Re: Questioning Democracy

[Edward Grefenstette <pha04eg@sheffield.ac.uk>]

To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS-DIS@bups.org


((Accidently sent my original reply to nj only. Sorry! Here it is  
again.))

Once again, playing devil's advocate here (as I too believe educating  
people so they can make decisions wisely is a better course of  
action), one can argue that a parent doesn't give a child the power  
to make the same sort of decisions an adult would for the good of the  
child; a CEO doesn't give his secretary the power to make the same  
sort of decisions he makes, for the good (*cough*) of the company (or  
his bank account) which in turn is good for the employee's salary (in  
an ideal world). In both cases, power is not given to the subordinate  
or the child because he can not be expected to live up to the  
responsibility and make a choice that would be beneficial to himself  
and his surroundings. Not is this a valid position? I say yes and no.  
It really depends on personal capacity, something which is subject to  
change through education. The child learns and earns responsibility  
just as the secretary can take management courses and get her boss's  
job (again, in an ideal world, which the corporate world often  
isn't). But "my" (mine and other's) argument poses the following  
problem. In a larger group, should there be the determination of who  
is capable of voting? Of who is educated enough to make a responsible  
decision when faces with the ballot box? You see, the problem when  
you (or I, in this case) start suggesting such criteria is that  
you're effectively suggesting the basis for a meritocracy. But  
perhaps this sort of democracy-come-meritocracy is a solution.  
Perhaps not. That's why we're discussing this, no?

-- Edward.

On 5 Jan 2006, at 05/01/200617:33, nj8 wrote:

> To reply to this message or start a new topic please email: BUPS- 
> DIS@bups.org
>
>
> I was shooting from the hip, rather (don't have a lot of time right  
> now) but WHY shouldn't the people have the power? they are the ones  
> affected by the decisions, after all.
>
> There is an awful lot of political theory on how & why bureaucratic  
> democracies (in the +ve sense) work ...  but it seems to me to come  
> down to stability: there are checks and balances. In a democracy,  
> there is probably more of a closed circle of accountability than in  
> business. I elect you in, I thereby give you authority to make the  
> law for me (to 'lead' me if you like), but I can help to get rid of  
> you if I don't like the way you do it.
>
> Of course, I don't get everything I want, but why should I expect  
> that when there are 60m other voices out there? If I don't like  
> your abortion policy, I'd rather have the chance to get rid of you  
> than to be stuck with you for ever (or until the men in grey suits,  
> or sandals, decide THEY want someone else...)
>
> best
> nj
>
> Matthew Hodgetts wrote:
>
> > OK, I admit that it might be hard to form a system so that  
> > everyone is always accountable. But that doesn't mean that we  
> > should shrug our shoulders and say, "Oh well, it might as well be  
> > the public." It just occurs that in a business everyone is  
> > accountable to someone higher than themselves: bottom-rung people  
> > to middle management to senior management to senior executives,  
> > who in turn are responsible (often but not always) to boards,  
> > whose members have their personal bosses. Nobody need not have  
> > anyone above them. But I think I am slightly twisting what you are  
> > saying Nick, You say
> >  > The thing about democracy is that it recognises that everyone  
> > has interests.
> >  You think that the specifically the people should have oversight.  
> > Fair enough, but be careful not to presuppose this (ie democracy)  
> > when trying to defend democracy. I want to know whether a  
> > government should even be trying to serve the interests of the  
> > people. I know that it is hard to decide what the 'right thing to  
> > do is,' but I would much rather have ethicists decide my countries  
> > abortion policy than the man on the street.
> >  Just on a pedantic note, it's not true that in a democracy  
> > politicians do not follow their own (or their party's own) agenda.  
> > Of course they do, we don't have the people's wishes served just  
> > like that. Politicians do things the people don't want ( e.g. the  
> > war against Iraq had a majority opposing it, yet it still  
> > happened, (not trying to comment of rightness or wrongness of that  
> > btw), and they fail to do things that the majority of people in  
> > this country want (e.g. reinstating capital punishment).
> >  I think that we can say a lot about the failings of democracy and  
> > the possible advantages or disadvantages of 'meritocracy,' but I  
> > wonder what people think about the presupposition of democracy  
> > that government /ought / to be just trying to satisfy the wishes  
> > of as many of the electorate as possible? (Perhaps this isn't a  
> > good definition of what democracies are supposed to do, I don't  
> > know).
> >  Matthew
>
>
>
> Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the  
> mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml



Browse or search the BUPS-DIS archives, or unsubscribe from the mailing list at: http://www.bups.org/mailinglist.shtml