The problem of representative democracy

[Tahuti]

While representative democracy enjoys a strong support here in these parts, there are some doubts and questions.

If a state pursues a policy that is proven not to work, or commits a crime, who should be held responsible? The people who made the law? The people who voted for the law? Or the people that elected the former two or enforced the law? Corporations have been persecuted without seriously dissuading them from their bad habits, so persecuting a state as a single entity doesn't work. The problem of any government with more than one ruler having authority over the masses is that no-one is responsible over no-one, which results in a dichotomy between state and people.

Most elected politicians are also required to observe term limits, which makes them neglect the long term interests of their polity. Absolute monarchs for life, however, do not have to care about being re-elected and can focus on the long term interest of a state's constituents, though whether they do is another story entirely.

Must we thus conclude that the only workable governments would be absolute monarchy or direct democracy on a very small scale?

 

[ComradeDavo]

Can I just point out that in parlimentry democracies have different people in charge of different departments. I don't think your factoring that in when you ask about responsibility.

 

[Leoreth]

Identifying who is responsible for certain actions isn't as hard as the OP makes it out to be. If the voters care enough, they can access information about who proposed and voted for specific laws. The term limits that are mentioned as the other "problem" are essentially the means to control that. If people identify certain representatives as responsible for problematic laws, they won't elect them again when their term is up. This of course assumes that people are informed and committed enough to figure out who is responsible, but such a level of commitment is required of any form of democracy (and I'd even say that direct democracy requires more dedication, since you're not only supposed to decide which representatives are the best, but which laws and decisions themselves).

Of course everyone can apply whatever standard they like to their representatives without being consistent or "reasonable" about it, that's the point of democracy. The OP also seems to imply some legal category of misconduct or incompetence in office, but I think it's hard to actually prove malicious intent which would certainly be necessary for something like that. Simply supporting policies that turn out to be wrong in hindsight shouldn't be criminal - we can hardly blame our representatives for being unable to see into the future.

The second criticism is more of a concern in my opinion, although I think the association of representatives with political parties reduces the problem somewhat. Political parties usually tend to have some core set of goals and principles to which their representatives have to conform to at least to some degree. Other than that, what are the alternatives? Term limits are necessary exactly for the reason you mentioned before: so that the electorate can have any say in what they do.

Hoping for absolutism or enlightened despotism is very foolish in my opinion.

 

[Traitorfish]

The problem of any government with more than one ruler having authority over the masses is that no-one is responsible over no-one, which results in a dichotomy between state and people.

I though that Hobbes regarded the opposition of state and "people" as a good thing, because it represented to him the only way of escaping the formlessness of the pre-state "multitude"? The desire to create an identification between state and "people" seems more of a Rousseauian thing.

At any rate, I don't see how absolutism would do away with this conceptual opposition. (Hobbes certainly didn't think it would.) Even "direct democracy" would only do so given a certain structure; just turning the public sphere into one big parliament through constant referenda wouldn't change anything in that regard.

 

[Tahuti]

Identifying who is responsible for certain actions isn't as hard as the OP makes it out to be. If the voters care enough, they can access information about who proposed and voted for specific laws. The term limits that are mentioned as the other "problem" are essentially the means to control that. If people identify certain representatives as responsible for problematic laws, they won't elect them again when their term is up. This of course assumes that people are informed and committed enough to figure out who is responsible, but such a level of commitment is required of any form of democracy (and I'd even say that direct democracy requires more dedication, since you're not only supposed to decide which representatives are the best, but which laws and decisions themselves).

That still doesn't explain what do with issues such as warcrimes. Otherwise, it would seem very sensible to kill all Germans that voted Nazi in the 1932 German federal elections.
You correctly state that democracy requires dedication, but that is seldom present. Democracy works best in tightly knit groups of members that know each other personally, because that allows people to make decisions that are both informed and sincerely motivated. But for most nation-states, with their millions of inhabitants, such tightly knit group are simply not possible and thus, democracy cannot work in this context, as it will inevitably degenerate in a no-doubt complicated web of patronage.

The second criticism is more of a concern in my opinion, although I think the association of representatives with political parties reduces the problem somewhat. Political parties usually tend to have some core set of goals and principles to which their representatives have to conform to at least to some degree. Other than that, what are the alternatives? Term limits are necessary exactly for the reason you mentioned before: so that the electorate can have any say in what they do.

Since politicians are out for plunder anyway and wealthy nations allow for more plunder, the best option is that politicians should be able to preside over a nation's economic take-off.

Hoping for absolutism or enlightened despotism is very foolish in my opinion.

Pretty every nation-state is too large to make such mode rule practical, which is probably also why absolute monarchism was replaced by parliamentarism and the late 20th century was marked by decentralization. Bureaucracies are emblematic of polities that control much more than they can practically rule.

I though that Hobbes regarded the opposition of state and "people" as a good thing, because it represented to him the only way of escaping the formlessness of the pre-state "multitude"? The desire to create an identification between state and "people" seems more of a Rousseauian thing.

At any rate, I don't see how absolutism would do away with this conceptual opposition. (Hobbes certainly didn't think it would.) Even "direct democracy" would only do so given a certain structure; just turning the public sphere into one big parliament through constant referenda wouldn't change anything in that regard.

Hobbes is just one influence. In my opinion, the point of absolutism being able to unify state and its citizens is because absolutism allows accountability I do not think is present in democratic or oligarchic states. The state and its ruler are the same thing, so the responsibility of any mishaps by the state can be pinpointed to its ruler. Basically, I argue this from a liberal perspective.

Do note that I intended it as more of a thought experiment, than any serious advocacy of anything.

