Democracy – who goes where?
The full weirdness of democracy has always shocked me. Then idea that it is obviously the best way to run a country is for there to be are cycicle conertation between the governing classes and the people. A movement when the leaders have to wait with bated breath, so see what their effect has been – how peoplee jding from their own partocualuist outlook have judged the ffect (if ny they have had, and will have) all ways sturch me as an odd system. After all why should th best governement ever be formed by simply the believe of the mjourty of the ople that another group of people would do the same job worse> But that is not the pint really I wish to raise here. Whatever its strenghs and weakenss there was one very interesting and importna featue of democracy – the time delay in governing. That is when people voted they did not vote (alledgely at least for now) but ha tpo face up to the fxct they were electing a governement for a certain period of time ( a period that is fascinatingly decreasing). This always struck me as a fascinating idea 9and the idea that makes our modern democracies so very different from ancient ones, and so very orignal), One got to hoose – but only for at one period of time – and for a certain ime frame
Now this time frame argument can be jusrtifed for two reasons- one good and thither bad.unfortunately it is the bad one that is likely to always be cited. Tbuis argument runs that governing is difficlt and takes time, and will always involve unpopulkar descions. It is therefore oly fair to give a governement a certain time frame to operate it- and through – so that any dunpopular descions can be seen over the test of time to work iout. Unfortunately this argument is wronf on almost every count. Firstly most descions by governement do take considerably longer that four years or so to work out. Real effects are of course as likely to be twenty thriuty years down the line – and theiur is no abritirary boundary one can easily draw. What is more – the actual effect over time of [policy will by its very nature change and muituate – a policies outcomes are very likely to be very different to what was thpoght – and are y no means constant. In effect then every policy is automatically and always alreadsy changed – and watered down through uise, and in use will always be diffeent from what it was. In effect then it cannot be judged by what it is – but what it will become – a becoming that is unforeseen when the policy is drawn up. It therefore feels utterly arbiary to judge the effect of a governement when they have dome things that canot be foressen by them – across a time frame which is constanly emrging. That is – if the role of democracy where really to judge a prty one would either hav t constanly judge the efficacy of pure law before is ws imlied) or wait across all of time to judge the over all effects. Any other move simply makes no real sense. In short the statement a governement is judged by is record in govrnement is simply meaningless. It has no sucj sumplke recors to be judge on. And wanyway an election ought to b about the next few years, and not the past ones, and in this frame is can absolutely no sense to infer from past gories and cock-ups what will then occur.
The point of governement is then never simply governing – and governments cannot b simply lects bcause they somehow goveren well. The emntire process is too opn o luch for than. What then is the point of these cycial elections? Or even more problematically whyt does the process seem to work of well if the stated reasons for that working are so false? The point is not on of chossing the best rulers so much as constructively channelling potentially hostile emotions within a single political system. This point operates of an various levels. Firstly the base line is that one always knows that one can do something about a governement one hates. It one only waits, and persuades enough people to share ones hatred then one can sock it to the sods. But, and this is an iportan but – any antipathy cannot be immediately acted on., One must wait. The importance of this waiting in holding the political system together can hardly be exaggerated. Every governement will then almost alays (well at least for trhee years)have other chances – other posblities to address the hatreds they invoke – while the citizen must run their lives across a period of time within the hatred or love a government inspires. That is- deprived of the ability to immediately act – they must live with the emotions prodiuced, and therefore are forced to actually assess through time the resoinalbenss or not of their feelings. Governement therefore becomes about managing emotion across times_ and it is then this fact that makes democracy quite so strong. The point, one might almost say of a democromacy is that there is a period where politicians can ignore the votrs- or at least risk anagonising them – and that is the p[oint. Everybody shares within the system of power –but for most citizens that sharing is not direct- and they have to live with the consequences – and actively assess through time what they wish to do – what actions they are going eventually to take.
The upshot of this is then comple. I tis certainly not te case that a government always will get another chance. Somethgimes (as was certainly fascinatingly enough the case with the Major governement) the period of time can itself become a provaction. Just by staying in power – by still, in the face of all the hostility being thir, one provokes more angwr – more loathing (something of the same is no doubt at the moement playing against Blair his, although possibly not the labour Parties very presence is provocative). Alternatively a governement might mange to turn feeling around – or at last show that while they are buggers they can exist through the antipathy they produce – and thrive within – riding as it were the very hatred they produce. This was very much the Thatchr [postion of the mid eighties – when if never loved or even liked, peoples very loathing of her seemed to be a good reason to vote for her. The same might well be the case for the labour party (if not Blair),
But all this is then beside the point. What makes a democracy strong was never voting - that is the fact one can change a governement – but rather th waiting to vote – and all the deep challenges this waiting prodiuced within society. It is the knowledge that things might be different – if only we waited that ius effectively the prism within which we capture our lives, and our attitude to govwernment – and by ensuring we all share the same prism – the society is made strong. If you like voting has traditionally been the great act – through which we all capture ourselves within the same prsim.
And now – something is very worrying is happening. The current system works because it is not a direct democracy, that is the point. The prism catoures us within it, because we have to wait – and the waiting itself changes the equation. Waining matters. If one then moves towards a ‘big-brother; system of direct and repeatyed voting ( this is the system of ‘democracy; practised by thew media is ‘reality’ (that is making this the reality ) programmes and opion polls – then the major rule in our democracy will be under threat. What will happen? God only knows – and perhaps only Fgod can save us from such an eventuality. All we do know is what did happenb before when voting existed in this direct for,. It is this democracy that palto and Aristolte (and for that matter Spinoiza) dreaded so much – and thought of as a tyranny absolute an complelet. Have we changed so much that his will not the the case/ That is quite a different question – and a gamble we seem intent of taking. Maybe indeed only God coulkd save us…