Representative Government is not Democracy

by Cael - Sinn Fein Poblachtach Sat Mar 22, 2008 19:40

Some interesting arguments pro and against can be found here:

by Soundmigration - wsm Sat Mar 22, 2008 20:56

are usually called anarchists. for more insight into the struggles for real direct democracy check out
www.wsm.ie

Its been well predicted that many activists from a republican background( disillusioned by both the sectarianism and vanguardism of the 'armed struggle' , and the acceptance of 'organised inequality' of much of its political 'leadership') would eventually turn they're attention to anarchism. The realisation that 'nationalism' is so often a political tool, whipped up to divide us, is easier to see since the ceasefires in the north. What really is it that divides the people on this island. Its good that some are

Representative democracy does exactly what it says on the tin. Mc Dowell, in his own fashion, stated quite clearly that inequality is a necessary part of this 'system'.
Mary Harney backed him sayin 'some people are premier divisionand ...unfortuately other arent"...... so glad she's respondsible for the Dept of Health eh.

by Don Sat Mar 22, 2008 21:06

I'd be more infavour of a more bottom up system than the one we have but still I think the current system is better than direct democracy.

Example:
What if a group of religious super conservatives are randomly selected to rule the government? What if homosexuality is banned along with contraception and devource? But the majority of the country dont want that. How is that democratic?

by Soundmigration - WSM Sat Mar 22, 2008 22:40

heres a interview with Takis
at
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/86808

hope it addresses some of the

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Sun Mar 23, 2008 15:40

Soundmigration, a chara, your comments about Irish Republicanism make no sense to me. Irish Republicanism has never been sectarian. The best Republican leaders have lead by example and a humble dedication to duty - unfortunately, over the last eighty odd years, many Republican leaders have been corrupted and have caused grave harm to the Republican Movement and to the Irish people. Today the Republican Movement puts forward the idea of a four province federal Ireland as outlined in Eire Nua. Im am suggesting that Eire Nua would be enriched by encorporation of the ideal of Direct Democracy.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Sun Mar 23, 2008 15:50

Don asked:

"What if a group of religious super conservatives are randomly selected to rule the government? What if homosexuality is banned along with contraception and devource? But the majority of the country dont want that. How is that democratic?"

If we had four provincial assemblies in Ireland, rotating their legislators between citizens in random order, then you would
always have a cross section of opinion in each Dáil. Statistics would ensure this. The kind of cosy consensus that we find among the elites in western parliaments just wouldnt happen. You also have to bear in mind that all major decisions would be taken by a system of direct democracy, where all citizens vote by an e-voting system. Such a system would ensure that crimes like the destruction of Tara could not happen. Clearly, the banning of divorce, etc. would be matters for a direct vote and would not be decided by the legislatorship.

There is another factor to be considered. Most people have never been a position of responsibility in their lives. The powers that be in western society do not want human beings to behave as anything more than a herd. As Freud pointed out, civilisation, so far, has been a machine for the creation of the herd. The EU turns hundreds of millions of people into one unimaginably large herd. A society where everybody knew, from childhood, that they would one day be called on to legislate for their people would be unrecognisable from western society today. It would be the opposite to a society were the herd is dosed into oblivion with drugs, alcohal, porn and celebs. Such citizens would take a much more responsible attitude to the life of their nation and would not be as enclined to vote according to sectional interest as they do today - and as their elected reps do today.

by Don Sun Mar 23, 2008 16:00

Who would decide if something should be directly voted on or decided by the legislator? Who would decide which positionsin gov need to be directly elected other than random selection? What happends to people that dont to be selected?

by Cael - Sinn Fein Sun Mar 23, 2008 16:16

Clearly, you would need a new constitution to decide those matters. As I see it, the job of the legislators would be to keep the constitution functioning, not to decide on any important social issue. If there is doubt as to wheather an issue should go directly to the people then it would be essential, in my view, always to err on the side of democracy, i.e. put it directly to the people. For example the routing of the M3. Normally the routing of a road might not be considered so important as to be voted on directly. However, when there is such a high degree of controversy and contention, then putting it to the people is the only course. Naturally, we would have an end to the system where the legislatorship spends millions on slanted publicity campaigns - as in the Lisbon Treaty. Nor would we have a system whereby the legislatorship just holds another vote if it doesnt get the result it wants first time around - as happend with Nice.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Tue Mar 25, 2008 18:36

The problem is that you only get to vote for a selection of candidates every few years. It is highly unlikely that any candidate will have the same views as you on every topic. Do you end up voting for the candidate that most closely approximates to your views. Once elected, the rep is bound by the party whip, so s/he will often have to vote for things that s/he disagrees with. So even on the topics that your rep and you do agree on, there is no assurance that your vote wont end up being used for exactly the opposite to what you intended. Clearly, a system of Direct Democracy (DD) would make sure this cannot happen.

