I refer to Ed Weick's contribution of 19:58 27/09/00 -0400:
>Keith Hudson appears to be proposing some form of direct democracy -
>dispensing with the intermediary politicians and letting the public as a
>whole decide via referenda.
In a way, yes. I would not dispense with politicians because they are
necessary. By "they" I mean the civil service. Far more intelligent and
far better politicians than the those we vote for, they are the real
power-holders in the modern nation-state. They are well-nigh invisible and
unaccountable, yet they are the people who actually carry out the policies.
>He has answered an already complex question
>with an even more complex one. What the state should do is lay the
>question, with all of its nuances, before the public and it will then
>somehow come up with the answer.
The state (civil service) cannot be relied upon to lay out all the
information to the public. Nor do I see the public, en masse, as somehow
able to produce the answers, particularly on complex issues. What we need
are specialist forums that are open to the public, so that all those
individuals who wish to take part in policy discussion and formulation can
do so. Mind you, they would have to prove their commitment by attending
meetings and by being able to argue their case.
I think we see two signs of this happening in the advanced countries -- one
of them a very strong sign. This is the growth of single-issue pressure
groups and societies. The other (in the UK, anyway) is the relatively
recent introduction of House of Commons Select Committees. These are
specialist committees and meet and cross-examine experts in their own
field. There are also the American Congress Committees, but I don;t know
much about them. The problem with the UK Select Committees is that MPs who
are specialists do not have the right to join the Select Committee of their
choice. They are selected by the Whips, and the Whips are in the service
of the Prime Minister. So they are not always as objective as they might be.
I see these two signs, one from the bottom and one from the top as being
glimpses of the sort of direct democaracy of the future. However, even if I
am right, they will take generations to develop to the extent that they
need to.
>Apart from the question of whether the public, no matter how saturated with
>information, is actually capable of understanding complex issues, this
>raises the question of whether there in fact is a "public". There are, I
>would suggest, a large variety of publics, each operating out of particular
>interests. Keith uses the example of the Corn Laws. They were repealed in
>the mid-nineteenth century because urban industrial interests, which needed
>cheap food to feed their labour (and the reserve army of the unemployed
>which kept wages down) had so ascended in power in comparison with landed
>interests, that repeal was possible. There was a breaking point: up until
>then, repeal was not possible because landed corn-growing interests were
>still dominant.
>
>Take the present situation. Put the question of whether energy prices
>should rise or fall (via lowering taxes or holding the line) before the
>public and all those groups with a passion for the environment and fearful
>of global warming would vote one way whereas the drivers of trucks and
>suburban assault vehicles (SUVs) would likely vote another. Moreover, many
>of the voters would be organized, belonging to unions, associations, or
>interest groups. Their leaders and persuaders would not study the pros and
>cons of an issue, they would be too busy worrying about how they could get
>the vote out. Besides, they would already be convinced of the answer.
>
>There is also the matter of uncertainty. How do we really know what is
>going on in the energy picture? Many so-called experts maintain that there
>is no shortage of the resource - the oil sheiks are withholding production
>and manipulating price. Others say that we are seeing a precursor of the
>end of cheap hydrocarbons, and that the remaining supply is not nearly as
>abundant as it is assumed to be. Even the experts don't really know, so how
>can one expect the referendized public to make a rational decision?
>
>What this suggests to me is that we need honest politicians who, after
>having taken a lie-detector test, will says something like "We really don't
>know, but here is what we think and because of this and that, and here is
>the action (or lack of it) that we are going to take." But then of course
>trying to implement a system with politicians that honest would be even more
>difficult than implementing direct democracy.
Yes, indeed. With our present type of hierarchical governmental system
(becoming increasingly presidential in most advanced countries), then the
opportunities for corruption are almost irresistible. We don't have to go
to Asia or Russia to find instances. In fact, I can think of at least
half-a-dozen Western European countries (France, Germany, Ireland, Belgium,
Italy, Spain, etc) where either the President or the Prime Minister has
been deeply suspected of corruption in the last ten years. Of course, they
usually wriggle out of being found guilty in a court of law!
But, really, the present political system has had its day. Fewer and fewer
people are turning out to vote. This particularly applies to younger
people. The latest survey in America shows that only 61% of people aged
between 18 and 24 have not bothered to register to vote, and 83% didn't
vote in the last Presidential election. This trend is seriously wrrying
politicians in all countries. Campaigns are being linked to basketball
tournaments in America. In the UK, compulsory Political Education will be
on the syllabus in schools in 2003. (Of course, that will make politicas
even more unpopular!)
Keith Hudson
