Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Direct Democracy, Why Not?
Options
Comments
-
Whatever you want it to mean Cavehill- that we are a fcuked bannana republic/ that we are in some diffculty but are recovering/ that europe is good/that europe is bad/ etc etc
my point is are the electorate in any way responsible for whatever type of republic we have become ?
I am not being smart or anything , but I just don't accept that it is just the ''system'' that has us where we are .
I think OscarBravo made a useful point when he referred to the post-colonial mindset we have in Ireland. He restricted its influence to a mistrust of authority, which may be the case. However, I'd go further and suggest that it has led to a poor fit of method of rule and people ruled. It was pointed out in one of the recent debates that it is something like seventy years since we last overhauled our constitution. Yes, it does permit amendment, but a) only at the government's behest and b) is it any coincidence that the most useful and progressive aspect of the constitution is the one that involves direct democracy?
I think the 'electorate' is guilty of kow-towing to dynasty politics, a nasty trait of many post-colonial countries. That has helped erode the legitimacy of our governing elite and reduce its quality over time. I think, not the electorate exactly but the citizenry in general, were too eager to accept a bubble as a boom, too uncritical of the rhetoric they received from corrupt politicians and a bought media (literally so, funded by ads from beefy property supplements.)
I think, especially in the case of the 2007 general election, the electorate were frankly lied to, as they were in the second Lisbon referendum too. In the former, the Opposition and media were lied to also. That left very few people, mostly dissident economists and people on websites like the Property Pin, who were able to foresee the economic tsumami just ahead. Who was responsible for those lies? The parliamentary executive at that time.
Here's where OscarBravo's argument about electorate responsibility breaks down for me - let's assume the electorate is a starving man given two choices of sandwich to eat. He can eat the sandwich that looks a bit bluemould or he can eat the other sandwich which looks sort of ok but actually contains excrement. OB would like to blame the electorate for picking the **** sandwich. My point is that the electorate had an abysmal set of options to begin with. My solution is to let the starving man cook for himself in future.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »I think OscarBravo made a useful point when he referred to the post-colonial mindset we have in Ireland. He restricted its influence to a mistrust of authority, which may be the case. However, I'd go further and suggest that it has led to a poor fit of method of rule and people ruled. It was pointed out in one of the recent debates that it is something like seventy years since we last overhauled our constitution. Yes, it does permit amendment, but a) only at the government's behest and b) is it any coincidence that the most useful and progressive aspect of the constitution is the one that involves direct democracy?
I think the 'electorate' is guilty of kow-towing to dynasty politics, a nasty trait of many post-colonial countries. That has helped erode the legitimacy of our governing elite and reduce its quality over time. I think, not the electorate exactly but the citizenry in general, were too eager to accept a bubble as a boom, too uncritical of the rhetoric they received from corrupt politicians and a bought media (literally so, funded by ads from beefy property supplements.)
I think, especially in the case of the 2007 general election, the electorate were frankly lied to, as they were in the second Lisbon referendum too. In the former, the Opposition and media were lied to also. That left very few people, mostly dissident economists and people on websites like the Property Pin, who were able to foresee the economic tsumami just ahead. Who was responsible for those lies? The parliamentary executive at that time.
Here's where OscarBravo's argument about electorate responsibility breaks down for me - let's assume the electorate is a starving man given two choices of sandwich to eat. He can eat the sandwich that looks a bit bluemould or he can eat the other sandwich which looks sort of ok but actually contains excrement. OB would like to blame the electorate for picking the **** sandwich. My point is that the electorate had an abysmal set of options to begin with. My solution is to let the starving man cook for himself in future.
We are really not that far apart at all Cavehill, certainly in our diagnosis of the problem. We may differ in the solution.
I agree with you and OB about post-colonialism and that it really is a fundamental point. I read some French philosopher (name escapes me) years ago who argued that it take 2 to 3 generations in a post colonial society before the people realize it is themselves they are now ripping off and not their former masters. We seem to be taking a generation or two longer.
