Is the concept "democratic deficit" scientific? If so, then it may be
measurable and, in a discussion list (we're not submitting papers to a
journal here), a rough estimate such as "glaringly obvious" can be
appropriate.
Perhaps you did not notice that I was using a figure of speech; I tried
to emphasise my point by apposing "glaringly" to "limelight".
Although this is a scientific list, you do not make a substantial point
about the topic, democracy. Also it seems that you falsely interpret
what I wrote. I do not propose replacing indirect democracy with direct
democracy but to complement the former with elements of the latter. Do
you have arguments against that? I would be happy to discuss in a civil
manner.
I notice that your e-mail address reads .cz. In the Czech Republic a
referendum will probably soon be held in which the people will decide
whether to join the European Union or not. I am concerned about a
deficit of democracy in Britain (and elsewhere). The British do not have
the right to bind their government in a referendum. An academic wrote
that this is because they are "subjects" and not "citizens". (See "Legal
basis of national referendums" http://home.snafu.de/mjm/natref1.html )
Michael Macpherson
Matej Cepl wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 28, 2002, Dr. M J Macpherson wrote:
> > 5. For the peoples of Europe the little known idea of having
> > a binding referendum on important public issues was placed in
> > the limelight. It should be glaringly obvious that, in those
> > countries where the people have NO RIGHT (or no effective
> > right) to referendum on vital matters of state - most EU
> > countries and candidate countries are in this category - there
> > is a serious deficit of democracy.
>
> It may be glaringly obvious to you, but not to everybody else
> (for example to me). There are other models of the democracy and
> many very good reasons why the direct democracy is not the best
> idea (``Federalist Papers'' and Tocqueville comes to mind first).
> I am not saying, that you are automatically wrong, that's not the
> point here (and I do not want to waste my time on flamewar about
> that), but I really do not like using arguments like ``glaringly
> obvious'' in the discussion list which is supposed to be
> populated by scholars.
>
> Matej
>
> --
> Matej Cepl, [log in to unmask], PGP ID# D96484AC
> 138 Highland Ave. #10, Somerville, Ma 02143, (617) 623-1488
>
> Give your heartache to him. (1Pt 5,7; Mt 11:28-30)
|