When is democracy viable?
As I’ve been reading various books, an idea keeps popping up.
Suddenly radio playlists, MTV, and A&R guys aren’t
the all-powerful gatekeepers anymore. At long last the music industry
is becoming a democracy.
In our governmental systems, we elect representatives to make decisions for us, sending them to Washington to write bills, oppose bills, pass bills, or veto bills. We ideally find candidates who will make similar decisions to those we ourselves would make. We elect them in a process called democracy (unless it’s a presidential election, in which case the popular vote only determines a winner-takes-all vote for the state, allowing the electoral votes to originate from one party or another). In government, a direct legislative rule by the people is as dangerous as a direct legislative rule by any tyrant. In a country where we preach equal treatment of any minority, we cannot have raw majority rule, where fear of the majority silences all those who might oppose it out of fear of rejection, blasphemy, or outright violence.
As I’ve been reading various books, an idea keeps popping up.
Suddenly radio playlists, MTV, and A&R guys aren’t
the all-powerful gatekeepers anymore. At long last the music industry
is becoming a democracy.
In our governmental systems, we elect representatives to make decisions for us, sending them to Washington to write bills, oppose bills, pass bills, or veto bills. We ideally find candidates who will make similar decisions to those we ourselves would make. We elect them in a process called democracy (unless it’s a presidential election, in which case the popular vote only determines a winner-takes-all vote for the state, allowing the electoral votes to originate from one party or another). In government, a direct legislative rule by the people is as dangerous as a direct legislative rule by any tyrant. In a country where we preach equal treatment of any minority, we cannot have raw majority rule, where fear of the majority silences all those who might oppose it out of fear of rejection, blasphemy, or outright violence.
This, of course, leads to problems, as the majority would:
Withdraw from Iraq
“Three in 10 voters favour the war, while 68 per cent oppose it. ”
Legalize gay marriage or civil unions
“Most Americans continue to think there should be some legal recognition of gay and lesbian couples, and 30 percent say same-sex couples should be allowed to marry”
Representative government also has many boons, since free trade would now be outlawed under a pure democracy, which of course could mean “Free Trade Agreements,” which are oxymoronic, but the article says these people fear “trade with other nations.” So, what do we do about this? I think keeping a republican form of government is central to our freedoms and the protection of minorites.
While my opinion of a pure democracy determining the law of the land, I am convinced that it is viable in many situations, particularly those where the decisions being made by the majority are based solely on the quality of a range of products. One example is art.
Art
Art is produced by an artist in order to promote ideas, encourage thought, make a political statement, inspire people, enjoy oneself, or simply to make a profit. When one observes a piece of art, he/she can generally come to a conclusion about how much they like it. Promotion of art based on a democratic system is perfectly acceptable since the minorities are simply manufacturers of art that most people find unattractive and those who like unattractive art. The result of unpopular art is the encouragement of artists to improve themselves. Yet, minorities can also form when a new type of art is being introduced, the majority still on the bandwagon of the last big thing. The fact that art has eras tells us that most people are not so attached to one era that they cannot begin to enjoy another one equally, therefore not polarizing them like political issues do. You’re either pro-life or pro-choice, but you can enjoy country and reggae music at the same time.
Summary
In essence, when one can only take sides on an issue, pure democracy and referenda are evil and should be avoided. Yet, when one can use democracy to promote things they find attractive – when promotion of any member of the category in question does not polarize the promoter – it is serving its purpose. When a choice by the majority does not prevent the minority from expressing themselves in any way they please, democracy is appropriate. Democratic input is definitely warranted in politics, and should have an influence on the representatives who supposedly study all the facts before making decisions (see the Read the Bills Act), but popular opinion should not have complete influence on decision makers.
