I agree with what you say here. I've never used the term "pure
democrcy". I am aware of the dynamic relationship between democracy
and dictatorship; it is democracy for those who are part of the
power, the real decisionmaking, the control of information,
and is basically dictatorship for
everybody else, whether the power elite claims to "mean well" or
to act in "the name of the people" or not.
The more people are there to actively participate in power as above,
the more functional is the democracy, the aim is to have every member of the
communities - and eventually, the globe in there. Even then,
in every decision there will be a minority against whose wishes
the majority will have to execute a decision. However, not every
issue is such yes-no option and in every issue the majorities and
minorities would consist of different individuals.
Eva
> From what I have read on this list regarding democracy several themes
> stand out. One of these themes seems to be that much of what has been
> said is very idealistic and divorced from reality. One of these is this
> idea of "pure" democracy, whatever that means. Some systems may be more
> democratic than others but no system can be said to be "pure".
>
> When Abraham Lincoln gave us that simplistic definition of democracy,
> "Government for the people, by the people, of the people," he was taking
> on the role of an idealist since in no situation is this definition
> strictly true. The idea of "pure" democracy sounds suspiciously like
> pluralism where it is claimed consensus is reached by balancing out the
> claims of competing interest groups to reach an amicable solution.
>
> Maybe you might like to explain again - I probably missed it - what you
> mean by "pure democracy". I could be taking the wrong interpretation out
> of it as obviously my interpretation differs from your interpretation.
>
> But democracy is not about consensus, it is about strategies and tactics by
> those wielding the power including vested interests and lobby groups (
> multinational corporations, employer groups, unions, etc), some of whom
> wield a very powerful influence on 'public opinion' (again, how are we to
> define 'public opinion'?) and the mechanics of government. It is about
> half truths and in some cases straight out lies, just so long as these lies
> are made to appear like 'the truth'. It is about money and lots of it.
> The vast resources that some organisations can pour into swaying 'public
> opinion', (the 'public' has got a lot to answer for).
>
> Above all, democracy is about manipulation and control in how people, or at
> least the majority of the people think, so that at the end of the day, the
> opposition is thoroughly discredited and your side can claim 'victory' by
> whatever means at your disposal. Whether there is any justification for
> discrediting 'the enemy' is irrelevant.
>
> It is for these reasons that pluralism and the idea of "pure" democracy has
> to be rejected.
>
> If my interpretation is correct and getting back to New Zealand's case, at
> no stage could the case of the Maori in New Zealand be said to be an
> example of "pure democracy". Anyone who knows anything of the history of
> the Maori in New Zealand and the Treaty of Waitangi (1840) knows that it is
> a history of conflict between the indigenous culture (the Maori) with
> values based around The Land and collectivism. The mana of the tribe is
> more important than the interests of any one member. In Maori culture
> great stress is placed on the spiritual values surrounding these concepts.
>
> The early European colonists on the other hand brought with them values
> diametrically opposed to those of the Maori. These were the
> individualistic values associated with capitalism, namely private ownership
> and extreme materialism. What is more, the early colonists and
> missionaries were extremely ethnocentric in that it was assumed that
> European culture was "superior" to that of the indigenous culture. There
> was a mission to bring 'civilisation' to the 'backward savages'. It was
> not recognised that Maori culture was not 'inferior' - it was just
> different. Thus, integration was the prevailing attitude of the 19th
> Century rather than partnership, which the Treaty of Waitangi was suposed
> to stand for. Such attitudes are not dead today by any means, though
> significant progress has been made to settle disputes, such as the
> confiscation of land last century, through the Waitangi Tribunal.
>
> This brief outline traces the roots of calls within New Zealand for Maori
> Sovereignty, a separate Maori parliament (Kiwi version), and a separate
> Justice and Education System. It is an attempt to show that while Maori
> may have integrated fairly well into the Westminster style of parliamentary
> democracy imported into New Zealand by the early settlers, there are still
> deep divisions within New Zealand society between pakeha (Maori name for
> 'the White man') and Maori, an inevitable consequence of imposing one
> culture on another. These divisions relate to land, righting the
> injustices of the past and other issues relating to cultural
> understanding, inevitable given that Maori culture was so different from
> Maori.
>
> For all of these reasons, there is just no way the position of Maori in New
> Zealand can be described as a "pure" democracy.
>
> Finally, how does all of this relate to the future of work, with which this
> list is vitally concerned? I believe it is relevant because I have touched
> on issues which lie at the heart of high Maori unemployment and
> disadvantage in New Zealand. If one is going to explain and understand why
> Maori unemployment rates are so much higher than pakeha, or why Maori fill
> our prisons in much the same way that Negro fill American prisons, these
> issues provide a place to start.
>
> Cheers
>
> Ross
>
>
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