You have to remember the Representative Democracy was founded in western europe on the basis of sharing power between the rich and the King. Sharing power with the under class never came into it. The King is gone in most RDs, but it is still a matter of sharing power between the rich. Parties like Fianna Fail are merely front organisations for certain vested interests (FF is a front for the Irish Landlord class.) There is no question in these people's minds of allowing the common herd any real say in how things are done. RD will always ensure the Dictatorship of the Gombeen, because the people are born and raised believing that they are unfit to rule themselves - that this must be left to the "experts".

On the question of voting for those who know more about certain subjects - this rarely happens in RDs. Brian Cowen is minister for finance in Leinster House, but how many academic papers has he written on economics - none that I know of. Mary Harney is minister for health, but what medical training has she ever had? I be surprised if she has even done a basic first aid course. I remember when Sile DeVelera was made minister for Arts and the Gaeltacht. She was challenged by journalists about the fact that she couldnt speak Irish. The only response she had was that she didnt know much about Art either. The bottom line is that it is civil servants who do the real work in all government depts. Ministers are only there to give a general direction to their work. This direction will always be the direction that most suits the people the governing party represents. As FF represents the Landlord class, government policy has been directed to pushing up the price of land.

DD would remove this sectionalism. And on smaller issues a rota of service, drawn up from the entire adult population would ensure that each cabinet contained a wide variety of opinion. Needless to say, party whips would not exist to subvert democracy.

by Sceptic Tue Mar 25, 2008 22:57

The familiar form of democracy is not supposed to be about the elected always representing the views of the electorate precisely at any point in time. That betrays an immature understanding of the process and the theory. It is the election of parliamentarians who make their own decisions in the light of a number of considerations. Democracy is not diluted by having a parliamentary tier between the people at large and the executive. Direct democracy on a national scale is usually an instrument of tyranny or demagoguery. De Gaul was a rare example of a western European democrat who used referenda a lot until he was unhorsed by one which gave him the wrong result in 1969.

Nor is democracy about the election of experts in certain fields to the ministries otherwise we could just appoint academics and be done with it. Technical competence is not necessary for Ministerial office. A minister is a political animal not a professional in his field or not necessarily. Its often a hindrance to have a teacher as the Minister for Education or a former Garda as a Minister for Justice. There are economic and other experts available to Ministers to advise on those and other matters but it is the MINISTERS WHO DECIDE. You seem to be arguing for a technocracy along the lines of Dr. Salazar.

by Daithí Lacha Tue Mar 25, 2008 23:04

On Sunday 23 March, Cael from Sinn Féin Poblachtach said " Irish Republicanism has never been sectarian."
Would that be the same Sunday when a decade of the rosary was recited at an RSF commemoration in Cork?

by Barry - 32 csm Tue Mar 25, 2008 23:32

""Its been well predicted that many activists from a republican background( disillusioned by both the sectarianism and vanguardism of the 'armed struggle' , and the acceptance of 'organised inequality' of much of its political 'leadership') would eventually turn they're attention to anarchism.""

Its not really that great a prediciton when concepts such as Democratic programmes , Eire Nua and numerous other republican documents have argued for the same thing as essential in order to defend the nation and its sovereignty . Not to call for an end to it as anarchism does . Democracy is at the heart of the republican seperatist traditon , people simply see the necessity of returning to their democratic roots at long last , particulalry after the constant suppression of internal democracy by militarist and micro bourgouis cliques within an undemocratic structure saw its subversion . Whilst there are certainly positive aspects of anarchism on a democratic organisational level I wouldnt suggest for a minute republican seperatists are turning towards it and , inescapably , away from the defence of the nation .

"The realisation that 'nationalism' is so often a political tool, whipped up to divide us, is easier to see since the ceasefires in the north"

what we see there is tribalism and sectarianism , the natural detritus of colonisation and occupation . You seem to be mistaking a call for a return to democracy and a realisation of its importance as something else though . Its not anarchism nor any movement towards it as such though .

. "What really is it that divides the people on this island"

colonialism , imperialism , capitalism and the subvertion and violation of national democracy and sovereignty upon which such systems depend .

""Representative democracy does exactly what it says on the tin. Mc Dowell, in his own fashion, stated quite clearly that inequality is a necessary part of this 'system'.
Mary Harney backed him sayin 'some people are premier divisionand ...unfortuately other arent"...... so glad she's respondsible for the Dept of Health eh. ""

Obviously the antidote to such people is democracy at its maximum expresion persued as a tactic througout the nation and utilised in defence of the nation . The right of our people to determine their level of healthcare should quite naturally be a sovereign right of national self determination . Not something for the IMF or one of its ideological sock puppets to impose on us . If it was up to the people then theyd have adequate and dignified healthcare as a human right , quite simply because it is very important to their needs . Capitalism is of the opinion that this is ideological heresy , that the super mega righ wont be so mega rich and able to hoard resources instead of using them and any democratic move towards such a perfectly logical and democratic decision should be subverted . Thereofre democracy must be subverted at a national level by capitalism. That is an attack on national sovereignty . The sovereign nation must defend the people , and vice versa with the sovereign people . Removing the nation from an equation in which global capitalism seeks its destruction is very premature and not an ideological posiiton I see many republicans moving towards.

