How Much Democracy?

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:26 pm

It seemes that a lot of folks are arguing from very narrow positions - which is OK in some ways, but I think limiting in others.

It seems that from a "people's mandate" point of view the closer you can get to direct popular mandates the more democratic one is.

BUT

There are two things that are traditional checks against this the way I see it:

1. Convenience (Meaning the population may not want to participate on a day to day level)
2. Rule of Law (There has to be a uniformity and consistency of a legal system and a method of change to preserve this)

And one benefit of a democracy - is that the "rule" is tested against the will of the people AND through that governmental compliance and legitimacy is gained. And with a bit of skill, stability.

The farther you stray from this, the less democratic you are - and it is arguable to achieve the convenience and rule of law you have *some* stepping away - but it trades off democracy.

So ....

Our current method of electing factions are removed 2 steps form direct democracy: 1 step because it is a representative assembly, and another because the people are currently not allowed to vote for individuals they choose. (and the actual RA makeup is determined by an internal vote in the faction itself to which)

The Chancellor is 3 steps removed since it is elected by the RA.

So - Once could argue that to make the system MORE democratic (and gain more legitimacy, and other benefits of democracy), the two institutions ought to be moved closer to the people. And indeed they can be without damaging rule of law, nor will it damage convenience.

So ... backing away from purely partisan questions, the real underlying argument seems to be:

"How much democracy should the CDS have?"

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:46 pm

... as much as possible in a community of 76 individuals, provided it remains compatible with the rule of law and stable, efficient, and accountable institutions.

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:24 pm

This is the old debate between populist democracy and democratic republicanism. Since I assume you are not contemplating introducing Quaker-style consensus process, but populist voting, let me address that.

1. Populist governments tend to be easily influenced by short term emotion rather than careful consideration. The mob is a "direct democracy," even if people regret the burning and maiming the next morning.

2. Populist governments tend to be very very risk adverse when it comes to decisions that effect the majority. A smaller group is much much more likely to experiment.

3. Populist governments tend to believe the "majority rules" part of democracy overrules the protection of the rights of minorities. Jim Crow, need I say more?

I disagree with you strongly when it comes to the RA. I think you may be bringing US political assumptions with you, where voting is often a matter of selecting one candidate over another based on personal characteristics. Our US party platforms are a joke that very few candidates even bother to read.

The thing is, it really should be the platforms that matter. Both in their vision and direction and in their efficacy. It should not matter if "Joe seems stronger than Jane," it should matter if one party wants to support independent NGOs and the other wants to "quasi"-nationalize them. True democracy is about being able to shape the policies that will determine the future, not who has the friendlier smile.

Its always easy to reach for populism when your ideas are weak. You can figure that some people will vote for the person and not read the platform. Then all you need is a winning personality.

The other side of this of course, is when a party does not have the people needed to implement its platform. This does happen and it the key risk involved in a republican system. But you can usually figure this out if you know more or less who is involved in the party.

Let me give you a small example that strikes close to my heart and SL name. Washington, during the populist era was one of the most democratic places on earth:

http://www.historylink.org/essays/outpu ... le_id=1057

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 6:07 pm

[quote="Jon Seattle":1x2mda3y]

I disagree with you strongly when it comes to the RA. I think you may be bringing US political assumptions with you, where voting is often a matter of selecting one candidate over another based on personal characteristics. Our US party platforms are a joke that very few candidates even bother to read.

The thing is, it really should be the platforms that matter. Both in their vision and direction and in their efficacy. It should not matter if "Joe seems stronger than Jane," it should matter if one party wants to support independent NGOs and the other wants to "quasi"-nationalize them. True democracy is about being able to shape the policies that will determine the future, not who has the friendlier smile.

[/quote:1x2mda3y]

Jon, I very much agree. How do you reconcile what you just wrote with CSDF support for voting for individuals rather than factions?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 7:36 pm

I hardly think American politics-bashing should be the basis of our system of governance. The US system has its flaws, but so do all others. There is no need to jump to the other extreme just to be different from the US - in all branches of government. That is sheer narrow-mindedness and utter lack of historical perspective.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 5:52 am

I do think we are strenuously avoiding adopting [i:18i8pkqu]any[/i:18i8pkqu] US political styles - which I find curious and ... frankly ... such avoidance of all of it is misguided.

Simply the flaw of our system is that it is further removed from the people.

Arguable to avoid personality politics - though there was plenty of it in the last election that I saw - so this system doesn't remove much of it (a lot of CARE's opponents canvassed against Michel rather than against CARE - and even said that CARE's policies were great, but they didn't like/trust Michel - and if that isn't personality based, i don't know what is!).

So the trade off - less democratic to eliminate personality politics may not be 1 for 1.

