More iced tea, Grandpa? Another cushion?
A recent political discussion on these pages prompted one commenter to claim:
I think we (most people?) would prefer democracy because it is fair and it works as long as it is about the people.
The poster acknowledged that the U.S.A. was no longer a 'real' democracy–but was better described as fascist, corporatist (in the business sense). Others chimed in with oligarchy, plutocracy, etc.
A fair enough debate. But is democracy the 'be all and end all' of politics?
There is a sort of democratic mythology, mostly trumpeted by United States, which claims this one system of government (actually a myriad of concrete forms) is the last hope of civilization, and that any society will eventually adopt it spontaneously.
Historically, most of the democracies of Europe were established not by a the popular demand of the people, but were either made conditions of foreign aid, or were imposed by an outside military force.
Let's consider one possible form of rule that is not by nature 'democratic' i.e., in simplest terms: one person, one vote. (Though all democracies disenfranchise some portion of the populace–children, criminals, the mentally handicapped, etc.)
The Belgian Congo operated as a European colony until 1959, when internal uprisings forced recognition of national political parties; the democratic myth, come true!
Patrice Lumumba, the first legally elected prime minister of the Republic of the Congo, was killed by Belgian soldiers on direct instructions from Eisenhower who disliked Lumumba's socialist leanings. For example, he no longer wished to hand over uranium for U.S. weapons production (Congolese uranium provided the bombs in Hiroshima/Nagasaki with their fissile explosive material).
As Barbara Kingsolver says in her novel The Poisonwood Bible, the Americans showed us what democracy was really all about.
She also mentions that the Congo was traditionally ruled in a tribal manner; that, in a dispute, negotiations would not end until all parties reached agreement, rather than by majority rule. This system worked well enough for them that it should give us pause: there is always a compromise–something we have likely forgotten in our absolutist world.
However, I found the most interesting titbit of traditional Congolese governance was that when deciding courses of action, the tribe would accord more weight to the opinions of the elderly. Think about that for a moment.
Imagine a political system that gave, for example, one vote for every ten years lived. Twenty years old? Two votes. Seventy-three years old? Seven votes.
Life experience counts, my friends.
::
Churchill was quoted as saying "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others". I like that. I think your model would result in a similar situation to that we see currently in Ireland, a government for the middle aged, by the middle aged. See Mr. "Economics for dummies" McWilliams on the transfer of wealth over the last few years.
Youth wasted on the young?
It was the likes of that "intervention" you mentioned and similar ones in Guatamala etc. that were justified by the teachings of Friedman and made palateable to the US populace through the techniques of Bernaise. From that point on it went from bad to worse.
"But is democracy the ‘be all and end all’ of politics?"
I think the probelm is that democracy and politics can not co-exist peacefully. Politics, as opposed to mere government, taints everything it comes into contact with. We have reached the point where we would not recognize a government, let alone a church building committee, unless it was drowning in politics. We've come to expect and accept ulterior motives from our leaders. Anyone who would say that they are there to serve the people would not be believed. And if they were honest about their intentions and truly there to only serve the people they would be quickly devoured by the politics.
Since I apparently helped spark this discussion, my statement about most people preferring democracy is largely a hypothetical statement. Democracy itself is mostly hypothetical, I can't point to very many examples of it in the world, certainly not in any of the world's governments. My experiences with it have been in small groups and dealt with limited issues in our lives. Still I think the theory of democracy is worthwhile and if it is followed can be the fairest and most just system to live in.
I like your suggestion of more voting weight with age, at least for myself, since I would currently be qualified for 5 votes. Unfortunately some of the persons I knew to be dumb at age ten are just 5 times dumber at age 50. Not to be too critical of dumb people, I've often told myself that if I had been born just a little bit dumber I could have been a whole lot happier. Some days I envy the dumb.
Along with your weighted vote I would suggest some sort of house of representation where the members are picked at random like a combination between jury duty and winning the lottery. They would go and serve for one term, get paid well to do it, but then have to return to live amongst the people they had represented.
It's a little scary that this blog is attracting the intellectual set. I'm going back to writing about bubble organs.
More informed comment when I sober up.
Mr T: "They would go and serve for one term, get paid well to do it, but then have to return to live amongst the people they had represented" – surely this would give the representatives every incentive they ever need to recieve backhanders etc.
Democracy as an idea is almost perfect, as is socialism. Obviously it just doesn't work in practice, or rather it has become so intertwined with capitalism that it is impossible to seperate.
Thrifty: I prefer G.B.Shaw's quote 'Communism works, if only someone tried it' [origin?] The same could be said of democracy. I think it's fair to say that there are so many democratic models, it's impossible to talk about 'democracy' as a single system.
Mr T: As Billy Connolly says 'the mere fact that someone wants to be a politician should disqualify them.'
Sheep: Which democratic ideal is perfect? It's basically institutionalised mob rule.
Intellectuals?
Ok, I'll try to use words with fewer syllables.
Darwin: It depends who's leading the mob.
Your alternative is placing unequal power in the hands of elders by reason that they have lived longer? Not because they have proved their worth or merit, but because they merely survive.
Mr T: I sometimes envy the dumb too.
Sheep: Longevity is a possible indicator that a person has 'life skills,' but it also equates to 'life experience.' That's probably as good a qualifier as anything else. I think it would be better if there were some way to get voted in like a story on Reddit or Digg. Every time you do something 'of merit' you get a point?
I suggest a return to filthy jokes. That'll soon get rid of the intellectuals.
Actually, I suggest a return to writing about this kind of thing
Well dirty jokes wont get rid of me, but I'm not an intellectual either. I'm just opinionated :-)
I was at an ATM and this old lady asked me to help check her balance. So I pushed her over.
Not dirty, I know.
I wouldn't confess to being an intellectual, unless maybe I was threatened with waterboarding or some other quaint practice revived from the Dark Ages, but jokes are always welcome.
I probably need a diversion from spending too much time paying attention to my government.
Nice alarm clock Bock. I bought one.
Mr T: How about the Pear of Anguish?
But we're (USA) not a democracy. We're a federal republic.
Apparently like that espoused in the Lisbon treaty
Discuss.