That being said democracy at its maximum expression is surely a goal seperatists from the "nationalist" tradition and anarchists should seek to persue on a joint basis . It illogical not to .

by Don Wed Mar 26, 2008 10:25

I still dont like the way the council on a rotational basis, doesnt have a mandate from the people. How about keeping the Dail the way it is and having the local councilors of a rotational basis? It would remove alot of coruption from county councils. I'll keep looking into this subject. Its a bit radical for my party, but then again, we have been making some radical changes via bringing Irish democracy on a bottom up basis.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Wed Mar 26, 2008 15:22

Daithí, a decade of the rosery is only said at the graveside of Catholic Volunteers. Commemorations for Protestant Volunteers do not include a decade of the rosery. That stands to reason I would have thought.

by indyjourno Wed Mar 26, 2008 16:33

As a supporter of direct democracy Cael I am afraid I have to criticise your article. It is devoid of any analysis rather than a pseudo intellectual blurb on athenian democracy. Perhaps you should have added to your critique with some of the ample examples of the failures of representative democracy in its currect form or is RSF now so stuck in the past that they have got lost and found themselves back in time before their beloved christ was born, of course I jest but on a serious note how do you think the best way of campaigning for a direct democracy would come about apart from firmly embedding ourselves in the community, something in which most left wing, micro republican and other similar groupings completely ignore and instead internalise dissent to the relatively small so called activist community?

by Cael - Sinn Féin Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:24

Indyjourno, a chara, as a supporter of Direct Democracy, perhaps you should give us some reasons why you support the idea, rather than criticise my humble efforts. Your spending six lines out of eight on a self indulgent rant against Sinn Féin hardly helped us reach your level of enlightenment either....

In short, a chara, please join the debate.

by indyjourno Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:32

Let me get this straight I ask a question and you answer with a question, how feeble. Perhaps you should learn how to engage in a debate on indymedia rather than pretend you are some sort of intellectual using historical examples in a pompous manner.

Anyway I feel no need to provide any reasons as I have asked the question on an article YOU wrote. Its called peer review and it's inherent to indymedia, did you not know that? If I wrote the article I would have to answer the questions as I would be the one who was beeing peer reviewed. It's quite simple really.

Perhaps this is why your organisation is so redundant, you can't answer any questions. I have to say I am dissappointed I thought you had some degree of political analysis. But showing a fear of answering a question shows you to be lacking.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:38

What exactly do you mean by saying that Direct Democracy is usually an instrument of tyranny or demagoguery?

The definition of "demagogue" that is given in Dictionary.com is as follows:

a person, esp. an orator or political leader, who gains power and popularity by arousing the emotions, passions, and prejudices of the people.

That seems to me a much better description of Representative Democracy. After all, Adolf Hitler came to power as a representative. Direct Democracy would bypass personalities altogether, people would vote on issues - not for or against individuals. Im quite sure that the German people would never have voted for the Gas Chambers if it had been put to an open vote. RD allows important issues to be decided by very small elites and put into operation without the concent of the people.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:42

Indyjourno, a chara, I was merely defering to your clearly superior knowledge of this subject and hoping that you would come to my aid against Sceptic et al. Im sorry I seem to have aroused such a depth of aggression in you.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Wed Mar 26, 2008 18:51

As to your question, well yes, I think it would be better to address the community at large rather than just left wing/Republican minded people. But as Sinn Féin Poblachtach has not yet included the concept of DD in any of its official documents, though Eire Nua certainly points in that direction, I feel we Republicans need to discuss it in more detail among ourselves. If you look at the IRBB the discussion has started there and is by no means one sided.

by Sceptic Wed Mar 26, 2008 22:33

Hitler's use of the plebiscite to consolidate his power is one reason why, since World War II, there has been no provision in Germany for the holding of referendums at the federal level. Mussolini also used them as did Pinochet, Saddam, Mugabe and many other unsavoury types. They are too easily manipulated by such despots and demagogues and one should therefore be very suspicious of their extensive use or of those who promote them.

The essential point about of democracy is not that so and so came to power through a poll. It is that the Government can be changed peacefully. Hitler abolished democracy and thus any peaceful mechanism for removing him. He then went on to abuse power and make wars and thus he could only be stopped by the Allied Powers in coalition. Referendums were one of his devices.

