What is democracy? "The rule of the people." Well, who are the people? This is a tricky question, and because of this ambiguity, we should forget the term all together.
Certainly, ditching Aristotle's terms isn't new. Monarchies have been modernized into dictatorships. Of course, there is a small difference between the two. Monarchies are the archaic things of queens, kings, sultans, emperors, etc. Dictatorships refer to the rule of those who seize by force Republican political office.
So from the ashes of this ancient term, "democracy," must rise the phoenix of a new people's political system. Try omniarchy, the rule of all.
But before we get into that, let's consider today's political system - the "representative democracy," if you will. In this blog, I have mentioned multiple times the polyarchy. Indeed, representative democracy (also Republican form of government) is a polyarchy, the rule of the many. Now, why is it the rule of the many? Well besides de facto disenfranchisement caused by local governments screwing around with ballots and engaging in gerrymandering, there are two other points to keep in mind in terms of our Republic being more like a polyarchy than an omniarchy.
It certainly is not the rule of all. In terms of elections, the majority is king - whether we're talking electoral college stuff or popular elections. But, for argument's sake, let's deal with presidential elections.
We shouldn't forget the disaster that is our two-party system. Not only is it requisite for parties to accumulate a certain number of pre-ballot votes in each state across the nation, the race between the two major parties and any "third" party is a joke. The race comes down to which party can gather the most votes - electoral or popular. The electoral college is not even based on the majority. Though the candidate who wins the majority of a state's electoral vote wins the state, some states have more "electors" than others. Certain states have are more decisive than others.
In this system, there is one element that is by majority and one that is by minority. Certainly, then, the rule by all must be established, right? No. These two procedures are disjointed. The popular proceedings before the general elections - note, only the primaries of one of the two parties are the only ones really ever given any sort of attention - have very little to do with the electoral college elections. Presumably, the majority chooses the parties and their nominees. The electoral college, a rubber stamp for the voters, chooses the winner of the state. It isn't required for the winner of the race to win all the states, but he must win the majority of the electors, still a matter of majority.
Then there's the policymaking procedure, which still nurtures this rule of the many. Proponents for Republican government will tell you that the elected officials are the gateway between the peoples' voice and legislation. They may be gateways for the majority's voice, but not for the minorities. The Kony 2012 campaign shows us the "power of the many." Flooded by mail from IC supporters, the Obama administration in 2009 sent troops into Uganda to aid the Ugandan army. As many political pundits will tell you, this was a terrible idea. And it is for this reason why the minority must play a role in guiding public policy. The American population is pretty much divided into two camps: the political elite and everyone else.
Now, the political elite is not a group of politicians and Party workers as many in the latter camp may presume. The political elite consist of activists, political theorists/writers, professors, and others who understand politics, specifically, American politics and have strong, usually ideological, stances on various political subjects. The writers of the Constitution thought our politicians would be a part of the political elite. If this premise were true, there would be nothing wrong with our Republican government. But, as we've just discussed, the voters do not elect activists and theorists. They elect puppets who do as they are told by the majority.
Certainly, then, the importance of the political elite, the minority in our American population, is only obvious. They are independent thinkers, in the words of Republican democracy - "non-partisan." They believe in laws because they have personal conviction in those laws. However, the Republican way of government undermines this elite, despite their greater understanding of politics.
Consider the referendum initiative in New York City. Who are the ones who submit laws in this form? That's easy: the elite. However, to be successful, the elite must not only gather popular consent - it has to log thousands of signatures - but their bill and petitions must also pass through the watchful eyes of the city clerk and the city council, both of which will actively seek to destroy the bill.
However, policy by popular shouts, working outside of the government structure itself, are heard. In addition to the 2009 deployment of American troops into Uganda, the Bully Bill in New Jersey was essentially the result of an LGBTQ-led popular campaign to petition the government. Note: the LGBTQ is still a member of the political elite. They sought to do pass a policy measure, gained popular support, and followed through. This process has two elements: the few and the many. Thus, this could be an example of the rule of all. But just what number is consider the many? Did the majority of the New Jersey population agree with the law? Certainly not. Indeed, this is not an example of omniarchy.
What is omniarchy? The rule of all. Elections must follow the procedure produced by Robert Dahl. The principles of fairness and intrinsic equality must be followed - that is, everyone who must obey laws must have a say in their creation, and, because "all men are created equal," everyone must have a say in the creation of laws. Now how does everyone have a say in the creation of laws? Simple. There are two elements: the minority and the majority. (Simple addition, the minority plus the majority equals all). The minority, more often than not, the political elite, will write a law. Submit it to a database of some kind. A website connected to the database allows citizens to vote on the laws. The majority of citizens must vote "yea" for the proposal to pass. Ideally, the law becomes active the minute the majority votes yea, but, of course, in our world of power-hungry politicians, the bill would be passed to legislatures for approval. Naturally, the legislatures would erode as people begin to see no need for them.
Many of us, when we say "the people," mean everyone, all. The democracy we call "democracy" today is far from this omniarchy we all seek. So, forget the term democracy. It means nothing. Its sanctity has been lost in the Republican form of government, which so likes to call itself a representative democracy. We all have the right to make our own laws and chose them. We don't need to vote people to serve as obstacles for our passing policy, to serve as obstacles to our omniarchy.
