In this recent thread, the concept of the state approval vs. popular approval came up. This is something that has been brought up many times, especially regarding Spain and the famous “90% disapproval rating”
So, the question is - does a democratic government have a duty to represent the overwhelming majority of the population, or can they do as they please and answer to them at election time (as in Spain)?
What do you think and why?
And how do you suppose the government should find out what the overwhelming majority of the population believe?
I believe in some kind of extreme democracy where most all decisions from tax to immigration laws are put to a general vote, but until such a time I think democratically elected governments should do as they think is correct since that is what they were elected to do.
I’m not entirely sure.
On one hand, the government can’t bend to simple tyranny of the majority all of the time. However, that is mostly applicable in cases where it involves the minority being oppressed in some way.
On the other hand, I feel that election to public office is not carte blanche to do anything they want. While an elected official, they REPRESENT the people who elected them. It is their duty to watch out for their best interests, and, I feel, speak for them.
In simple cases where it is a matter of just differing opinions split down the middle, the elected official should stick to hit campaign platform. But when you have a case where 90% of the people are opposed to going to war, I think that going against their opinion and voting for the war is an absurd abuse of the people’s trust.
The question then is - is that OK? Such an abuse of position will likely get them unelected (as happened in Spain). Is that justice enough? This raises the question, if you campaign for one side of an issue, and are elected based largely on your position, then turn tail and vote the other way, knowingly sacrifcing your next election but ensuring that your cause gets through, is that OK?
The typical so-called “democratic” state officially consults “the people” once every election cycle, and although the citizenry are usually only given the option of selecting Dingbat A or Dingbat B to make all their political decisions for the next x years, those states generally respect those wishes (certain nonfelon Black voters in the state of Florida, USA may testify about rare exceptions).
I don’t expect elected leaders to be held to the findings of internal or Gallup or Zogby or USAToday polls. Sometimes I have admiration for the politician who does the unpopular but correct thing.
However, I’d like to be consulted more often officially; this isn’t the late 1700s and we have available to us the technology to involve citizens in the decision-making process more often, and I think we should.
Surprisingly (perhaps), I think the initial impact in many countries of doing that would be a swing to the political right — almost certainly in the US. I think that would change over time: given actual responsibility and authority to cast real votes on real issues, I think electorates would be more likely to bother to get informed on the issues of the day, and I happen to believe that at least on social-cultural issues (which mostly have to do with the rights and opportunities for nonconventional people to pursue their interests without majoritarian interference) and foreign-policy issues (which often pit national short-term best interests against global and/or national long-term best interests) the more informed a person is the less right-wingish their political opinion.
So in the short term such an expansion of democratic authority would be steering in a political direction I would not be comfortable with, to the detriment of minorities, unconventional folks, and generally vulnerable/unpopular populations (the old “mob rule mentality” thing), but it’s still the direction to go in the long run.
Too bad the government tries to consult us, only to find out that 60% of us don’t care, and that a large portion of those who do ‘care’ are too superficial to make their votes actually count. The ‘democratic’ state–or our more aptly put ‘republic’–will only work once the people take a vested interest in their welfares. Every time an American doesn’t vote, he gives us his right to elicit change for the right to cope.
I agree with this statement, but only because the political right defends everything comfortable for the American populace.
The obligations of the President of the United States are to faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That’s cheery, thanks.
Didn’t say US
I love how his obligation is to do his office. That’s somewhat circular.
If they are to represent, then by definition they have that responsibility, else they do not deserve the title. If they are to rule, then they do not owe us allegiance, and strangely can call themselves anything they want. In a semi-recent debate (I do not recall the context, unfortunately) I received a lot of opinions that representatives aren’t supposed to represent, they’re supposed to “lead”, nebulous term that that is. Our noble elected are held responsible for their decisions once every n years, depending on position and country. But they perform their duties daily. If politics is such a murky business that the electorate must hire full-time employees, one can hardly think that these people have any time to actually know what people think. So they then simply do what they think is right. Of course, what is right might be holding themselves accountable to the people, responsible for their welfare; or, what might be right is pushing single agendas around until something sticks; or, what might be right is purely selfish gain from lobby groups, a little quid pro quo. In an election process, the electorate comprimise their goals, and the elected compromise their ethics. Democracy is an ugly business; when you make everyone accountable, you can find no one to blame.