The result of this is a bit like Al Pacino in the great speech at the end of ''Scent Of A Woman'' where he says ''I always knew what the right path was, but I never took it. it was too damn hard''. Now that may be a bit of hyperbolic cornball but in many ways it describes the irish electorate,
from the give away election pledges of Jack Lynch in 77 (which in many ways was the start of ''bribing the voter strategy) right up to recent times and re-electing Bertie numerous times whan anyone with half a brain and an internet connection knew the game was up. But self-interest and sectional interest prevented any sort of unified response.
No sort of democracy is enhanced by the continual election of Lowry/O'Cuiv/ Burke/Lawler/ et al who quite openly campaign on sectional interest and we seem to indulge in these kind of character more than most.
I agree with you though that root and branch reform is required.
As a side issue - on lying to the electorate . I have to say this is a particular bugbear of mine ,I just don't accept it as really relevant. It is just another excuse in this information age of intellectual laziness. Everybody lies to the voter , directly, by omission, by exaggeration and on and on. The good guys do it, the bad guys do it. Anybody fooled by it is just plain lazy . But that seems to be the age we live in where no one is responsible and everyone is a victim .0 -
As a side issue - on lying to the electorate . I have to say this is a particular bugbear of mine ,I just don't accept it as really relevant. It is just another excuse in this information age of intellectual laziness. Everybody lies to the voter , directly, by omission, by exaggeration and on and on. The good guys do it, the bad guys do it. Anybody fooled by it is just plain lazy . But that seems to be the age we live in where no one is responsible and everyone is a victim .
This in a nutshell is why I support increased direct democracy in Ireland. We simply cannot trust the information given to us by those who seek to represent us, and hence cannot trust them to actually represent us.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »This in a nutshell is why I support increased direct democracy in Ireland. We simply cannot trust the information given to us by those who seek to represent us, and hence cannot trust them to actually represent us.
But direct democracy is no answer to this issue Cavehill, I just dont take anything I read or see at face value and i assume you are the same. But one really wants to find ''the truth'' there has never been a better time.
A futher consideration is that direct democracy is winner takes all format without the nuances of PR for example but without the checks and ballances of representative democracy.
In many way it is easier to manipulate as everything is reduced to a single issue and is even more susceptible to big money campaigning as we have seen to our cost here in the various referenda . The single issue is always susceptible to the big lie as we saw with divorce or health care is the USA. Why bother checking the facts when you can have a slogan like ''If you don't know- vote know'' letting you off the hook as a citizen.
On a side issue - can I ask do you belive in the death penalty as this would be one of the first results of DD. For the record I don't believe in the death penalty but I accept if you think it is unfair of me to ask.0 -
But direct democracy is no answer to this issue Cavehill, I just dont take anything I read or see at face value and i assume you are the same. But one really wants to find ''the truth'' there has never been a better time.
A futher consideration is that direct democracy is winner takes all format without the nuances of PR for example but without the checks and ballances of representative democracy.
what exactly ARE those 'checks and balances'? They are vested interests, nothing more. As someone who grew up in the North of Ireland, I am very familiar with the concept of 'winner takes all' democracy. How was it foisted upon me and my community? Via parliamentary democracy, concomitant with gerrymandered constituencies.
Direct democracy PREVENTS such events because it permits elements of majority sectarian identities to deal with issues on a per issue basis.In many way it is easier to manipulate as everything is reduced to a single issue and is even more susceptible to big money campaigning as we have seen to our cost here in the various referenda . The single issue is always susceptible to the big lie as we saw with divorce or health care is the USA. Why bother checking the facts when you can have a slogan like ''If you don't know- vote know'' letting you off the hook as a citizen.
Not so easy to do when there are umpteen such issues each year and the possibility of having a re-run next year.
Yes, to an extent it requires an informed populace. The Swiss seek to inform their populace prior to referenda. We do likewise. We could do better in that regard. We already do better than the US.On a side issue - can I ask do you belive in the death penalty as this would be one of the first results of DD. For the record I don't believe in the death penalty but I accept if you think it is unfair of me to ask.
