|
This topic, raised at the
beginning of the year, has been rattling around my mind and leading me to a
conclusion that I never would have anticipated – that the current scheme of
government is pretty damned good. To remind everyone, the nub of the debate was
about whether or not Democracy was the best governmental framework we could
aspire to. The quote by Churchill which encapsulated this was "Democracy
is the worst form of government, but it's the best we've got for time
being". The debate
covered The purpose of laws – not entirely obvious
without some thought. Laws need to protect the individual from harm by others.
The definition of “harm” is of course very important and has been argued about
over the centuries. Most recently the “cartoon wars” raised the issue of
whether or not causing offence was harm, and the majority opinion (which did
not include government) felt was that it was not. I believe that the hunting
ban, which I wholeheartedly supported, also fell into the category of causing
offence (to humans – animals are not really directly protected by laws, though
I know that will probably create another thread to this debate). I think
earlier laws which were primarily aimed at reducing offence included the laws
against homosexual practices and pornography laws, though the latter can be argued
as one which causes indirect harm. Laws which protect the individual from
physical or mental assault and those that protect property rights are not
contentious, but we should question the need for other types of laws which
could come back to haunt us when they impinge on personal liberty. I think our
current inconsistent drug laws are a good example of legislating at the
boundary of personal liberty – the way alcohol is legislated is probably the
best – one should have the right to consume up to the point that one puts
others at risk of harm. Tobacco is coming into line with this approach, and one
day soon “recreational” drugs will, I am sure follow suit. Who should govern us – experts or
representatives. We would really like to have the best people in charge, but
then could we agree on who they might be? Elections are biased in favour of the
power hungry over the competent. Some say that you should ban from government
office anyone who aspires to it as they will be entirely unsuitable. Interestingly
we do seem to have accommodated these concerns in our present two chamber
system. The first chamber decides what laws to enact, and the second chamber
crafts these aspirations into good and fair laws. We get the mix of experts who
can express their views without fear of losing their jobs, but the statute book
is controlled by elected representatives who will lose theirs if they stray too
far from public opinion. Before I started studying philosophy I was firmly of
the opinion that the House of Lords should be abolished, now I think they do a
pretty important job, but I’d like to see their titles changed and enforced
retirement at 70. But we should remember that the primary advantage of
democracy is that you can chuck out your government if you don’t like what they
do. The vagaries of voters and the flaws of elections. When the people of
Middlesborough voted for a mayor on the basis that he wore a monkey suit (and had
no experience of local government) one wondered if democracy really was safe.
As western governments push democracy on African and Middle Eastern societies
we can see that tribal allegiances undermine individual votes. But in secular western
democracies the election process is respected and works reasonably well. First
past the post does lead to the decision of the largest minority prevailing, and
Al Gore losing the election to Bush even though he got more votes, should spur
us to improve the democratic election mechanism. There is also the issue about
where you draw the line in who can vote and who can’t. The idea of universal
suffrage is now well established, but there are loads of 17 year olds who want
the boundary shifted, and I think they’ve got a good case. We should recognise
that the line is currently drawn arbitrarily by chronological age, maybe we
should have a voting test like a driving test to bring in bright young kids and
keep out people who don’t understand the purpose of government. Indeed most of
our MP’s dislike the idea of referenda precisely because of the fear of an
ignorant public enacting bad legislation. The way things work now some of the
worst laws (e.g. capital punishment) can be kept off the books. Other forms of government. Yes they do “work” and I
guess the utilitarian view would say that if a system works over a long period
of time, then it is probably appropriate. Businesses and armies have
hierarchies, and in most cases monarchies are better than anarchies. But for a
society which has a reasonable standard of wealth and education democracy is
about as good as it gets. The
philosopher in me tells me to go back to my first point about the purpose of
laws to also assess the quality of any form of government. If a government lets
individuals do what they want to do providing it doesn’t harm others, then I’d
say it was successful. I’m sorry it’s taken me so long to contribute to the
debate, I hope it adds something. Bernie Doeser Sandiway,
Cheshire, UK. |