One of the biggest mistakes abroad is the thought that any system today can claim to be democratic. None are. Although they claim to be democratic and which are democracies, they are actually republican government? Representative democracies. This means that some people are elected to serve the interests of the people in general. These representatives make the decisions for the people rather than people who make them. And these representatives are elected for a period of time during which period they can not be removed except for what amount to crimes or offenses.
If we had real democracy, people make decisions on any government policy. It would be the people as legislators? It provided, inter alia. But that doesn? T are not sufficient. If there were really a democracy, that is, a system of government to respond to the wishes of the people, then an official had to wear a device that would track what people want. And when the majority can easily be reached by doing an act or not to do so, the official could or should do or stop doing the latter. This would be true even at the level of what is said or not said. If people do not want a particular officer to use a particular term, the will of the people rule. Vox populi, vox Dei. The wishes of the people are the only thing that matters.
However, the government would not be possible if it did, though now this is much more feasible to do. (There are people who support this sort of thing by the way. And all this concern about polls augurs well for the most part the same thing.) No treaty could be negotiated, or the right could never be passed and no criminal will ever be arrested, tried and convicted, if that were the case. It would be government by the committee and the committee was the Committee of the whole people. And, excuse the expression, would be a mob.
As it is, the representatives are elected for a period of years and people are not allowed to express their wishes, except for every 2 years, 4 years or 6 years, depending. This allows isolation from the people you are creating a space for the representative to act for the common good. This means that the common good should be the interest. The people will vote after the vote the representative. At that point, however, passions may have cooled, the result can be clearer or the thesis may have a better chance to carry the day. The point is that sometimes the demand for people that is not good for them, or sometimes question what is not good for a substantial minority of people. The crowd is still a real possibility.
And 'this elitist? Well, yes. But the elitism must be tempered by an intelligent people, a people who were involved and understood the problems and went to a meeting from time to time on some problems of government or society. But even so it is the form of government we have and it worked very well in past centuries. And it is only when the public good is not the primary objective of government that we had problems.
Usually, people who talk about such things say this because they think they have a greater chance of obtaining power from yoking themselves to the people. Wherever people go, you go? And they will swear they were before. But it is demagogy, literally. It can create the likes of Hugo Chavez. And this kind of reasoning can also be the basis for a system like Vladimir Putin? S Russia. (Protect me and give me some stability and will forgive your use and possibly abuse of power. But if the speech is for another time.)
I know politics is something people want or isn? t it. Or maybe it isn? T, but that should not be the problem - whether good or bad for the country should be in the spotlight. And if it's good, a statesman, unlike a politician, people would bring with him? Or her.
No comments:
Post a Comment