----------
Related Posts from 'Nanny State' thread:
sarah wrote: Indeed! But you need to live in one first!
Dermot wrote: It not what I think democracy is it is what it is and always has been...........after that I really don’t understand what you are getting at.......... or are you just trying to create something that is not there......
Oxford English Dictionary
democracy
/dimokr si/
• noun (pl. democracies) 1 a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2 a state governed in such a way. 3 control of a group by the majority of its members.
— ORIGIN Greek demokratia, from demos ‘the people’ + -kratia ‘power, rule’.
And anything else is semantics............
You've hit the nail on the head, Dermot: it is very much a matter of semantics. I suspected that, although the term 'democracy' was used on a number of occasions in the NS thread, it was distinctly possible that contributors may perhaps have been using the term to mean very different things (ref: quoted examples). I therefore asked you what the term means to you in order to better understand your conceptual model of a 'democratic society.'georgeh wrote:IMO we already have a participatory form of Democracy in the UK, the only problem being that the vast majority of the people have absolutely no interest in participating, leaving pressure groups, the media and pollsters to highly participate and greatly influence government policy and even policing. .... This is not entirely the fault of governments or legislators, but mostly down to the great British Apathy which we were so proud of and are now reaping the benefits of.
It is worthy of comment that the OED definition quoted uses the phrase "typically through elected representatives,"(emphasis mine). Implicit in that statement is that such a system of governance is not the only form of 'democracy.'
So, for the sake of argument, let's take 'democracy' as being a term used to describe a system of government where the people have some participation in its process. I think it's fair to say that, in general, the term tends to be used in an unqualified fashion, i.e. it is not common to describe the type of democracy to which one is referring. From a political science perspective, there are a number of different types of democracy. In this post, I have limited my discussion to two (viz: 'representative' and 'direct') which are, IMO, more relevant to the way that the term 'democracy' has been used in the "Nanny State" thread, either overtly or implicitly.
The party political systems in the US, Ireland, and the UK are examples of "representative democracies," where the electorate vote to choose their representatives, but thereafter participation by the people appears overall to be limited, as George says, to "pressure groups, the media and pollsters." While a given government is in power, it can, by and large, make taxation, budgetary and legislative changes without further recourse to the electorate. It is worthy of note that there are occasional referenda in the UK and Ireland where the electorate as a whole is given the opportunity to vote on particular issues. Referenda are used more widely in Switzerland. (I don't know whether referenda are employed in the US.)
Now let's contrast the examples of "representative democracy" above with Bill Henry's posts telling us about how the New Hampshire State legislature functions. To précis Bill's second post, the citizens of New Hampshire get to vote at annual town meetings on taxes, expenditure, and legislative changes. This is an example of a 'direct' or 'true democracy' where genuine legislative power rests very much in the hands of the people.
Using these examples, it can be seen that, while it is true that people participate in the democratic process per se in both systems, the level of participation in the respective systems is markedly different, hence the need for distinction between the two.
I find it interesting that laws passed in UK and Irish "representative democracies" such as compulsory car insurance, compulsory wearing of crash helmets and use of seatbelts do not exist on New Hampshire's statute books (except belts for under 16's).* Also, it is notable that New Hampshire's legislators are only paid $200 per annum. I wonder how much time would be devoted to the enforcement of what many regard as 'unreasonable laws' (as discussed in the 'Nanny State' thread) if our politicians were paid similar? It's also Interesting to note that New Hampshire citizens get to actively self-govern without the need to give up their careers or cough up shed loads of cash.
I am also of the opinion that the very nature of a 'representative democracy' is what spawns the apathy of the electorate. The party political system (which might also be regarded as a natural product of such a system of government) only serves to further such feelings of disempowerment, as individual representatives are frequently pushed to vote in line with party objectives, rather than for the interests of the people they represent. To me, exercising my vote either here or in the UK is analogous to being asked to choose between a peach and a nectarine, when what I really want is to have a hand in making a spaghetti bolognese. I become increasingly concerned at the direction government is taking when they can pass laws such as the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act largely without the awareness of the electorate. I also question a system where the 'will of the elected majority' can ride roughshod over the needs and wants of its electorate. I consider the "first-past-the-post" electoral system to be fundamentally biased towards the needs of the political parties over those of their electorate, as the "representation" can be highly disproportionate (e.g. in the UK 2005 election, New Labour gained approximately 50% of Parliamentary seats with about 35% of the votes cast). And when, time after time, representatives are proved guilty of corrupt practices, it just adds insult to injury.
To summarise, Dermot, both systems of government cited are "democratic," but there are substantial differences between the two. Coming back to semantics, the term 'democracy' means 'direct democracy' to me. On that basis, I find the 'representative democracies' of the UK and Ireland deeply dissatisfactory, I feel disempowered and disenfranchised by them, and perhaps the thoughts I've expressed above may enable you to better understand the basis for some of my comments in the NS thread. I would prefer to live in a Libertarian society. And IMO, the corner of the world in which I live is sadly becoming more Orwellian with every passing day.
-------
Áine
* Cited for purely for comparative purposes: I am not voicing any opinion on any possible pros or cons for the existence of such legislation or absence there of.
