (within a short period) is in conflict with.

oscarBravo wrote: »

On a point of order, they didn't change the Nice treaty one bit; but that's only marginally relevant, because we were voting on a constitutional amendment rather than on the treaty itself. The constitutional amendment was substantially altered, specifically to take account of some of the concerns that had been expressed around the time of the first referendum.

You are correct there, I was wrong to say that they changed the Treaty itself, but the point was that at least they changed the constitutional amendments to such an extent that we were re-voting on something which was somewhat different to the original.

bonkey wrote:

You might want to reconsider that. Strictly speaking, that would mean that having referenda is unconstitutional. We elect "governance"...they should then do their job and govern us.

I understand that we elect a government to represent us, but I also continued to say that we enjoyed an extra democratic process within the constitution whereby we can hold a referendum to decide on whether to alter that constitution.

bonkey wrote:

Now...show me where in the constitution it says how often we are allowed to suggest changes to the constitution, or the same area thereof, and how different one suggestion has to be from another before that limit does not apply.

As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution. It's an issue that should be addressed and it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result. The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself. Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance. We even have a poster in this thread who wants to do away with the silly referendum idea, and thus give the citizens of the State no control over future constitutional amendments. I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter? That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.

Kernel

David McWilliams wrote: »

Is it democratic that despite Al Gore getting 500,000 more votes in the 2000 election, the presidency went to Bush? Perhaps not. The logic behind this is "one man, one vote, one motion" is more persuasive than "let's respect individual states' independence". Of course if you use this ideal, Ireland should not have anything approaching a veto of Lisbon. So if you want to complain that suggesting a second vote is undemocratic you should be quick to defend the legitimacy of the USA's college electoral points.

I'm not sure I'm following you here, but it is late... Are you saying that the idea of proportional representation should not allow Ireland to veto the treaty? If so, once the treaty is passed, then such proportional representation will be cemented in the European Parliament anyways. Can you extrapolate a little for me - I'm just a silly tin foil hat brigade member after all!

oscarBravo

Kernel wrote: »

I think we're getting bogged down in semantics here. As I mentioned, the 'spirit' of democracy is where the issue of the second referendum (within a short period) is in conflict with.

I don't think it's semantics to ask why it's considered undemocratic to ask people to vote on something. If you're going to claim that something is counter to the spirit of democracy, then you're going to have to define the spirit of democracy, and explain why your definition of it is valid.

You are correct there, I was wrong to say that they changed the Treaty itself, but the point was that at least they changed the constitutional amendments to such an extent that we were re-voting on something which was somewhat different to the original.

So, why was it undemocratic to vote on a different proposition the second time around? - especially when the second proposition directly addressed concerns that were expressed in the aftermath of the first.

As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution. It's an issue that should be addressed and it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result.

What do you think the outcome would be of a government holding a referendum every week on the same proposition?

The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself. Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance. We even have a poster in this thread who wants to do away with the silly referendum idea, and thus give the citizens of the State no control over future constitutional amendments. I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter? That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.

The Supreme Court interprets constitutionality, not the "spirit of democracy".

But let's say, hypothetically, that a second Lisbon referendum were called within a year of the first, and someone were to bring a Supreme Court challenge to the validity of such a referendum. What do you suppose the Court's ruling would be?

Time Magazine

Kernel wrote: »

I'm not sure I'm following you here, but it is late... Are you saying that the idea of proportional representation should not allow Ireland to veto the treaty?

I'm saying there are competing and somewhat exclusive definitions of democracy.

Let's say you think Gore should have been President as half a million more Americans voted for him than Bush. They're you're following a "one man, one vote" theory, not a "one state, one vote" kind of theory. That's fine.

However this is somewhat incompatible with thinking Ireland should have a veto over Lisbon.

So let's take it from the other side. Say you're a big believer in the right of a constituent state having a veto, regardless of its population. This is more along the lines of thinking "one state, one vote". This is also a perfectly reasonable belief to hold.

However if you hold this view, then the popular vote for US President in 2000 means nothing and Bush was rightly sworn in.

Both the "popular vote" and the "right of the Irish people" theories are perfectly reasonable and they're democratic depending on how you define "democratic". But they're essentially polar opposites in their conclusions.

So my point is any declaration of "undemocratic <this or that>" needs a firm definition of "democratic". The "right of any state to veto" can completely disagree with "one man, one vote." In my opinion a truly democratic outcome for Lisbon would be where Ireland does not hold a veto. Why should we? If us and the Brits and the Germans and the French want to sign an agreement, why should the Greeks have a veto? Sure the Greeks shouldn't be forced to join, but we should have the right to move on without them.

bonkey

Kernel wrote: »

As you know, it doesn't specify this in the constitution.

Yes indeed. I know it and you know it. The point I was driving at is that you defined democracy in a manner which completely failed to explain why your objection of "undemocratic" held up.

it's my whole point of the democratic system being bent and manipulated in ways which are against the spirit in which it was intended. Those who enshrined the right to have a referendum at the founding of the State surely did not expect that the government could have a revoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result.

Good thing that no government has tried having a recoting of referenda every week until they achieved their desired result, then, isn't it?

Now...yes...I understand that was hyperbole, but I'd like you to take a second and consider that what you are now clarifying your objection to be is that your belief about the unstated intent of the founding fathers is at odds with what might happen...which is a long cry from it being undemocratic.

I would point out, for example, that the very notion of a referendum is for the public to have the ability to decide that our chosen course is different to the explicitly stated intent of our nation's founders.

So if its undemocratic for us to make decusions contrary to some notion that wasn't enshrined in our constitution, surely the whole idea of actually changing the constitution is equally undemocratic, as the overriding concern is the intent of the nation's founders.

Of course, you don't believe that any more than I do. You accept that we should have the right to change our Constitution, so I would put it to you that it doesn't matter a fig what the opinions of those who drafted the Constitution were when it comes to things they didn't put in there - we are absolutely and totally not bound to them.

The spirit of the provision was that the people of Ireland would decide on the evolution of the constitution and corcordantly the State itself.

Thats what we get to do regardless of how often referenda are held. No-one forces you to vote at all, let alone to vote pro- or contra-.

Such things are now bypassed, bent and treated as a hindrance.

B****x they are. No referendum has ever been held in an unchanged form, and if it were the public still can refuse to pass it. No government has ever treated the refusal to pass a referendum as a "hindrance" and gone ahead with their plans anyway.

I understand your point on democracy in action Bonkey, do you understand my point on the spirit rather than the letter?

Quite frankly, no, I don't. I understand the concept of their being the letter of the law, and the spirit of the law, but I do not understand how you are construing that into "undemocratic" equating to your belief regarding an unstated intent regarding issues that aren't in law at all.

To me, it just sounds like you don't support the motion, and scared that it might carry if it is re-addressed in any form, and therefore need to argue that any re-addressing of the issue is fundamentally wrong.

That is why we have Supreme Court judges after all, to interpret the spirit.

Indeed...but I haven't heard you once argue that the Supreme Court judges have ruled that the intent of the constitution was to have a minimum period and that these issues you complain about would be unconstitutional...so it would seem that they don't agree that there's a problem here either.

conceited

I'm of the persuasion that palin and john mccain are mentally ill, "I really mean that"
As for obama, well, he's just a smooth talker.
Doesn't really matter who gets in. It's all the same !