If the people were (as I believe they should) permitted the option of generating issues to be voted on, then they may well suggest the death penalty for certain crimes.
If that occurred, and I would oppose it personally, I would accept the sovereign decision of the people and examine carefully how it was proposed to be implemented.
Personally, I'm not sure I'd have a problem with it under certain very limited circumstances. Furthermore, I don't believe the Irish people would seek to implement such a verdict for anything other than extremely heinous offences where there was little or no doubt in relation to guilt.
We're not Texas.0 -
Advertisement
-
Cavehill Red , you say those checks and balances are just vested interests as if that were something bad. It is not , the more groups and individuals that participate in our democracy the better be they business, unions, farmers, youth, whatever.
But the checks and balances I had in mind were , independant judiciary, constitution and so on.
Contrary to your argument in using Northern Ireland as an example of Representative Demoracy gone bad ,I could advance a case where it is the poster child of direct democracy at its absolute worst and with all the tragic consequences. From its inception where as much territory was taken but without the absolute majority ever being jeopardised. Then using that majority as justification to ram through every sort of malpractice. Contrary to what you are saying it was the tryanny of the unchanging majority that was the problem and not the system. It is the drunk driver that causes the accident not the car.
On you second point on the multiplicy of issues reducing the manipulation by vested interests. Not so- I would contend the reverse applies, that when you have so many issues only the vested interests will be up to speed on any given topic and have the money to get that message across and as we have seen here with the referenda on abortion etc to have the same issue or a variant rehashed over and over until the 'right result'' is obtained.
On the death penalty- every single case bar none believes at that time that there is no doubt . There is always doubt, DNA has surely taught us that.0 -
But NONE of those things actually function as a check or balance in a parliamentary democracy. The constitution is bent out of shape, as we saw with the repeated referenda scandal. We're about to be asked to vote on two referenda intended to curb the independence of the judiciary right now. Farmers and unions and so on may have had a token gesture hearing during the boom times, but the only actual check or balance on parliamentary abuse of power is whoever funded the campaigns of those elected, and those are very much not vested interests operating in the interests of the people.Cavehill Red , you say those checks and balances are just vested interests as if that were something bad. It is not , the more groups and individuals that participate in our democracy the better be they business, unions, farmers, youth, whatever.
But the checks and balances I had in mind were , independant judiciary, constitution and so on.Contrary to your argument in using Northern Ireland as an example of Representative Demoracy gone bad ,I could advance a case where it is the poster child of direct democracy at its absolute worst and with all the tragic consequences. From its inception where as much territory was taken but without the absolute majority ever being jeopardised. Then using that majority as justification to ram through every sort of malpractice. Contrary to what you are saying it was the tryanny of the unchanging majority that was the problem and not the system. It is the drunk driver that causes the accident not the car.
We never had direct democracy in Northern Ireland and still do not. In a direct democratic system, the problem of the sectarian headcount would have been in part resolved by putting issues directly on the table for the people to decide. Instead, we had a gerrymandered representative system which to this day leaves large sections of society (the working class Protestants of the Shankill Road 'represented' by Sinn Fein, for example) utterly disenfranchised.On you second point on the multiplicy of issues reducing the manipulation by vested interests. Not so- I would contend the reverse applies, that when you have so many issues only the vested interests will be up to speed on any given topic and have the money to get that message across and as we have seen here with the referenda on abortion etc to have the same issue or a variant rehashed over and over until the 'right result'' is obtained.
Look at the Swiss system - there are major curbs on advertising on the topic of a referendum. You can't - unlike here - keep re-running the vote until you get the answer you want. Issues come from the people (or the local executive) and those who are interested in a legislative change have to try to make their case. Generally the case is made for yes and no votes on the actual ballot book, so that people can read and inform themselves before voting in the booth. There are many ways to curb abuse in the direct democratic system. The beauty of it is that the people are sovereign. It is very hard to hijack.On the death penalty- every single case bar none believes at that time that there is no doubt . There is always doubt, DNA has surely taught us that.
