In reply to a recent comment of mine:
>"We are developing a new sort of "democracy".
Lawry de Bivort asks me:
>Can you say more about what you feel are the salient characteristics of this
>new sort of democracy?
OK. But before I answer this, let me amplify my original set of
contemporary political forces (I wrote my previous message in a hurry) --
that is, instead of the old-fashioned one-person-one vite practice. My
original ones were:
business leaders
consumer associations
media
quangos
To these I'll now add:
focus groups/gallup polls
academe
think-tanks
single-issue pressure groups
So what are the "salient characteristics" of all these groupings? I suggest
that we need only talk about one that's common to all of these. This is
expertise. They either have high-grade knowledge of a subject, or they have
dramatic ways of presenting facts to the general public.
Up until about 1800 or so, there was only one method for ordinary people to
exercise political power. This was to start a peasant revolt and kill a
few landlords, or to riot in the streets. Sometimes these methods
succeeded. More often than not they didn't and were put down savagely by
the establishment. Nevertheless, these manifestations of unrest frightened
the powers that be and the vote was gradually, though reluctantly, extended
step by step.
Because of this, and because many of the political demands were simple in
nature and could be understood by all (e.g. repeal of the Corn Laws, the
need for old-age pensions for all, etc, etc), the early decades of what we
now call modern democracy was considered to be successful. Politicians have
been crowing about it ever since -- even though, for many decades now,
turnouts at elections have steadily declined from 80-90% to barely over 50%
for national elections and much less than that for local elections, and
will no doubt continue to decline from election to election. (This applies
to England, but the same trend has been occurring in all developed countries.)
The electoral process itself is now unable to prepresent and advance
minority reforms because the majority can always be bought off with
populist promises at election times by one political party or another. Any
desperate minority complaint (such as the widespread cruelty inflicted on
old people in nursing homes, or to prisoners, or the sheer hell of housing
and schooling in the poorest parts of the larger cities) can only be
publicised by getting the help of at least one of the specialised groups
mentioned above. For example, to choose the first example, a secretly
filmed video of cruelty to old people was recently shown on TV and
exercised a huge public response. Even though concern soon died away, the
politicians had to pay attention to it because something similar could be
repeated later with greater effect. A slight step forward was thus made. It
could never have been achieved by the formal political process.
So, as I see it, the individual's political right of having the vote is now
declining steadily and will have little, if any, value in the coming years.
In fact, not voting at election time probably has more constructive
political effect than voting, because it's helping to emphasise that the
present system is becoming increasingly useless. (I am, of course, not
suggesting that politicians are not necessary -- only that they need to
emerge from different processes.)
Keith Hudson
At 07:44 23/03/01 -0500, you wrote:
>
>Greetings, Keith. You said:
>-
>"We are developing a new sort of "democracy".
>
>Can you say more about what you feel are the salient characteristics of this
>new sort of democracy?
>
>Thanks
>
>Lawry de Bivort
>
>
>
___________________________________________________________________
Keith Hudson, General Editor, Calus <http://www.calus.org>
6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England
Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727;
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
________________________________________________________________________
