builder
New member
Much is made of democracy, and the benefits of a society that claims to be democratically controlled today.
Many actions, both good and not so good, are carried out under the banner of so-called democracy.
Considering the current public dissatisfaction with government decision-making processes and their outcomes in the popular version of western democracy, is it time to reconsider the basic meanings of the concept of democracy?
Is it time to get back to the roots, the real meaning of democracy?
DEFINITIONS
Democracy: Derived from the Greek Demos (people) and kratia (power). Literally People-Power!
Let us dissect that definition, and pursue the fact that even such a simple definition can be changed without the people knowing that it has changed.
People Power. Is that a term indicating that the people have the power of veto, or the power of the vote?
Voting is not compulsory in the US of A. Those who wish to cast a vote, are free to do so. That is freedom of speech.
Dissatisfaction of the outcomes of the choices of voters by those who did not choose to vote, is considered to be dissension. Why? Because those who did not vote are considered by those who did vote to be unimportant, and ineffectual, and out of the equation. Is that fair and democratic? Excercising your right of freedom of choice suddenly places you outside of the democratic process of freedom of speech?
Regardless of the fact that all are equal, (supposedly) if you did not partake in the original election process, you have no claim to the benefits or deficits of the choices of those who chose to vote. Is that democracy at work?
Just say, for example, that even those who voted became dissatisfied with the choices their collective votes enabled, what processes are available to overturn the outcomes of their votes? Impeachment? Double dissolution? Both messy outcomes. Both expensively inept answers to problems that need resolution, rather than continued instability.
That is the power of veto. Do the people still have the power of veto? Is public unrest and mistrust enough to call for a new election?
Is the power of veto relevant to the current structure of modern democracy? Is people power sufficient today, that we can band together, and make demands on our elected leaders, and force them into arrangements that satisfy popular public desires? I think not.
The further into the evolutionary misuse of the term "democracy", the further we get from the true meaning of the word itself.
" For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. " - Aristotle
Life today leads many to a desire to hand over the serious acts of decision-making to elected representatives.
Is that desire based on trust? Or on idle laziness? Or on ignorance?
That does depend on the individual; granted. But when situations arise that anger and confuse the very people who were happy to hand over the power of decision-making to those elected, what recourse is now available to turn back the clock, and "un-elect" those entrusted to work for our best interests.
I would like to hear your comments on this.
Many actions, both good and not so good, are carried out under the banner of so-called democracy.
Considering the current public dissatisfaction with government decision-making processes and their outcomes in the popular version of western democracy, is it time to reconsider the basic meanings of the concept of democracy?
Is it time to get back to the roots, the real meaning of democracy?
DEFINITIONS
Democracy: Derived from the Greek Demos (people) and kratia (power). Literally People-Power!
Let us dissect that definition, and pursue the fact that even such a simple definition can be changed without the people knowing that it has changed.
People Power. Is that a term indicating that the people have the power of veto, or the power of the vote?
Voting is not compulsory in the US of A. Those who wish to cast a vote, are free to do so. That is freedom of speech.
Dissatisfaction of the outcomes of the choices of voters by those who did not choose to vote, is considered to be dissension. Why? Because those who did not vote are considered by those who did vote to be unimportant, and ineffectual, and out of the equation. Is that fair and democratic? Excercising your right of freedom of choice suddenly places you outside of the democratic process of freedom of speech?
Regardless of the fact that all are equal, (supposedly) if you did not partake in the original election process, you have no claim to the benefits or deficits of the choices of those who chose to vote. Is that democracy at work?
Just say, for example, that even those who voted became dissatisfied with the choices their collective votes enabled, what processes are available to overturn the outcomes of their votes? Impeachment? Double dissolution? Both messy outcomes. Both expensively inept answers to problems that need resolution, rather than continued instability.
That is the power of veto. Do the people still have the power of veto? Is public unrest and mistrust enough to call for a new election?
Is the power of veto relevant to the current structure of modern democracy? Is people power sufficient today, that we can band together, and make demands on our elected leaders, and force them into arrangements that satisfy popular public desires? I think not.
The further into the evolutionary misuse of the term "democracy", the further we get from the true meaning of the word itself.
" For if liberty and equality, as is thought by some, are chiefly to be found in democracy, they will be best attained when all persons alike share in the government to the utmost. " - Aristotle
Life today leads many to a desire to hand over the serious acts of decision-making to elected representatives.
Is that desire based on trust? Or on idle laziness? Or on ignorance?
That does depend on the individual; granted. But when situations arise that anger and confuse the very people who were happy to hand over the power of decision-making to those elected, what recourse is now available to turn back the clock, and "un-elect" those entrusted to work for our best interests.
I would like to hear your comments on this.