The death penalty doesn't really animate me. I don't think there is a culture in Ireland seeking its reintroduction, certainly not to the extent where it would be passed in a referendum of the people for anything more than extremely rare offenses.0 -
Cavehill Red wrote: »The death penalty doesn't really animate me. I don't think there is a culture in Ireland seeking its reintroduction, certainly not to the extent where it would be passed in a referendum of the people for anything more than extremely rare offenses.
Should someone's life be put to the hands of "the people" in any case though?I'm sure you already see the failure of logic in this, but in case you do not, perhaps you could explain to me why 166 people (or in reality less than 20) can be trusted with the running of this country, but the 2 million plus adults living here cannot?
You know that this point is incorrect, because the men and women of the cabinet are not the ones who actually do the vast majority of the fine work involved in putting together legislation. As ineffectual as the government can be, the relevant departments do in actual fact have experts in their relevant area who make policy recommendations and do a lot of the legwork. The minister doesn't just swoop in and do whatever they like, even though that's how it may appear.
I would actually like a stronger form of local government, I would like to see Dublin money spent on useful projects for Dublin rather than wasteful railways in the west of Ireland for example. However, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how and why direct democracy would be beneficial here. I don't think it's enough to say, "hey look, it works in Switzerland!", because I can point to examples of direct democracy in say, local towns in the United States where it delivers stupid laws, or take the example of California where direct democracy has recently denied gay people of their right to marry, along with contributing merrily to the budget deficit. If you need evidence that "the people" are often not very good legislators, you need look no further than there.
Mr Quinn is proposing to remove 50% of the state's primary schools from Catholic ownership. An ambitious target, that probably won't be achieved. But would that even be on the table if we had a direct democracy. I would wager, most likely not. The majority of people seem fine with or indifferent to the status quo. Is that beneficial? What about the spending cuts and tax increases required? You seem to think that people's attitude would just adapt, but the examples I cited above show that this is not necessarily the case.
It is up to you to demonstrate how and why you think that form of democracy would work here in Ireland.0 -
Should someone's life be put to the hands of "the people" in any case though?
We have jury trials. The same principle applies. As I said, I doubt there is a culture seeking the death penalty here.You know that this point is incorrect, because the men and women of the cabinet are not the ones who actually do the vast majority of the fine work involved in putting together legislation. As ineffectual as the government can be, the relevant departments do in actual fact have experts in their relevant area who make policy recommendations and do a lot of the legwork. The minister doesn't just swoop in and do whatever they like, even though that's how it may appear.
Civil service legislative recommendations are generally technical, arising out of problems identified in existing systems. They aren't generators of law. Politicians are the originators of law, and the government, by which we know it to be really the executive, decides which laws are on the agenda for parliament and operate a distinctively anti-democratic whip system to ensure only what they want passed is heard and passed.I would actually like a stronger form of local government, I would like to see Dublin money spent on useful projects for Dublin rather than wasteful railways in the west of Ireland for example. However, I think the onus is on you to demonstrate how and why direct democracy would be beneficial here. I don't think it's enough to say, "hey look, it works in Switzerland!", because I can point to examples of direct democracy in say, local towns in the United States where it delivers stupid laws, or take the example of California where direct democracy has recently denied gay people of their right to marry, along with contributing merrily to the budget deficit. If you need evidence that "the people" are often not very good legislators, you need look no further than there.
See, you say stupid laws. I say they get the laws they themselves desired. Obviously not stupid to them. You may feel that banning minarets or failing to endorse gay marriage is poor legislating, but that's really simply a personal value judgement based on your own prejudices. In a direct democratic system, it would be up to you to argue the case for changes that you desired to see. In California, those advocating gay marriage failed to persuade others that it was an essential piece of legislation. The majority clearly weren't persuaded, just as they weren't persuaded by the campaign to legalise cannabis. Often politicians see themselves as social innovators, directing and shaping society. One of the benefits of a direct democratic system is that the people dictate the pace of change in their own society and the direction of such changes.Mr Quinn is proposing to remove 50% of the state's primary schools from Catholic ownership. An ambitious target, that probably won't be achieved. But would that even be on the table if we had a direct democracy. I would wager, most likely not.
