Imagine a society in which the whole population is 100% informed about government data, decisions and policies. There is no more spin; there is no more fobbing the public off with excuses (not mentioning any recent examples here); there is no more burial of bad news. Everyone knows what’s going on.
Imagine also a society in which the whole population can actively take part in politics and government. They can put their views directly to politicians and have them taken into account and people are concerned enough about local decisions to actually take such action.
Now imagine a society that is both informed and active in politics. Does it follow that if everyone is informed, then everyone will be able to form a reasoned opinion about what is best either a) for themselves or b) for society as a whole? And if everyone can form such an opinion and can express it to the powers that be, then surely true democracy would prevail.
I think such a notion looks better on paper than it does in practie. There are times when government secrecy is necessary and better for the country as a whole.
Consider the Manhattan Project in WWII. Would it have been better if the whole country, and by extension the Allies enemies, knew of its existence? Would the country, knowing about the Manhattan Project, have made the choice to continue with it? The project was HUGELY expensive and remains (in adjusted dollars) one of the most expensive undertakings the US has ever embarked on. Would the public willingly devote those resources to something they could hardly understand with an uncertain payoff (uncertain if it would even work)? Or would they more likely rather see those resources put into more conventional means that they might view as a more immediate payoff to protect their sons and daughters in the war?
IIRC Franklin Roosevelt wanted in on WWII long before the American public did. Before he could get the US in the war (requiring the attack on Pearl Harbor) Roosevelt was helping the British somewhat more than I think the American public would have agreed to. Would Great Britain have fallen without that early help? I don’t know but certainly it helped them hang-on. I’d wager the public wouldn’t have allowed the level of help that was being given had they known its full extent feeling it might draw the US into a war they didn’t want a part of at the time.
I think individuals are much more likely to be more concerned with immediate self-interest than the broader goal of national interest. I admit that’s a broad generalization that might not always be true but I think the balance is in favor of self-interest. Even if they have national interest at heart I do not think the public is necessarily in the best position to take a longer view and possibly accept short-term losses in the interest of long-term gain. A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, so to speak.
Of course, this sort of understandable secrecy on the part of the government is open to huge abuse and has been abused many times in the past. The US system of checks-and-balances to some extent mitigates this and a free press that seeks to uncover misuse of power likewise helps to penetrate the cloak of secrecy and uncover wrongdoing. It’s not perfect by any means but I’m unsure how else it could reasonably be done that would be better.
Well you do seem to be assuming away the problem a bit. If we knew all that and were reasonable, couldn’t we bargain amongst ourselves without a need for a government?
It depends on what you mean by “true democracy.” If declared suddenly, it would have disastrous results. On the other hand, the very idea of the Manhattan project might not have come about. It depends on when you imagine it starting.
Right now, most people are too busy with their jobs and personal lives to pay attention to politics. Remember: voting is an option, and there are many people who’d rather go to the bar and have a drink than spend a few hours waiting in line to vote.
I’ve thought about this on occassion. The one thing I like is that the masses would have no one to blame. If they make the wrong decision, they’ve just fucked themselves over.
But there are some variables that need to be specified in this situation. Would there be a world government or would national boundaries remain the same?
Also, would there be representatives?
How would people on one part of the globe or country know what the others think?
How would they vote–as one state or by districts? And who would implement the approved policies?
Who would be responsible for explaining each issue? Or does each person have to decide for himself, even though there is not a single person on earth that can make a (what we would currently call) truly informed decision on every issue?
Who would write up the new laws?
Who would decide what new laws come to the table first?
I’d like to be able to trust Joe Bloggs down the road to make intelligent, informed decisions, but I don’t. I actually think he’s pretty thick, as well as being too busy or too disinterested in politics to be informed, and too self-interested in himself and his short-term interests to be of any use in decisions that affect my present and future.
And so the thought of a lot of ignorant, stupid, half-witted Joe Bloggs joining together to make ill-considered judgements that affect my life doesn’t exactly have my heart singing for this New Jerusalem - especially when, currently, half of 'em can’t be bothered to turn up once every five years to put a cross against someone’s name. What hope *more *involvement ?
Not only is that not going to work, but the imperfect system of democracy we do currently practice is under very considerable, and growing, threat. ‘We’, as societies must begin to reign in the power of the non-elected forces that are increasingly affecting our daily lives. Yup, dem nasty corporations and the globalisation thang.
So, far from looking toward a John Lennon utopia, we are actually, IMHO, under very grave threat of losing influence over decisions affecting our lives to these non-elected, self-serving anonymous monoliths.
A lot of states, or maybe all of them, have an initiative process and I wonder what it would be like if there were a Federal one. Of course there would have to be some things a Federal Initiative Process couldn’t touch, like matters of national security for example. But still, I like the idea of Federal ballot measures myself.
I think the whol initiative process is likewise way overrated and looks better on paper than it works in practice. Probably a discussion for another thread but the quick and dirty is the initiative process gets hijacked by special interest groups/corporate entities and doesn’t really seem to provide a ‘greater’ democracy.
True democracy can only last as long as the people do not know that they can vote themselves free money.
I think that was a paraphrased quote from someone important, but I am not sure. I remember reading it somewhere and it leaving an impression on me.
Even in a completely informed society, the majority of the populous isn’t always garunteed to be right. This is especially true of emotionally charged issues or issues with a religious icon or rulebook behind them. Though I don’t particularly like our governments current incarnation, I would say that at least on paper it has done a lot more than most to solve this problem.
Not really relevant to the debate, but being from the UK I must defend the country. The Brits beat the Nazis during the appropriately named Battle of British. This was an airborne battle - the Germans were defeated over the English Channel; they never got to invade. The german planes were detected with British radar and shot down with British planes. We, not the Americans, won the Battle (my WWII knowledge is a little thin though; I may have to stand corrected).
Anyways, back to the debate. Matters of national security should remain secret, for obvious reasons. I wouldn’t propose putting those to the public.
However, the major underlying issues like “shall we go to war with this country?” (again, not mentioning any recent examples here) should be put the public. If the public was truly informed about the reasons underlying such major decisions and the consequences of any possible courses of action, then surely they would be able to reach a rational decision about the best action.
If they voted for the best action for themselves rather than the nation, then when everybody votes, the outcome would be that the majority got what was best for them. Those unaffected (although on major issues, everybody would be) would be able to make an impartial vote.
On the voting system, my personal beliefs dictate “one man, one vote.” I also believe in proportional representation, but of course with decisions about a course of action you can’t do that. You can either take the action or not; the fact that some people disagree can’t be recognised in the end.
The conditions described in the OP could be achieved pretty fully in a small band of hunter/gatherers. In a country the size of the US, it’s an absolute impossibilitiy.
The smaller the community, the more it is practical to have direct democracy. The larger it is, the more impractical. Maybe the oft cited “New England Town Meeting” is close to what the OP had in mind. Again, though, that’s on a very small scale.
Yes, the British essentially won the battle alone. But they had economic and military support from the U.S. (the U.S. shipped food and weapons to Britain).
Open source deadly research! Sort of a Dr Strangelove solution, no? Hey, MAD works!