| Re: "They call it democracy: Ukraine fights for democratic rights, while Western politicians subvert them" by Ashifa Kassam, Viewpoint, December 9-15, 2004.
Ashifa Kassam asks some hard questions many of us are asking in this day and age of wars fought in the name of democracy. The short answers pertain to lack of participation, yet participation is often dismissed as being too simplistic an answer. Participation is not a simple issue – it is the key issue.
The problem with democracies today is strict representation. Even with the occasional referendum, the people of a democracy have very little to say about the programs and policies of the governments they elect, primarily because there is never one representative government that stands for all of the people all of the time, and secondly we have few parties to chose from. Rather, the people we elect can only represent all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time and, in the end, the remainder become problematic until they get out of hand.
There is, to answer only one of Kassam’s questions, a better way than protest. Protest is not necessary, but only if people have access to the voting system that currently only elected representatives have access to. Unfortunately, the idea of the general public having access to vote directly on legislation alongside the elected representatives is compounded by the need to understand the dichotomy of participation. We need access to participate in the decision-making process, but it must be based on a majority of eligible voters, not a majority of votes cast. If the majority of us can’t agree or don’t care, then that’s what elected representatives are for. At the same time, if a majority of the general public does agree and cares enough to vote, then shouldn’t we have that option?
The essential question Kassam and the rest of us need to face is, do we or do we not believe in the voice of the people, the essence of democracy, or do we just pay it lip service?… The point of a democracy is for governments to act based on what everyone thinks, not based on a few who care to vote or who are allowed to vote. Powers of veto aside, if 50 per cent of eligible voters can’t agree or don’t care, let government rule. But if 50 per cent do, hold government to it. Give the people the option.
I’m in favour of direct access, but accountability only to the representative majority plus a majority of eligible voters…. At the very least we should have the option to vote directly. The onus is not on the people to vote, it’s on the government to give us the option to participate, and to be accountable if we participate fully.
If citizens of any nation, Iraq, Ukraine, the U.S., Canada or anywhere else in the world could vote directly (as an ongoing process, not just one voting day to speak up or shut up) contingent on a majority based on the number of eligible voters (versus the number of actual votes cast), we would truly be living in a democratic age, and we wouldn’t be burdened so much with the faults of a strictly representative system. The only question you need to ask is, do you believe in the people, or don’t you?
|
Copyright ©2004 FFWD. All rights reserved.