The problem with our representative democracy
A meaningful democratic order requires the elected government to have regard to what mandates it has received and has not received, and generally, to act according to the wishes of the electorate (us dudes out here ). The duty of an elected government is to conduct the affairs of the state in accordance with what public opinion perceives to be in the best interests of the nation. The elected representatives are therefore supposed to be responsive to the opinions of those who elected them.
In recent times these principles have been subverted by governments pursuing regulationist and vaguely socialist programs. The corporatist strategy of these governments is to make their policies work by making deals with powerful interest groups such as trade unions and big business and special interest groups such as environmentalists, feminists and peace groups. This is the basic strategy of "government by consensus". On questions of policy vitally affecting the public, the current government has repeatedly chosen not to consult with the electorate as a whole but with groups which, despite their power and influence, fail to represent the views of the vast majority of us. The government has thereby set up alternative consultative processes which circumvent the traditional institutions of democratic government.
Economic policy today is effectively determined by a process of trade off between big unions, big business and the big government. What passes for consensus are deals which accommodate the special interests of union bosses, big economic conglomerates, the ideological goals of the government and specially favored pressure groups (eg environmentalists, feminists, the education lobby, peace groups, the arts lobby, the multiculturalists, the gay rights movement and well-backed activists). The public is led to believe that decisions are made by public consensus whereas the truth is that they only reflect the interests of the powerful and the influential.
It is not difficult to understand why these powerful groups readily cooperate. The government for its part cannot hope to obtain popular endorsement for most of its policies. It must therefore seek to create alternative mechanisms which are ostensibly pluralistic but in fact take no account of public opinion. The unions provide this support. The latter not only share most of the government's policy objectives but stand to gain tremendous concessions at the expense of the public.
Big businesses on the other hand, are sometimes less willing partners, forced to co-operate in this process for the purpose of survival. In return for their acquiescence, they expect patronage and protection for their interests. The unfortunate aspect is that the interests of big business seldom coincide with those of the smaller entrepreneurs, farmers, the general public and the economy as a whole. The concurrence or silence of big business participants tends to foreclose further debate on economic issues by those representing the private sector interests.
It is clear that corporatism consists of an unequal bargaining process in which the economic and ideological interests of socialist governments and unions predominate. It is a masterful political strategy for imposing minority views on the majority under the guise of pluralism. It has substantially eroded the principles of democratic government which require the government to be responsible to Legislative Branch and house and senate to be responsible to the electorate.
The threat to representative democracy which arises from this type of corporatism is that the process, when institutionalized, can displace the principle of government according to popular wishes. The pursuit of this strategy has been so successful that it is almost presumed that once a deal has been struck between these powerful groups, it is no longer open to question.
Democracies everywhere are in danger of being hijacked by bureaucracies and special interest pressure groups. Public accountability is giving way to government by coercive deals. Political power has shifted from the populace to the powerful organizations. The inevitable victors will be the coalitions which seek to control society for their ideological or parochial ends or my name aint Nathan Arizona!
In recent times these principles have been subverted by governments pursuing regulationist and vaguely socialist programs. The corporatist strategy of these governments is to make their policies work by making deals with powerful interest groups such as trade unions and big business and special interest groups such as environmentalists, feminists and peace groups. This is the basic strategy of "government by consensus". On questions of policy vitally affecting the public, the current government has repeatedly chosen not to consult with the electorate as a whole but with groups which, despite their power and influence, fail to represent the views of the vast majority of us. The government has thereby set up alternative consultative processes which circumvent the traditional institutions of democratic government.
Economic policy today is effectively determined by a process of trade off between big unions, big business and the big government. What passes for consensus are deals which accommodate the special interests of union bosses, big economic conglomerates, the ideological goals of the government and specially favored pressure groups (eg environmentalists, feminists, the education lobby, peace groups, the arts lobby, the multiculturalists, the gay rights movement and well-backed activists). The public is led to believe that decisions are made by public consensus whereas the truth is that they only reflect the interests of the powerful and the influential.
It is not difficult to understand why these powerful groups readily cooperate. The government for its part cannot hope to obtain popular endorsement for most of its policies. It must therefore seek to create alternative mechanisms which are ostensibly pluralistic but in fact take no account of public opinion. The unions provide this support. The latter not only share most of the government's policy objectives but stand to gain tremendous concessions at the expense of the public.
Big businesses on the other hand, are sometimes less willing partners, forced to co-operate in this process for the purpose of survival. In return for their acquiescence, they expect patronage and protection for their interests. The unfortunate aspect is that the interests of big business seldom coincide with those of the smaller entrepreneurs, farmers, the general public and the economy as a whole. The concurrence or silence of big business participants tends to foreclose further debate on economic issues by those representing the private sector interests.
It is clear that corporatism consists of an unequal bargaining process in which the economic and ideological interests of socialist governments and unions predominate. It is a masterful political strategy for imposing minority views on the majority under the guise of pluralism. It has substantially eroded the principles of democratic government which require the government to be responsible to Legislative Branch and house and senate to be responsible to the electorate.
The threat to representative democracy which arises from this type of corporatism is that the process, when institutionalized, can displace the principle of government according to popular wishes. The pursuit of this strategy has been so successful that it is almost presumed that once a deal has been struck between these powerful groups, it is no longer open to question.
Democracies everywhere are in danger of being hijacked by bureaucracies and special interest pressure groups. Public accountability is giving way to government by coercive deals. Political power has shifted from the populace to the powerful organizations. The inevitable victors will be the coalitions which seek to control society for their ideological or parochial ends or my name aint Nathan Arizona!
posted by Rev. Dr. Eric Z. Willman at 4:22 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home