No one is responsible to anyone. A king chosen through aquatic rituals might be charged by God to serve; an elected official is given implicit permission to advance anything he believes, even if she is aware that a great portion of her voters might disagree on an issue.
Entropy at Work:
No argument there, but I think this is true, to a large extent, because people are given reason to think their opinion doesn’t count for much (and it doesn’t). If your opinion is seldom given opportunity to have any meaningful impact, why go to the trouble of informing yourself sufficiently to fashion one of any depth, or question and re-evaluate the one you hold? It’s not like it’s ever gonna make much difference! (Not that I’m agreeing with that sentiment but I comprehend it).
Give people more input, and yeah, some folks will continue to give a scant shit (which is also true of more than a couple of our elected professional politicos, btw) but I like to hope that a great many will gradually pay closer attention to the news and read up on things and talk about matters up for impending vote around the office water-cooler along with the chances of the Red Socks or who Jennifer Lopez is dating now or whatever.
I fully accept that it’s impossible for governments to follow public whim on every decision they take - hell, that’s why we have representatives, to make spend their whole time making decisions which we are too busy to understand fully.
However, BIG decisions are an exception. Obviously, referendums can be called in some circumstances - but not in the one that the OP was indirectly refering to, the decision to go to war alongside the US. However, in this case, governments made that decision against huge, vocal protest (a seven-continent protest on a single day, including the biggest-ever peacetime march in Britain). It was an exceptional situation, and the decision to ignore such vocal opposition from a truly representative cross-section of the population was astonishing arrogance. Nonetheless, that aint surprising in the case of Blair - the rewards given to him by our outdated election systems had given him a sense of invulnerability. But that’s another debate 
No, it isn’t. It’s the oath he is constitutionally required to take, and is therefore his actual responsibility. And if you were disqualifying the President of the United States as the “leader of a democratic state” you should have said so.
Shall we also include elected clerks of court and dog catchers as “leaders of a democratic state”?
Yeah, so his job is to do his job? How is the oath NOT circular?
If dog-catchers make governmental decisions, then yes. :dubious:
I said, as you cite below, “leaders.” I believe that specifically refers to multiple persons, not a single figurehead. But then, I’m not you, so…
Dunno, how do you define “leaders”? I don’t include dog catchers as community leaders, though you may have a more pro-canine position. It may indeed include elected clerks, as they make decisions every day between their point of view and the public’s.
If you want to sit here and argue word usage for hours, talk to a wall.
And it so happened that I covered one of them. Was I obligated to cover hundreds?
I had thought that after our camaraderie in the space cadet thread that my views might be welcomed by you. I regret my error and will leave you and your thread alone.
No, but focusing on one specifically when we are speaking of leaders in general is not conducive to the discussion. One could easily mention Saddam as an elected leader.
Sorry, I argue issues, not people. PLease understand, I hold nothing against you personally, and I’ll take each issue as it comes. And I think we hit a snag in our summer of love in the other thread anyway, since I just cussed out America’s corporate thinking and incapability to develop effective new technologies.
In any case, I’m in an irritable mood, so if I crossed a line, I’m sorry.
No, the leaders of a democratic state do not have any such responsibility. It is the responsibility of the people of a democratic state to chuck them out on thier ass if they fail to do so. Forthwith, toot sweet, and damn skippy.
Then am I weird for thinking, if I was an elected official, and 90% of the people who elected me were against a war, that I shouldn’t vote for it? Is that bad in some way? Being a “tool of the polls”?
Eh, it’s more like our ‘democracy’ is caught in a DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF DOOM. People don’t care, and so politicians give them shit as a position. When politicians give the same, perfunctory line year after year, nobody–especially new voters–is educated about the political process. As a result, the quality of the votes is diluted more and more.