PS You brought Hitler in first so Goodwin's law does not apply to me.

by indyjourno Thu Mar 27, 2008 11:15

Apologies Cael, I'm just tired of most RSF members merely spouting mantra's on all threads rather than putting forward an analysis and I thought you were reverting to the stereotype that has emerged from that type of engagement with indymedia. As for your post:

I feel that if like minded activists regardless of shade of red or green don't get involved in the community at large then the void is filled by right wing parties and activists. While I am not suggesting that it shouldn't be debated within people's parties and organisations I feel that the left are over 80 years behind the parties of the right on this and we should begin now. I have been amazed at the amount of activists who don't know what the politics of their neighbours are. This could be a fear that people have of exposing their politics or it could be an insecurity in their politics or something else. My opinion is that there is an internalisation of dissent amongst the left. Where too much time is spent at public meetings in which only activists turn up to, and too much time is spent arguing amongst other left wing/republican groups. While public meetings are important I am just using them as an example. Community groups and residents associations while hardly bastions of left wing thought are viewed as important to large tracts of the community. In the groups that I am involved in, which I have only become involved in relatively recently, the majority of members in them who are political are FG and mainly FF. We shouldn't allow free reign to right wing groups in our communities.

Sceptic, obviously you don't think we live in a democracy as FF have re-run referendums when they didn't get the result they wanted. So you must think Bertie and FF are one of those "despots and demagogues". The use of plebiscites under the threat of force should not be compared to the use of them under a fair and free election and your comparison between the two is frankly ridiculous. A problem of the use of referenda under our current system arises from our current propaganda system and also the massive breach of the McKenna judgement. It also arises from the massive difference between finances of the groups.

by Sceptic Thu Mar 27, 2008 21:44

There is nothing wrong with rerunning referenda if a material change has been made in the question put (eg the second Nice referendum had a constitutional provision not in the first and the second divorce referendum had extra provisions). Or if it has been quite some time since the question was last put (eg. the referendum on STV in 1959 and a further one a decade later).

Referenda can be ok to change a written constitution in certain circumstances. But they have to be used sparingly. What makes a democracy durable is not a strong leader (eg Putin or Chavez) but strong institutions that endure over time. Often the strong leader gets his strength by appealing over the heads of the courts or the parliament to consolidate their power and weaken opposition to them. If they get there way democracy can be badly undermined. That is what is so wrong with Cael’s serial referendum plan – it appeals to despot types – advanced nationalist/socialist types like those on the fringes of the so called “Republican movement”.

by Cael - Sinn Fein Fri Mar 28, 2008 20:06

No problem, Indyjourno, a chara (but I dont agree that RSF people speak in mantras).

Sceptic, you are comparing referenda held within the context of RD and the context of DD as if they were the same thing. Of course they are not at all. In a culture of RD the people are used to leaving legislation to their reps. There is no culture of the population feeling that they are legislators themselves. This is a very big difference. In referenda held under RD, you have a whole governmental structure pressing one side of what passes for debate. The referenda question is formulated such that the question largely dictates the answer and blocks out other options. Generally referenda questions are of the form: will you accept what we, your elected reps, recommend? I would think that in a genuine democratic system such as DD, referenda would not be of the Yes/No type. There would be a list of options and the most popular would be adopted. Your last sentence dosnt make much sense. The very point of having a legislatorship chosen by rota or random selection from the entire adult population is that it is the institutions of the people that are important - not the individuals who occupy places in these institutions at any given time. There would be no chance for despots to emerge. That is why you were wrong about Hitler. He came to power via RD, then used a referenda within the framework of RD to destroy democracy completely. This simply could not happen in a system of DD, as individuals are no longer of any interest - only the issues themselves and the arguments. There would be no such thing as a "Bertie Factor." DD is the end of the idea of political leaders. Needless to say, undemocratic gombeenism, such as the destruction of Tara would be avoided in DD.

by Cael Sun Mar 30, 2008 17:46

I think we all know that the bottom line is that the political elite feel that the plebs cannot be trusted with real democracy - they might actually vote for something the elite dont like. that is why we dont have DD.

by Cael - Sinn Féin Poblachtach Mon Apr 14, 2008 22:11

Another problem with representative democracy (RD) is that it ties in with a lot of other harmful practices and tends to reinforce them. We are represented in RD by politicians, i.e. we are alienated in the ruling of ourselves by a tiny professional elite. We are similarly represented in our sovereign ownership of the nation's land and other natural resources by a small number of landlords and we are represented in our industrial production and the production of housing by a small number of industrialists and developers - all of whom apropriate the greater part of the benefit for themselves. In short, the great majority remain alienated from the rule of themselves and from the necessary production of their food and artifacts. RD sets the scene for all this by giving the lofty name of "democracy" to such alienation.