Democracy demands participation
By Letter to the Editor on April 21, 2021.
Editor:
We experience liberty and freedom as a positive, both public and private. Education for liberty in democracy must be public rather than private. Liberty in public cannot be determined by competition or accumulation, as in wealth. When the market is believed to do the work of democracy, our culture is perverted, and the character of our society is undermined. Liberty is a potential, that must be learned. The effective exercise of rights is based on acceptance of the learning skills of citizenship. Tocqueville declared it the most arduous of apprenticeships. It exists as the core meaning of public schooling in the liberal arts. These are the arts of liberty necessary to the exercise of citizenship in a free democracy. They depend on civic learning, public participation and common consciousness. Max Webber talked about the iron cage of modernity. Today we struggle with a different cage -w more like the African monkey trap. Consisting of an open woven cage containing a nut or desirable treat, where the monkey is only caught by its own unwillingness to let go of the nut it seeks. Is the monkey free or not? All we need do is let go of consumption.
Privatization is more than economic ideology; it distorts understanding of freedom and citizenship. Hannah Arendt was right in arguing that political freedom is experienced by participation in government, rather than struggling against its rules. Privatization makes us less free.
Democracy demands participation. If we are not actively involved in governing our country, we do not believe in and support democracy.
D. Ryane
Lethbridge
-1
Well said. Interestingly, some other democracies beget participation in some interesting ways, i.e.Australia and New Zealand, for example. ‘Australia’ hands out fines to folks who do not vote and they have a ranked ballot form of voting, i.e.ranking candidates and parties by number both, on the same ballot. New Zealand’s democracy has been said to be the best in the world. They do use a form of proportional representation with their elections which gives a more accurate reflection of the vote and each vote weighs more heavily in the percentages. Perhaps, when folks realize that their vote counts more, and that there are more checks and balances from political scandals, etc., it could be incentive to engage, more.
In a true Democracy, there are no political parties, nor are there any “governments” as we know it.
A true Democracy is Direct Democracy. An example of this would be Switzerland. They are the only country in the world to utilize a true Democracy and don’t allow the elite, the politicians, and the corporations to run their country.
In a Canadian Direct Democracy, the provinces would run under Direct Democracy (no political parties) and the Federal government would be abolished. There would however be a Federal “council” of a sort that deals with interprovincial trade and various global relations.
good letter, thanks. so long as as have “leadership” that sows division and insecurity – in a nutshell, fear – our liberty be ever the more withered away in the name of security, or, as our supreme court likes to couch it: as an acceptable limitation upon our rights and freedoms.
so.ab brings up the likes of australia that force people to vote, or be fined. i see that approach as being utterly undemocratic. to force people to endorse what amounts to a forced choice between rubbish is rather orwellian. at its root, it ultimately creates mass legitimacy for a system where not near as may in fact exist. consequently, a forced vote undermines liberty.
i have appreciation for an approach more like that as referenced by seth. meantime, i see great value in destroying my ballot as we continue with an approach that is laden with undemocratic principles and realities:1) highly centralised power structures and elected members whipped by their centralised power structures; 2) first past the post approach that renders one’s vote to be worth less than a vote, that creates majority rule with as little as 38% of the popular vote, and combined with issue 1, leads to what in effect is an oligarchy, which harper demonstrated all too well; 3) parties that are in fact owned by unelected powerful and wealthy entities whose interests do not nearly well enough serve society at large; the ability of wealth to gain the ear of the govt through hiring professional lobbyists; 4) the multitude of former elected members and well placed and highly paid bureaucrats that become lobbyists and well paid monkeys for prominent corps.
Great list Biff! I’ll add one to it 🙂
5) Vote buying. Now if vote buying wasn’t bad enough, they do it with OUR money.
Note that nothing in the list can happen with Direct Democracy.
we are so on the same page with this – thanks for point 5!
Thanks for the rest of the list. I’m going to save it so the next time someone asks me why I despise our political system, I’ll just refer to the list instead of having to think of all the ways.
In the words of the late Robin Williams. Politicians should wear suits like NASCAR drivers so we know who owns them.
Nice!
I’ll be using that one 🙂
!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙂