Did the classical Greeks have....

Dannyboy83

.....a mechanism for the recall of their representatives?

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Why is this lacking from all modern Western European democratic systems?

I don't see how there will ever be accountability in the Irish political system until we develop some mechanism along these lines. e.g. if 50% of the electorate petition for a recall, there would be a by-election.

Cannibal Ox

Representatives didn't really exist in the way we have them. This is a bit limited to Athens, because I don't know to much about the other city states. By and large though, citizens (male and over the age of 20, women were citizens in so far as they were responsible for bearing children) made decisions directly through the Assembly. The Assembly met at least forty times a year and had a quorum of 6,000 people. It dealt with major issues, law, finance, foreign policy, war, etc. Alongside the Assembly you had a council of 500 (restricted to men over the age of 30) which was the executive committee of the Assembly, and a Committee of 50 citizens who advised the Council which served for one month with a president who held office for one day. The Swiss Cantons are probably the closet you come to it today (although, you argue that what's going on in Syntagma Square at the moment is a pretty fine resurrection of Athenian democracy).

They had a tendency to exile or kill people who became a little too problematic for the running of the state. Socrates is probably the best known example of that.

click_here!!!

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead

Increases in politicians' expenses aren't the main cause of tax increases in Ireland. I'd guess that they collectively earn €20 million per year, which is roughly 0.1% of the budget deficit. Although of course Labor and Fine Gael both made misleading promises at the last election!

I agree with your main points. Maybe if some other country set a good example of direct democracy working, then Irish people would consider it.

I was thinking also if you could sign your name on a petition (anonymously) to remove the current government, and enough people (50% of electorate) signed it, then there would have to be a new general election shortly. It would have cut Fianna Fáil's last term a lot!

Dannyboy83

click_here!!! wrote: »

Increases in politicians' expenses aren't the main cause of tax increases in Ireland. I'd guess that they collectively earn €20 million per year, which is roughly 0.1% of the budget deficit. Although of course Labor and Fine Gael both made misleading promises at the last election!

Sorry, I should have said expenditure, rather than expenses

sarkozy

The question you raise is valid beyond the confines of the ancient Athenian demos. It's a question attached to republicanism and other representative forms of political governance: if an elected official, whose collective power we transfer to him/her to govern, breaks with that contract so much that the collective desires him/her out of office, how could this happen and how frequently?

This question goes to a deeper question within democracy: democracy may be characterised as a system of rule that reduces social conflict by engendering legitimacy through a more equal and open system of balancing and resolving competing views/interests. The current model holds that representatives must be able to do what is at times popular and at times unpopular in order that they can rule well. Yet were it too easy for representatives to be ejected by popular will, many argue this would destabilise the system.

Yet, the Athenian system had regularly revolving representatives to avoid this dilemma which the republican liberal tradition has normalised. Many other variations are possible and have existed.

Reading against the grain of history, our so-called democracy could actually be termed 'competitive elitism'. The system effectively means we, once we elect someone, transfer our power to agents of vested interests with minimal influence over decision-making except at election time. This makes our 'servants' more vulnerable to capture by corporations, etc. So who is it who ultimately fears 'instability' - us, or the political elites? This is why true democracy is still a revolutionary concept, and we sorely need more democracy here.

matthew8

sarkozy wrote: »

The question you raise is valid beyond the confines of the ancient Athenian demos. It's a question attached to republicanism and other representative forms of political governance: if an elected official, whose collective power we transfer to him/her to govern, breaks with that contract so much that the collective desires him/her out of office, how could this happen and how frequently?

This question goes to a deeper question within democracy: democracy may be characterised as a system of rule that reduces social conflict by engendering legitimacy through a more equal and open system of balancing and resolving competing views/interests. The current model holds that representatives must be able to do what is at times popular and at times unpopular in order that they can rule well. Yet were it too easy for representatives to be ejected by popular will, many argue this would destabilise the system.

Yet, the Athenian system had regularly revolving representatives to avoid this dilemma which the republican liberal tradition has normalised. Many other variations are possible and have existed.

Reading against the grain of history, our so-called democracy could actually be termed 'competitive elitism'. The system effectively means we, once we elect someone, transfer our power to agents of vested interests with minimal influence over decision-making except at election time. This makes our 'servants' more vulnerable to capture by corporations, etc. So who is it who ultimately fears 'instability' - us, or the political elites? This is why true democracy is still a revolutionary concept, and we sorely need more democracy here.

I think what we should do is allow the people to kick someone out through seanad reform. Hold a seanad election 2 years into the Dail term with 50 seats in 10 5 seat constituencies and allow the seanad to refuse any bills. This would give the people a chance to cut a bad government's term short and have greater accountability. If the seanad votes against the Dail the gov't may hold an election, but if they don't that person who you dislike and want out can't do anything.

sarkozy

I'd say get rid of the Seanad but replace it with a tier of local government. Real democracy.

But this isn't the thread topic.

anymore

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

.....a mechanism for the recall of their representatives?

If you hire a builder to demolish your shed, and he builds you a conservatory instead - you give him his marching orders.
If you elect a politician to cut expenses, and they increases taxes instead - you are powerless to do anything until the next General Election.

Why is this lacking from all modern Western European democratic systems?

I don't see how there will ever be accountability in the Irish political system until we develop some mechanism along these lines. e.g. if 50% of the electorate petition for a recall, there would be a by-election.

I believe they sent them into slavery or executed them !:D

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

The lack of a recall system seriously undermines the parliamentary systems claims to democracy.