At 15:45 13/09/01, Robert Ensor wrote:
David Tehr raises the
point of annual elections as a way of ensuring democracy worldwide.
Although the Bolsheviks weren't exactly successful in implementing it, it
is perhaps worth recalling that they at least espoused a principle of
immediate recall of politicians who did not implement the will of their
constituencies. The fact that Stalin and others hijacked this, does not
undermine the desirability of the principle.
I'm a bit shy of this idea myself Robert. Raises the old question
of whether elected Members to the legislature are "delegates"
or "representatives". I personally lean towards the
latter. I do however like the idea of Citizen Initiated
Referenda - as long as the threshold is high enough to stop every issue
going to a referendum.
Elections every
4 years are, after all, intended to disenfranchise voters for a period of
four years.
I don't know if I would use the word "intended", but that is
effectively what happens. Try knocking out Annual General
Meetings for all shareholders of companies and see what
happens! Aren't we all equal shareholders in our respective
communities?
Perhaps it would also
be a good idea to introduce elections for company directors and Chairmen
of Boards. At the moment they are only appointed by shareholders, as if
the owners of capital are the only stakeholders in modern global
companies. Surely the millions who invest their labour daily at a wage
which by definition is lower than the value of what they produce should
have a say in how they are managed and who does it. This would eradicate
the Asian sweatshops of Nike and other corporations pretty
quickly.
I really don't mind the system as it stands. I do believe sincerely
though that annual general elections would be a positive "paradigm
shift" which would affect not only the political sphere, but the
business (and every other) sphere as well - in trems of accountability
and responsibility (the latter in particular as shareholders - no longer
could we continue to say with immunity "It's not in my power to do
anything about ...."
With regard to US
presidential elections, an immediate problem arises. As the US state
frequently involves itself in the affairs of most people worldwide,
either without invitation or at the request of unelected dictators, the
question that arises is who should elect the American government. Perhaps
the other citizens of the world are as much a stakeholder in the American
state as Americans themselves.
It may well come to pass that we do get a "world government"
somewhere way down the future. But it won't be the American
Government. It will be a bona fide, stand alone world
government. Not that I would hold my breath about that one,
or really wish it. It may also be that there will be continuing
devolution into smaller and smaller political bodies, held together for
security via alliances & treaties rather than under one sovereign
body.
Thanks for entering into the conversation Robert. Anybody else got
any thoughts on this matter?
Regards,
David Tehr
Perth, Western Australia
