Having been a politician, the addiction never goes away. The interest remains even though what you see continually sickens. My intensity of interest may account for the fact that matters which go unnoticed by others cause a ‘fingernails on the blackboard’ reaction in me.
It is, therefore, perhaps my sensitivity to the question that makes it appear to be so prominent and so frequently appearing. What is this irritant under my skin? Many people are wont to exclaim that this country is a republic, not a democracy. The instance of such a proclamation seems always to be a condescending, even sneering, attempt to teach some great but simple truth to a dullard. The teacher reeks of self-satisfaction . He is so much more intelligent and enlightened than his audience. The problem is that they know not what they know not.
Here we find another case of someone pontificating on a subject they really know nothing about, using words of whose meanings they are ignorant.
In a simple bifurcation, there are only two kinds of government: hereditary and non-hereditary. The former is called a monarchy. The later is called a republic. Is this country a republic? Despite the best efforts of the Bushes and the Clintons, we tenuously hold on to the classification of republic.
So that settles it? Why have I bothered to bring up the matter? Well, I’m old enough to recall the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I haven’t checked lately but trust that the People’s Republic of China is still around. So? Surely that doesn’t mean there is no difference between the USSR, China and the Good Ol’ USA. Easy now. Calm down. We still have a little way to go.
We now know the definition of republic. What is the meaning of democracy? Literally, it means rule by the people. Wow. It’s really simple. Well, it’s really not that simple. The Greeks claim to have invented it. But, what they developed may fall a bit short of what we would tend to picture as the ideal to which we should strive. Women couldn’t vote. You may see that as a limitation or not but we still classify them as people. Slaves couldn’t vote.
Our Founding Fathers hewed closely to the Greek model. They didn’t permit women and slaves to vote either. They even forbid the participation of good, upstanding white guys, if they didn’t own enough property. Political leadership has always been creative in defining words and deciding who is worthy.
The basic intent of democracy is to allow people who are effected by decisions of the government to participate in those decisions. That is a noble goal. Noble, but not always practical. It is a given that decisions made by our government have an effect on the lives of people in other countries. Few Americans, regardless of their devotion to the ideals of democracy, are prepared to advocate for the participation of foreign citizens in our elections. See? Somewhat impractical.
Our wise, generous and heroic leaders also make decisions that have a considerable impact on those who are yet to be born (see the national debt). Perhaps you could give the solution to that problem a moment or two of thought. How do we deal with these limitations? We just admit that the ideal is the ideal, the unreachable goal. We accept the real world while venerating the basic impetus. Ideally, as citizens we should take into consideration how our actions effect those unable to participate.
Geography and time are not the only insurmountable hurdles to pure democracy. The Greeks emphasized the part about participation. A citizen could attend any meeting that was going to decide any public issue. That seems obvious but what about trials? You might find a jury of 500 people show up. Can you imagine how many people would have showed up for jury duty in the O.J. Simpson Trial?
Size. That is another major hurdle to full participation. That resulted in a variation calling for representation. We select people to attend all of those meetings and represent our interests. It’s just a way of dealing with the limitations that size imposes. It is still a democratic mechanism. We call it, representative democracy.
It seems that those who would tell us that this is not a democracy are confused. The fact that representative and republic share the initial three letters is too much of a strain for their intellectual capacities. We live in a republic and a democracy, a representative democracy. Across the pond, the British enjoy a monarchy and a democracy. The Chinese labor under a republic and an oligarchy. Zimbabwe is a republic and a dictatorship.
Some of these people who are unacquainted with dictionaries hold prominent positions. Recently, NBC and MSNBC have been touting their coverage of the elections. According to their promotional efforts, we learn that their team of reporters and analysts are devoted to participatory democracy. Listening to the incessantly repeated promos they have broadcast got me to thinking (a rare and dangerous event). What alternatives are there to participatory democracy?
Now you can join me in laughing at the hubris of those who claim that this is a republic, not a democracy, and being frightened by their ignorance.
{ 1 comment }
Very good commentary. I particularly liked, “What alternatives are there to participatory democracy?”
LOL
Comments on this entry are closed.