I added this section to
Why democracy is wrong
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/dem.wrong.html
---------------------------
Alternatives [to democracy] fall into these main categories
- "rolling back democracy" - the systematic modification of democracy to
remove its ethical defects. (The phrase is borrowed from Margaret Thatcher's
commitment to "rolling back the state")
- the simple overthrow of democratic governments
- a non-democratic political system, especially totalitarianism
- innovation in the system of states, with redistribution of territory
and populations.
"Rolling back democracy" starts with the checklist definitions of democracy.
The outcome of the democratic process can be improved, if not all of these
principles are applied to all of the people, all of the time. The right to
vote is the best example, since it is considered the core political right of
individuals in democracies.
Bill Gates has an individual right to vote, as a US citizen. That includes the
so-called "passive voting right" - the right to stand as a candidate for
political office, and receive the votes of others. But Gates is also the
world's richest man. Even without his connection to Microsoft, his influence
on the US government is almost certainly more than that of the million poorest
voters in the USA. The exercise of his individual vote in elections will not
change that. So why should he have the right to vote anyway? Since they
effectively vote through their wealth anyway, why should any rich person have
the vote?
The reality is that the rich have a double, and more than double, vote. That
applies to several categories within the population. Depriving them of the
vote goes some way to correcting this structural injustice in western
democracies. Voting and candidacy rights could be removed from such categories as:
- persons with personal wealth above a fixed limit: in the EU
approximately 100 000 Euro would be appropriate.
- persons with high personal income: in the EU above approximately 50 000
Euro per annum.
- entrepreneurs, since the organisations of entrepreneurs already exercise
a disproportionate influence on governments. The exclusion should cover not
just the typical individual entrepreneurs such as Bill Gates or Richard
Branson, but also the more anonymous executive managers who run most
enterprises.
- influential intellectual and media figures
- advisors to the government, who exercise influence on government policy
through their work anyway. This should include the policy staff of influential
think-tanks.
This may seem a broad range, but it would probably be less than 5% of the
population in EU member states. Limiting the right to vote can only be a first
step in rolling back democracy.
The next step would be to restrict political pluralism. Freedom to form
political parties, and their freedom to operate, features on all the checklist
definitions of democracy. The conservative effects of democracy can be reduced
by prohibiting some categories of political organisations:
- conservative parties, including associated conservative think-tanks and
lobby organisations. In the USA it is easier to find organisations which
openly describe themselves as "conservative": the Heritage Foundation database
lists over 300 of them. In Europe, conservatives are more likely to hide
behind another descriptive label.
- religious parties, which seek to impose the principles of a religion on
those who are not its adherents. This would include all the European
christian-democratic parties. (Religious parties with a protective role, for
their own members only, would not be covered by this prohibition)
The next step could be to exempt certain types of decision from the democratic
process. A large-scale example of the defects of democracy is the proposed
European high-speed rail network. Official proposals for a network were first
made in the 1970's, yet since then not even planned national networks have
been completed. The projects failed, not in this case because of opposition to
construction, but because there was no enthusiasm to start construction
anyway. Why should any innovation simply be abandoned, simply because there is
insufficient "will of the people"?
Categories of decisions which could be exempted from the democratic process include:
- infrastructure planning
- the construction of specific infrastructure projects (a measure against NIMBY-ism)
- spatial planning in general, including demographic and regional planning
- immigration: the most urgent demographic planning issue in Europe is the
European demographic collapse which will affect most of the continent within a
generation. Estimates of replacement migration run as high as 700 million over
50 years - but an aircraft with 70 asylum seekers can already produce an
electoral backlash, in some EU countries. 'The People' can not be trusted with
the immigration issue, because the manifestation of 'the people' on this issue
is without exception a racist populism.
- redistribution of wealth and housing
- transfer taxes to fund the development of eastern Europe and Africa.
- reform of local government units: although it does not get as much
publicity as other forms of NIMBY-ism, electoral opposition prevents
systematic reform of the units of local government.
A more specific type of exemption relates to basic values. Although
politicians often talk of 'national values' or 'our values', they are rarely
listed in the constitution. The German Constitution is a notable exception: it
opens with a deliberate choice of national fundamental value:
Artikel 1 - Würde des Menschen
Die Würde des Menschen ist unantastbar. Sie zu achten und zu schützen ist
Verpflichtung aller staatlichen Gewalt.
http://www.bundestag.de/gesetze/gg/gg_1.htm
Article 1 [Human Dignity]
Human dignity is inviolable. To respect and protect it is the duty of all
state authority.
http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/gm00000_.html
The constitution of a state could list all its fundamental values, or value
hierarchy - deliberately removing them from the political arena. For instance
it could place equality above property rights (a classic conflict of values).
Inevitably, this would lead to more pressure for secession: the secessionists
would be able to clearly indicate what values they rejected. The German
Constitution is clearly morally wrong, to choose human dignity as the highest
value: it is an indication that the German nation state can not be legitimate.
On this ground a person can legitimately have objections of conscience to the
existence of the German people, the constituent 'demos' of German democracy.
The political case for secession is then clear.
--
Paul Treanor
http://web.inter.nl.net/users/Paul.Treanor/dem.wrong.html
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|