Given that the church has overtly stated that it wants out of the school management game, I'd take you up on that wager. It was in any case a failure of parliamentary government that schools remained in church control in the first place. They were able, by and large, to take control of hospitals from the church under Noel Browne, but there was no similar politician to drive a similar change in relation to schools. By contrast, there were many people interested in doing so, and they eventually became the Educate Together movement. On that basis, had we had direct democracy, I'd wager we'd have had secular managed schooling a generation ago.The majority of people seem fine with or indifferent to the status quo. Is that beneficial? What about the spending cuts and tax increases required? You seem to think that people's attitude would just adapt, but the examples I cited above show that this is not necessarily the case.
I'm not sure people are happy with the status quo. The swing against Fianna Fail demonstrated that. The risk of a parliamentary system is that ongoing disenchantment will lead either to people failing to engage at all with the political process, or else a growth of protest parties like PBP and Sinn Fein, who are both, I'm sure you'd agree, somewhat extreme.
In Iceland, the economic crisis was repeatedly put to the Icelandic people, who firstly removed their government, then sought criminal charges against bankers, and finally repeatedly resisted the move to nationalise bank debts and lump them onto the taxpayer. As a result, Iceland's economy is now improving whereas ours is getting ever worse, precisely because one man assumed those debts onto the state on behalf of the rest of us, who had no say in the matter whatsoever, but are now expected to pay c. 170,000 euro per head each.It is up to you to demonstrate how and why you think that form of democracy would work here in Ireland.
As I said previously, it works in other places, and the system we have currently demonstrably doesn't work. Perhaps you could explain to me why the people ought not to be trusted to rule themselves.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
http://www.directdemocracyireland.org/2011/02/the-text-of-articles-47-and-48-of-the-1922-irish-constitution/
In the orginal free state constitution we had some direct democracy
in 47 and 48 articles however for various reasons they never got fully
passed and in 1938 De valera dropped them from
new constitution
They should be put back in as part of politcal reform
The text of articles 47 and 48 of the 1922 Irish Constitution
Article 47.
Any Bill passed or deemed to have been passed by both Houses may be suspended for a period of ninety days on the written demand of two-fifths of the members of Dáil Eireann or of a majority of the members of Seanad Eireann presented to the President of the Executive Council not later than seven days from the day on which such a Bill shall have been so passed or deemed to have been so passed. Such a Bill shall in accordance with regulations to be made by the Oireachtas be submitted by Referendum to the decision of the people if demanded before the expiration of the ninety days either by a resolution of Seanad Eireann, or by a petition signed by not less than one-twentieth of the voters then on the register of voters, and the decision of the people by a majority of the votes recorded on such Referendum shall be conclusive. These provisions shall not apply to Money Bills or to such Bills as shall be declared by both Houses to be necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health or safety.
Article 48.
The Oireachtas may provide for the initiation by the people of proposals for laws or constitutional amendments. Should the Oireachtas fail to make such provision within two years, it shall on the petition of not less than seventy five thousand voters on the register, of whom not more than fifteen thousand shall be voters in any one constituency, either make such provision or submit the question to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the Referendum. Any legislation passed by the Oireachtas providing for such Initiation by the people shall provide that
1. that such proposals may be initiated on a petition of fifty thousand voters on the register.
2. that if the Oireachtas rejects a proposal so initiated it shall be submitted to the people for decision in accordance with the ordinary regulations governing the referendum: and
3. that if the Oireachtas enacts a proposal so initiated such enactment shall be subject to the provisions respecting ordinary legislation or amendments of the Constitution as the case may be.0 -
oscarBravo wrote: »
One example is Switzerland. I seem to recall hearing that Swiss trains have very few ticket inspectors, because it quite simply doesn't occur to Swiss people not to pay for train tickets.