(Kind of like the "freedom" for "safety" trade off - perhaps the trade off we are making in this democracy-for-issues-only but is a false trade off? Or a mostly false?)

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:15 am

Would you care to back up that bland assertion with some evidence Bromo? For our part, the CSDF focussed on the positive changes we wanted to make. I could say something about the way voters were mislead by CARE canvassers but... the election is over now. Time to make the new RA work rather than make unfounded allegations about the conduct of unnamed parties in the election.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:55 am

Pat -

My point was not to relive the election - but top point out the personality politics in the system. You yourself informed me that you liked the CARE proposals and rhetoric but didn't trust a member of the party itself. Without rehashing the period on hand - one, from this isolated exchange - would think your decisions on voting were very much influenced by personality. As well as your overall campaign (publicly posted notices)

To be intellectually honest - we have to realize the role of personality in our elections. We have not "insulated ourselves" very well except increase voter uncertainty because the elections for reps is indirect - and it is used and has been used.

So ... the bigger issue now that we are not in our ivory towers - is what have we got here?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:58 am

Extract from the last debate (asa posted on the CDS forums):

Patroklus Murakami: i want to say why you should vote for the Citizens' Social Democratic Faction
Patroklus Murakami: in preference to the others
Patroklus Murakami: Firstly, we are not only committed to democracy, we actually are a democracy
Patroklus Murakami: alone almong the factions in the CDS, we have held weekly meetings open to all for over a year now
Patroklus Murakami: we have held elections for our officers every six months
Patroklus Murakami: our first secretary-general was moon adamant, followed by me and then jon seattle
Patroklus Murakami: we don't resign from the RA and then hold the RA to ransom
Patroklus Murakami: we don't have a dictator deciding how can, and who can't, represent our party
Patroklus Murakami: we are democrats and we behave democraticallly
Patroklus Murakami: and we have a positive set of policies for change
Patroklus Murakami: we don't plan to tie up the community in six talking shops for a year
Patroklus Murakami: we have practical policies to effect change

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:14 am

[quote="michelmanen":1i3gq8q5]Extract from the last debate (asa posted on the CDS forums):

[...]

Patroklus Murakami: our first secretary-general was moon adamant, followed by me and then jon seattle
Patroklus Murakami: we don't resign from the RA and then hold the RA to ransom
Patroklus Murakami: we don't have a dictator deciding how can, and who can't, represent our party
Patroklus Murakami: we are democrats and we behave democraticallly

[...]

[/quote:1i3gq8q5]

Thanks Michel - exactly my point.

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:37 am

So voting for people instead of factions will actually *decrease* personality politics? *scratches head*

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:55 am

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":2vksuhtf]So voting for people instead of factions will actually *decrease* personality politics? *scratches head*[/quote:2vksuhtf]

Nope - All I am saying is that we have personality politics right now. And a fair amount of it.

Our trade off sacrificing direct democratic control in the hopes of eliminating personality politics didn't work.

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 7:59 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":2vrz4j3a]
Nope - All I am saying is that we have personality politics right now. And a fair amount of it.

Our trade off sacrificing direct democratic control in the hopes of eliminating personality politics didn't work.[/quote:2vrz4j3a]

My thinking is that is did work, and my fear is that if we have personality politics now, it will get even worse if we switch to electing people directly.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:52 am

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":8h9i7jwk][quote="Bromo Ivory":8h9i7jwk]
Nope - All I am saying is that we have personality politics right now. And a fair amount of it.

Our trade off sacrificing direct democratic control in the hopes of eliminating personality politics didn't work.[/quote:8h9i7jwk]

My thinking is that is did work, and my fear is that if we have personality politics now, it will get even worse if we switch to electing people directly.[/quote:8h9i7jwk]
Exactly.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 11:14 am

With reference to Michel's quote of my election debate contribution and Bromo's comments - I stand by every word.

The conduct of a faction's elected representatives is a legitimate subject for discussion in an election. When someone is elected on a platform, [url=http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtop ... 2:1xqys957]resigns for spurious reasons and then acts as dictator, insisting that no one else from the same faction will take the seat[/url:1xqys957], it is perfectly legitimate to point to such behaviour. That's not 'canvassing against Michel', it's making a point about the reliability of CARE representatives (no such point was made about Mizou's resignation, I accept she had perfectly legitimate reasons for doing so) and the lack of internal democracy in your faction.

At least my comments were made in a public forum and can be quoted back at me.

[quote="Michel Manen":1xqys957]I therefore resign from the RA with immediate effect. CARE will also abandon its RA seat, and no CARE member will sit in the RA to take up this seat under the CARE banner. [/quote:1xqys957]