Democracy in Action in the Birthplace of Democracy!

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Greek surprise sends shock waves through markets

From the article:

Stock markets in the United States and Europe dropped dramatically Tuesday after Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou stunned the world by calling a national referendum on international aid for his country.

The referendum could theoretically force Greece to crash out of the euro and send shock waves through the global financial system.

Papandreou is seeking public backing for the bail-out deal, which took months to hammer out. The deal would see the country's sky-high debts cut in half, but it comes with strings attached which have led to angry demonstrations in the streets of Greece.

Yes, folks, that's democracy in action! We've been seeing calls for this sort of thing here in America for a few years now, mostly (it seems) at the local level, as various small-town politicians try to enact laws that would require, for instance, all tax increases to be approved by a popular vote, the idea being that it's not right to subject citizens to tax increases/other laws that they did not personally vote for (or, at least, that a majority of them did), especially at the hands of those big bad evil city-types who hate Middle America. And, sure, it sounds great in theory, because that's the whole point of democracy, right?

In practice, however, I don't think it's really reasonable, and defeats the whole purpose of representative government. We elect people to govern us; if we don't like what they've done, we elect someone else the next time. That's how it's always worked. The mechanisms of republican government have, by and large, worked out fairly well. The idea of subjecting every piece of legislation to a popular vote is, frankly, ludicrous, as are recall elections instigated over policy disagreements. This sort of popular democracy might have worked in classical Athens, which had maybe 25,000 voting citizens at its peak, who made up less than 10% of the total population. It wouldn't really be workable in modern Western democracies with voting populations in the tens of millions. Americans have a very dim view of Congress now, due in large part to the giant clusterfuck of bilateral gridlock that has developed over the past quarter-century. These people sit in their comfy taxpayer-provided offices, eating caviar and drinking champagne on their enviable taxpayer-provided salaries, and basically make strident speeches and accuse their opponents of obstructionism, but actually get very little done. (Now, of course that's an oversimplification....)

Can you imagine what it would be like if every major policy decision was subjected to popular approval? Think, especially, of international relations. Should we subject treaties to popular votes? How about international financial bailouts? Military actions? Peacekeeping missions? Where to send aid? Nothing would ever get done, or, perhaps worse, international relations would be conducted at the whim of popular majorities, a group not exactly known for making consistently good decisions.

Now, a reasonable argument can be made for subjecting the really big items to popular votes, things such as the EU Constitution, or nationwide austerity measures such as in Greece right now, but where is the line drawn? Certain local politicians in my old hometown want all measures that deal even remotely with taxes to be given popular referendums; others want all legislation to be so approved.

So, what do y'all think? Democracy at its best, or mob-mentality at its worst? Something in between?

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I think the American model mostly works. We've kind of gotten away from the true representation as the federal government has consolidated more power, but the idea that the power lies more locally and that the federal government has to work really hard if they want to get something done is a good, albeit imperfect option.

The American model, however, is what makes a national referendum so unworkable here - we have no mechanism for a popular national anything - even our Presidential elections really only happen in a statewide bubble. Not quite the same in smaller nations that do not value state/provincial sovereignty the same way we do.

The problem with direct democracy is less mob rule and more energized rule. Those who get the most votes out win the entire thing regardless of the feelings of the rest. In a representative situation, at least in theory, the representative's constitutency is his/her whole geographical footprint, not merely those who voted for them.

[unnamed525.livejournal.com]

The reason why we've gotten away from "true representation" in the federal government, and at a lot of local levels, is because of the ridiculously low ratio between population and number of representatives. We need at least 10 times as many members of the House of Representatives as we currently have; this would make it almost, if not entirely, impossible to lobby the House of Representatives, just from the sheer numbers of individuals you'd have to buy to ensure legislation turns out the way desired. Of course, we couldn't have 5000+ Representatives sitting in a single building (unless, of course, it was the size of a stadium), but we have the technology required to have each of them have an office in their home district, and debate and vote online.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Trust me, you don't actually want that. I'm from New Hampshire, which has one of the "best" (by your measure) representative-to-population ratios in the world. All it does is leave us with crazies like a friend's mom who, upon being elected, changed her affiliation from Republican to Christian, and started trying to get us to secede from the Union so we could have prayer in schools. She got re-elected, because there are too many districts for any one to matter. She never actually did anything for her reps.

If you want better representation, you don't need more reps, you need less centralized power. Town halls are generally relatively well-attended, and tend to present the actual interests of those who want to be represented. But that's because the town council is actually powerful in its own right, whereas if you're one representative in five hundred (or five thousand), you've got no real power, and thus can't do anything for your constituents.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The reason why we've gotten away from "true representation" in the federal government, and at a lot of local levels, is because of the ridiculously low ratio between population and number of representatives.

I don't agree for two reasons:

1) The districts, geographically, are gerrymandered almost beyond repair in most areas. The system works toward trying to protect seats as opposed to actual proportional representation. Mandated majority/minority districts don't help matters, either - a worthwhile idea that merely makes the situation that much more untenable.

2) The Houses of Congress were designed to serve two groups - the people and the states. With the advent of popular elections of Senators, Congress has become less representative of the nation on a whole. Instead of representatives in a state appointing a Senator through the republican process, it simply becomes yet another popular vote.

this would make it almost, if not entirely, impossible to lobby the House of Representatives

Which is something we don't want - it's difficult enough to use one's protected right to petition the government without making it completely impossible by making the governmental representation so large as to be unwieldy.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

We do have direct democracies in certain US states. The problem is those states just like Greece voted not to tax anything and then started having economic problems.