This is true in many of the europeans countries
(I lived and worked in several )
BUT
People are not travelling without tickets because they are good citizens
it's because they will be caught and penalties are severe especially for repeat offenders.
In one country i lived in third offence was prison.
Even though there are few inspectors the odds of being caught in a long run are 100%
if you are a regular users of public transport(PT).
You might get away with if your a tourist or a worker there for a few months or you only use PT once in a blue moon.
But if you are resident and use it a lot NO chance.
In one country i was not checked in 3 months even though i used PT everyday then one week i was checked every day
In another country i was checked about once a month.
---
This is a poor example they are better examples like behaviour at pedestrains crossings.0 -
Well the reason it couldn't work is because it's completely impractical. It might work in an automonous village of 100 people. It does not scale well.
Absurd statement in the age of the internet when millions of people make millions of buying decisions on a daily basis. Why not political decisions ?
I wouldn't advocate direct democracy for every single decision. But decisions that will effect everyone in society for years to come should be put to the people. NAMA would be a classic example- over 85% of the public were against it but we still had it rammed down our throats so FF's developer buddies wouldn't go to the wall. The people would have voted down the notion of socialsing property tycoons losses to the taxpayer and democracy would have been done. Instead what we got was oligarchy, rule by the wealthy.0 -
Firstly, we couldn't even get e-voting right, never mind internet voting. This isn't the X-Factor. Secondly, I wasn't solely referring to the practicalities of actually voting. Increasing the number of people creates new problems. In a village of 100 people, everybody is going to be pulling in the same direction. Everyone's circumstances are broadly very similar. Scale it up to a population the size of Ireland, and it becomes incredibly unwieldy.Absurd statement in the age of the internet when millions of people make millions of buying decisions on a daily basis. Why not political decisions ?
Who in the general public understood NAMA? Who was proposing an alternative? Say we had voted on NAMA and it was binned: what next? A new proposal that's just as unpopular? Sit around as the country votes down proposal after proposal and the shít really hits the fan?I wouldn't advocate direct democracy for every single decision. But decisions that will effect everyone in society for years to come should be put to the people. NAMA would be a classic example- over 85% of the public were against it but we still had it rammed down our throats so FF's developer buddies wouldn't go to the wall. The people would have voted down the notion of socialsing property tycoons losses to the taxpayer and democracy would have been done. Instead what we got was oligarchy, rule by the wealthy.Boardsie Enhancement Suite - a browser extension to make using Boards on desktop a better experience (includes full-width display, keyboard shortcuts, dark mode, and more). Now available through your browser's extension store.
Firefox: https://addons.mozilla.org/addon/boardsie-enhancement-suite/
Chrome/Edge/Opera: https://chromewebstore.google.com/detail/boardsie-enhancement-suit/bbgnmnfagihoohjkofdnofcfmkpdmmce
0 -
How would a direct democracy protect minorities from the majority?
how would we get any hard decisions made?
I don't think it's feasible.0 -
Personally I don't think direct democracy is ideal. I think Ireland should retain the parliamentary model, but we need to radically change our attitude to it.
Not everyone has the time to learn all the ins and outs of all the political issues that effect us. This much is unavoidable. Issues are complex and time is short. So part of what we pay our TDs for is to educate themselves where we can't, to research on our behalf, to be the men who know best.
Unfortunately this can be taken much too far. At least back in the good old days a lot of people behaved as if, because the political class know best, the rest of us need to know nothing. This is exactly the attitude that gougers like Fianna Fail live to exploit. Sometimes I wonder if we had an almost paternal relationship with our government. As third level education becomes the norm in the developed world a lot of people are living well into their twenties without taking on full adult responsibilities.* I think perhaps this has created a generation with this notion in the back of its' collective mind that somewhere out there the real grown ups are taking care of everything, like the way a toddler thinks. I admit I've caught myself thinking like this on occasion.
Anyway the point is that a parliamentary democracy does need a political class who are extremely informed, but it also needs a voting public who have a basic understanding of political issues, a public savvy enough not to be manipulated for the gain of career politicians. I think secondary schools should be teaching everyone some fundamental economics and the like.
