The idea of an uncorrupt government is naive, we would at least need direct democracy to prevent corrupt elitist groups from developing and taking advantage of the system
Direct democracy is still corruptible via propaganda. It’s way more difficult to steal a majority of votes, but if you use some carefully crafted us vs. them narrative, you can steer the public opinion in your favour. Which begs the question then, if public opinion (in this case just a bit over half) is in your favour, has democracy not been achieved?
And if so, is direct democracy not just the current system but with extra steps?
Or are we counting on a “more locks deter opportunists, but don’t prevent the ones truly bent on breaking in” in order to discourage minor acts of corruption hoping it wouldn’t cascade into something bigger?
as a group grows, the issues at hand become more complex, and then the standard citizen no longer has the time to both work and inform himself on the issues of the day to also participate in day-to-day politics in any meaningful way. Just like anything else, over a certain size specialization is required.
In a future with real democracy, the day to day applications of democracy are very much rooted in your local community.
What problems are there? Is the way your work is run inefficient or needs changes? Should your town start or stop doing x?
Things would be much more local focused for the most part. Your decisions would be “person x in charge of y is not doing a good job/ they aren’t doing what they said they would, they should be replaced” etc
Not like we’d really be voting directly on how big the grain quota for the year should be
Rousseau continues to motivate his second premise by providing a second source of instability for democracy. He raises the idea that populations of states are too large for democracies to function, stating that “it is contrary to the natural order that the greater number should govern and the lesser number should be governed. One cannot imagine the people remaining constantly assembled in order to attend to public affairs” (Cahn 341). In a democracy with thousands of people, especially during Rousseau’s time, there was no way to collect everyone into a space to continually vote on topics. Today, technology may exist to facilitate mass voting, but there is still not adequate time for all citizens to educate themselves and holistically cultivate their views on every issue. There is also the issue of the population wanting to remain assembled for legislative purposes. A large portion of the population could be too disinterested in politics or occupied by personal matters for the nation to remain assembled. Rousseau also brings up the point that a democracy “would not know how to establish commissions [to attend to public affairs] without the form of the administration changing” (Cahn 341). In a true democracy, when everyone participates in legislation, it is difficult to restructure the legislative branch, or develop a separate executive branch to enforce laws without altering the structure of the state to the point where it is no longer a true democracy. By creating smaller tribunals for political matters, the population’s participation in politics is reduced, thereby reforming the state into a new mixed system that is not a true democracy.
The idea of an uncorrupt government is naive, we would at least need direct democracy to prevent corrupt elitist groups from developing and taking advantage of the system
Direct democracy is still corruptible via propaganda. It’s way more difficult to steal a majority of votes, but if you use some carefully crafted us vs. them narrative, you can steer the public opinion in your favour. Which begs the question then, if public opinion (in this case just a bit over half) is in your favour, has democracy not been achieved?
And if so, is direct democracy not just the current system but with extra steps?
Or are we counting on a “more locks deter opportunists, but don’t prevent the ones truly bent on breaking in” in order to discourage minor acts of corruption hoping it wouldn’t cascade into something bigger?
I wrote “at least” …
as a group grows, the issues at hand become more complex, and then the standard citizen no longer has the time to both work and inform himself on the issues of the day to also participate in day-to-day politics in any meaningful way. Just like anything else, over a certain size specialization is required.
In a future with real democracy, the day to day applications of democracy are very much rooted in your local community.
What problems are there? Is the way your work is run inefficient or needs changes? Should your town start or stop doing x?
Things would be much more local focused for the most part. Your decisions would be “person x in charge of y is not doing a good job/ they aren’t doing what they said they would, they should be replaced” etc
Not like we’d really be voting directly on how big the grain quota for the year should be
But that is not a true democracy anymore then …
sauce: https://collegiuminstitute.org/blog/rousseau-and-democracy