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

those states just like Greece voted not to tax anything and then started having economic problems.

as opposed to those other states that tax everything that moves and have economic problems?

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

Not necessarily. New Hampshire (yes, I love my state, what about it?) has pretty active, and fiscally responsible, towns whose budgets and taxes are run by direct democracy.

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Substitute party for "man". Forced will from the top down will be demanded to make things "work".

We used to have popular national voting for economic decisions. Had them all the way down to the smallest locality. We called it a free market.

(frozen) (no subject)

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

And then the free market produced the JP Morgans and Rockefellers and Vanderbilts who re-established control from above what was attempted from below. Of course this is a tract that compares a mixed-economy to a feudal method of securing agricultural labor, so hey, it's not like your plagiarism here is all that convincing anyway.

(frozen) (no subject)

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

+1

(frozen) (no subject)

[mrbogey.livejournal.com]

Plagiarism?

You foul cur. How dare you.

(frozen) (no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

So, you don't understand the tract, and you don't know what plagiarism is either. Wonderful.

[montecristo.livejournal.com]

Someone froze the comments thread? It would be good if whoever took it upon themselves to do that would at least add a comment of their own to the thread explaining their reason for doing so. Now underlankers will never get to hear how wrong he is about which came first, the chicken of a powerful, meddling government with favors to sell, or big corporations with money to buy those favors.

[blue-mangos.livejournal.com]

I was actually thinking of posting something comparing the Greek protests with OWS. The major difference is that the protesters in Greece have the majority of public support behind them. The woman who ran the breakfast room in our hotel told me if we went by the Parliament buildings to 'pick up a rock and throw it at them'. The protest we saw on the 19th (that turned to a riot later that day) had people lining the streets applauding as if it were a parade.

The Greek protesters also have something OWS does not. Power. The signs we saw for the protest on the 19th read something about locking down the city. And they did. Very little was open that day, only the odd restaurant and for some reason the many hardware stores scattered everywhere. Even the kiosks where you could buy beer and cigarettes and candy were closed for the day.

So, entirely different political mood. Beyond that, the government there have nothing left to lose. They are losing massive amounts of money each day due to historical sites being shut down and clean up from the riots. To do anything different would just ramp up the protests and riots. I don't see the US ever being in a similar situation.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

The Greek protesters also appear, at least on the surface, to understand who to blame.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

So, what do y'all think? Democracy at its best, or mob-mentality at its worst? Something in between?

^Yes.

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Papandreou is really only bying time and maybe some support through populist moves. His country has no options at this point, and it if doesn't roll up the sleeves and start working, it's toast. Regardless of whether there'll be a referendum or not, and what its result will be. The Greeks need to step back on the ground, and time is not in their favor.

thank you sir, may i have another...

[debergerac.livejournal.com]

it's time for the greeks to bend over, grip their ankles, and take their medicine. so to speak.

We are so f***ed.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Good thing this doesn't happen til January. Gives me time to get my ducks in a row.

[dwer.livejournal.com]

what you get with this is california, a state that votes to increase benefits, but never taxes -- and ends up in bankruptcy.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Never taxes?

[harry-beast.livejournal.com]

I think it would be great if the political and social elites of the world could be counted on to manage the affairs of the world, but look at what a hash they have made of it.

Can you imagine what it would be like if every major policy decision was subjected to popular approval?
It would be great! One way to gauge approval is to allow the public access to the details of major policy decisions, including the particulars of the negotiations and the terms, so that the public can judge for itself whether the politicians looked out for their interests. Not everything would need a referendum, of course, but allowing this kind of openness would restrain the most egregious excesses.

Should we subject treaties to popular votes?
Why not? Possibly, the government would want to clarify the people's will before entering into negotiations. Treaties should not be signed lightly, and they should take people's preferences into account.

How about international financial bailouts?
If it's paid out of the politicians' personal fortunes, then they can do what they want. If it is paid for out of the public purse, the people should have a say.

Military actions?
Going to war is a serious issue. Allowing the people to have say might be a viable alternative to allowing the head of state to run around invading and bombing people at the drop of a hat.

Nothing would ever get done, or, perhaps worse, international relations would be conducted at the whim of popular majorities, a group not exactly known for making consistently good decisions.
It might slow some things down, but maybe government don't need to plunge headlong into every kind of economic, military, social engineering and money spending adventure that catches their fancy.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

It might slow some things down, but maybe government don't need to plunge headlong into every kind of economic, military, social engineering and money spending adventure that catches their fancy.

Oh great. Anything to add another level of bureaucracy. We would be spending even more time organizing referendums where nobody but the radicals show up to vote.

Allowing the people to have say might be a viable alternative to allowing the head of state to run around invading and bombing people at the drop of a hat.

And in case of invasion, we would take it to a committee and possibly have a bake sale to pay for it?

These are all nice fantasies, but the government has been set up with priorities. Like it or not, it is pretty much set up the way it was supposed to work. It may not be perfect, but what is? We don't need to sabotage it all on a badly thought out whim.

[mikeyxw.livejournal.com]

"So, what do y'all think? Democracy at its best, or mob-mentality at its worst? Something in between?"

Hm, those to whom the Greeks owe a bunch of money, more than they can repay, are willing to cut a bunch of their debt and loan them a lot more money at incredibly generous terms. The Greek answer is a referendum that, if it fails, will see Greece refuse to take the money it needs to keep its government functioning.

I would certainly not call this democracy at its best if this referendum fails. I certainly do hope Papandreou knows what he is doing, otherwise Greece is about to become a third world country.