Look at the USA. Half of them don't even know what 'socialism' means, and their elected representatives shaft them at every turn.
*Of course some students/graduates don't answer to this description. Some people work and even raise children while doing their degrees. I have the utmost respect for these people.0 -
deise go deo wrote: »If we are to have such comptempt for the people, then why bother with the pretence of democracy at all?
Perhaps the greater question is why can we not be trusted with it, when other countrys can, and how do we change that?
Maybe democracy is a failed system.
For a democracy to work voter need to take and interest in politic and keep them selves informed as to the issues.
We need an up-to-date elector register and I think voting should be compulsory.
We need voters who think about is in the nation interest not what TD will get them a council house medical card etc.
We need a media newspaper, TV, Radio that help inform people and not misinform people.
eg
media made a lot of money from adverts house sales during the boom to never questioned if it was a bubble.
Normal I would expect politicians to offer a variety of different solution to the problems of the day.
It should be a criminal offence for politicians not to full their election promises.
All the political parties offered more or less the same polices. to the only choice what politicians we best to manage the policy.
seems to me no matter who we vote for we are still going to get the same policies.
I cannot see direct democracy being much of an improvement.0 -
The problems with our current system include: -
- A 2 party system where the ruling parties simply 'take turn's' under the false banner of us making a choice.
- A political elite that by years of service alone take up positions of power. Enda Kenny is a case in point. A caretaker character lacking any real leadership but ruler of the country through sheer dedication.
- political parties promising to only take €1 in tax but give €2 back to everyone. Once we reach that level of falsehood the games up. Voting for money alone will result in failure.
- parties that make decisions for everyone by a small number enforced by a whip. Whats the point of all those TD's if they are going to vote like computers at the command of 1 or 2 people?
The main thrust of the problem is political parties and they should be gotten rid of as quickly as possible. All TD's should be independant and vote on the wishes of the local area that they were elected for or on their own intelligence and values.
De-centralise government and put power back into the hands of local communities. We need to have a debate about what our government should do before they just railroad onwards towards I dont the hell know where and probably no good place we all want to be.
Theres too many people focusing on the detail and missing the really big picture.0 -
The Swiss just voted to not have an extra two weeks holiday each year. Our whole political system is based on voting for whatever politician promises us the most free stuff. If a politician came along and told us the truth most of us wouldn't vote for them. I keep saying this but direct democracy works in Switzerland because of the Swiss. Given the standard of political discussion here I dread to think. The household charge being a case in point... seemingly the tax is immoral, unjust, unaffordable, eats babies (or whatever other exaggeration you can think of). All along I've been asking them how we close the 14 billion gap between tax and spending and not one of them has been able to. I assume the magic money faeries are sorting it.0
-
The Swiss just voted to not have an extra two weeks holiday each year. Our whole political system is based on voting for whatever politician promises us the most free stuff. If a politician came along and told us the truth most of us wouldn't vote for them. I keep saying this but direct democracy works in Switzerland because of the Swiss. Given the standard of political discussion here I dread to think. The household charge being a case in point... seemingly the tax is immoral, unjust, unaffordable, eats babies (or whatever other exaggeration you can think of). All along I've been asking them how we close the 14 billion gap between tax and spending and not one of them has been able to. I assume the magic money faeries are sorting it.
If when the latest group of career TD's took up office they FIRST cut their salaries by a huge chunk, obliterated all the silly expenses and set an example we may be able to take them seriously. Instead they and their friends enjoy a rich and full life milking the system for all it's worth while patting each other on the back and telling each other how good they are all.
The system that enables real change has not been tinkered with one bit. The status quo lives on and instead we are told to pay more.
Ireland (and most western democracy's) need a new political structure to move into the future. What we have now is a 100 year old corrupt, fatigued and broken system that inhibits real change, freedom and liberty and continues to strangle and destroy society as we know it.0 -
Advertisement
Advertisement