 

[Cutlass]

While representative democracy enjoys a strong support here in these parts, there are some doubts and questions.

If a state pursues a policy that is proven not to work, or commits a crime, who should be held responsible? The people who made the law? The people who voted for the law? Or the people that elected the former two or enforced the law? Corporations have been persecuted without seriously dissuading them from their bad habits, so persecuting a state as a single entity doesn't work. The problem of any government with more than one ruler having authority over the masses is that no-one is responsible over no-one, which results in a dichotomy between state and people.

Most elected politicians are also required to observe term limits, which makes them neglect the long term interests of their polity.

First, humans have an inherent right to chose their government. That is an inalienable right. Second, at least with elected officials they have to give some consideration of what their voters want.

Absolute monarchs for life, however, do not have to care about being re-elected and can focus on the long term interest of a state's constituents, though whether they do is another story entirely.

Must we thus conclude that the only workable governments would be absolute monarchy or direct democracy on a very small scale?

The monarch's only interest is in remaining in power and passing that power on to his children. The interests of the nation, the interests of the population of the nation, are of no consequence to the average monarch's decision making. Staying in power means co-opting the other powerful actors in the system to keep him in power. And in almost every case that means oppressing the masses. Preventing anything that is a threat to his power is ultimately what matters.

Absolute monarchy is completely unworkable as a system because it aligns the monarch against the country.

 

[Tahuti]

humans have an inherent right to chose their government. That is an inalienable right.

This is a religious statement.

The monarch's only interest is in remaining in power and passing that power on to his children. The interests of the nation, the interests of the population of the nation, are of no consequence to the average monarch's decision making. Staying in power means co-opting the other powerful actors in the system to keep him in power. And in almost every case that means oppressing the masses. Preventing anything that is a threat to his power is ultimately what matters.

Absolute monarchy is completely unworkable as a system because it aligns the monarch against the country.

That argument would be valid with modern nation-state sized polities. However, I think government can radically decentralized into sovereign communities of thousands of people and perhaps even less.

 

[GhostWriter16]

First, humans have an inherent right to chose their government. That is an inalienable right. Second, at least with elected officials they have to give some consideration of what their voters want.

Not to bring the civil war into this, but to oppose secession, or specifically to think that a President who received less than 40% of the popular vote can legitimately impose his will on a nation, is incompatible with this.

I, of course, think people have a right to choose their government, and so I support the right of disgruntled groups to secede.

 

[Traitorfish]

Not to bring the civil war into this, but let's all spend twenty pages arguing about the civil war.

 

[Borachio]

Maybe all wars should be more civil. A little politeness could go a long way in resolving differences of opinion.

Maybe all wars are civil wars.

By the civil war, I presume you mean the English Civil War. Of which there were three in rapid succession. (And they weren't Civil Wars, either. Necessarily.)

I can't think of any other significant civil wars until the European Civil Wars of the C20th.

 

[Flying Pig]

Most elected politicians are also required to observe term limits, which makes them neglect the long term interests of their polity. Absolute monarchs for life, however, do not have to care about being re-elected and can focus on the long term interest of a state's constituents, though whether they do is another story entirely.

Since absolute monarchs do not care about being re-elected, they have no incentive to put the interests of their constituents over their own, assuming that they feel able to keep down any revolutionary feeling.

 

[Borachio]

Do elected representatives put the interests of the electorate over their own, generally? But perhaps this is being picky.

 

[Cutlass]

This is a religious statement.

There's nothing really religious about it. Any person has a fundamental right to chose their own government. It is an absolute statement. It can be secular, it can be atheist. No taxation without representation.

That argument would be valid with modern nation-state sized polities. However, I think government can radically decentralized into sovereign communities of thousands of people and perhaps even less.

That's a recipe for disaster. People who want to decentralize government have the agenda of a more repressive government. It's far easier to do at that level. The benefits of nation states to the welfare of the population is huge.

 

[Traitorfish]

Unless you're an Indian.

 

[Flying Pig]

Do elected representatives put the interests of the electorate over their own, generally? But perhaps this is being picky.

Not at all - but making the electorate happy is in their interests.

 

[GhostWriter16]

Unless you're an Indian.

Bow down before their God, TF.

Seriously, I wonder what drugs these "Only the Federal Government can do good, states and localities are inherently oppressive" people are using.

I pointed Cutlass to numerous examples of this and he said it was all "Small stuff"

All the while advocating his own form of tyranny, just run by democrats.

And I'm the deluded one

 

[Traitorfish]

Bow down before their God, TF.

State and local governments were no less abusive than the federal government.

 

[Murky]

The biggest problem for representative democracy is uninformed voters.

 

[Tahuti]

Since absolute monarchs do not care about being re-elected, they have no incentive to put the interests of their constituents over their own, assuming that they feel able to keep down any revolutionary feeling.

Admittedly, I assumed a politically savvy minority with revolutionary minds.

EDIT: Coming to think of it, an oppressive absolute monarchy might be easier to depose than an oppressive single-party state or democracy, considering power in the former is held in one person whereas power in a democracy or single-party state is held in a vast amount of persons.

 

[Murky]

Admittedly, I assumed a politically savvy minority with revolutionary minds.

EDIT: Coming to think of it, an oppressive absolute monarchy might be easier to depose than an oppressive single-party state or democracy, considering power in the former is held in one person whereas power in a democracy or single-party state is held in a vast amount of persons.

The real power is with the keepers of ideology who pass it on to their children. It doesn't matter if the ideology is based on Monarchy, Democracy or Communism. What matters is how many people believe in it and are willing to die for it.