For more information - go to http://lowercased.org/p/
Certainly, ditching Aristotle's terms isn't new. Monarchies have been modernized into dictatorships. Of course, there is a small difference between the two. Monarchies are the archaic things of queens, kings, sultans, emperors, etc. Dictatorships refer to the rule of those who seize by force Republican political office.
So from the ashes of this ancient term, "democracy," must rise the phoenix of a new people's political system. Try omniarchy, the rule of all.
But before we get into that, let's consider today's political system - the "representative democracy," if you will. In this blog, I have mentioned multiple times the polyarchy. Indeed, representative democracy (also Republican form of government) is a polyarchy, the rule of the many. Now, why is it the rule of the many? Well besides de facto disenfranchisement caused by local governments screwing around with ballots and engaging in gerrymandering, there are two other points to keep in mind in terms of our Republic being more like a polyarchy than an omniarchy.
It certainly is not the rule of all. In terms of elections, the majority is king - whether we're talking electoral college stuff or popular elections. But, for argument's sake, let's deal with presidential elections.
We shouldn't forget the disaster that is our two-party system. Not only is it requisite for parties to accumulate a certain number of pre-ballot votes in each state across the nation, the race between the two major parties and any "third" party is a joke. The race comes down to which party can gather the most votes - electoral or popular. The electoral college is not even based on the majority. Though the candidate who wins the majority of a state's electoral vote wins the state, some states have more "electors" than others. Certain states have are more decisive than others.
In this system, there is one element that is by majority and one that is by minority. Certainly, then, the rule by all must be established, right? No. These two procedures are disjointed. The popular proceedings before the general elections - note, only the primaries of one of the two parties are the only ones really ever given any sort of attention - have very little to do with the electoral college elections. Presumably, the majority chooses the parties and their nominees. The electoral college, a rubber stamp for the voters, chooses the winner of the state. It isn't required for the winner of the race to win all the states, but he must win the majority of the electors, still a matter of majority.
Then there's the policymaking procedure, which still nurtures this rule of the many. Proponents for Republican government will tell you that the elected officials are the gateway between the peoples' voice and legislation. They may be gateways for the majority's voice, but not for the minorities. The Kony 2012 campaign shows us the "power of the many." Flooded by mail from IC supporters, the Obama administration in 2009 sent troops into Uganda to aid the Ugandan army. As many political pundits will tell you, this was a terrible idea. And it is for this reason why the minority must play a role in guiding public policy. The American population is pretty much divided into two camps: the political elite and everyone else.
Now, the political elite is not a group of politicians and Party workers as many in the latter camp may presume. The political elite consist of activists, political theorists/writers, professors, and others who understand politics, specifically, American politics and have strong, usually ideological, stances on various political subjects. The writers of the Constitution thought our politicians would be a part of the political elite. If this premise were true, there would be nothing wrong with our Republican government. But, as we've just discussed, the voters do not elect activists and theorists. They elect puppets who do as they are told by the majority.
Certainly, then, the importance of the political elite, the minority in our American population, is only obvious. They are independent thinkers, in the words of Republican democracy - "non-partisan." They believe in laws because they have personal conviction in those laws. However, the Republican way of government undermines this elite, despite their greater understanding of politics.
Consider the referendum initiative in New York City. Who are the ones who submit laws in this form? That's easy: the elite. However, to be successful, the elite must not only gather popular consent - it has to log thousands of signatures - but their bill and petitions must also pass through the watchful eyes of the city clerk and the city council, both of which will actively seek to destroy the bill.
However, policy by popular shouts, working outside of the government structure itself, are heard. In addition to the 2009 deployment of American troops into Uganda, the Bully Bill in New Jersey was essentially the result of an LGBTQ-led popular campaign to petition the government. Note: the LGBTQ is still a member of the political elite. They sought to do pass a policy measure, gained popular support, and followed through. This process has two elements: the few and the many. Thus, this could be an example of the rule of all. But just what number is consider the many? Did the majority of the New Jersey population agree with the law? Certainly not. Indeed, this is not an example of omniarchy.
What is omniarchy? The rule of all. Elections must follow the procedure produced by Robert Dahl. The principles of fairness and intrinsic equality must be followed - that is, everyone who must obey laws must have a say in their creation, and, because "all men are created equal," everyone must have a say in the creation of laws. Now how does everyone have a say in the creation of laws? Simple. There are two elements: the minority and the majority. (Simple addition, the minority plus the majority equals all). The minority, more often than not, the political elite, will write a law. Submit it to a database of some kind. A website connected to the database allows citizens to vote on the laws. The majority of citizens must vote "yea" for the proposal to pass. Ideally, the law becomes active the minute the majority votes yea, but, of course, in our world of power-hungry politicians, the bill would be passed to legislatures for approval. Naturally, the legislatures would erode as people begin to see no need for them.
Many of us, when we say "the people," mean everyone, all. The democracy we call "democracy" today is far from this omniarchy we all seek. So, forget the term democracy. It means nothing. Its sanctity has been lost in the Republican form of government, which so likes to call itself a representative democracy. We all have the right to make our own laws and chose them. We don't need to vote people to serve as obstacles for our passing policy, to serve as obstacles to our omniarchy.
For more information - go to http://lowercased.org/p/
No comments:
Post a Comment