JimC wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:28 am
Sean Hayden wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:21 am
pErvinalia wrote: ↑Mon Nov 02, 2020 4:15 am
This is an argument for better education, not less democracy.
I don't think it is. In fact, part of the problem with democracy may be that it can contribute to an unhealthy denial of our limits.
When you start to argue that some part of the population is, for whatever reason, not competent to have a say in the affairs of their own community, it becomes a slippery slope of dangerous proportions. Who decides whether citizen X has less rights in decision making than citizen Y?
So rEv's counter is valid, at least in theory. In the meantime, it's better to err on the side of more inclusive participation in decision making than the reverse, even with a certain level of community stupidity. The alternative is the rise of self-serving elites...
How do we validate Tom's competence to decide the best spot to place a stop sign? Tom has an opinion for sure, but does that in itself qualify him to have a say in the decision? Is ignoring Tom's opinion the top of a slippery slope of dangerous proportions? What if Tom has other opinions on traffic management, like where people should and shouldn't be allowed to park, what the speed limit should be, how traffic offences should be processed? Of course, if Tom is informed on the details of the subject, and has the interest of the community at heart, then his opinions might be a useful contribution to the final decision. But what if, even as he claims competence and a community interest, what actually motivates him to make so much noise is the idea that he should be allowed to park where he likes, and shouldn't be subject fines or sanctions if he runs an occasional red light or sometimes does 75 outside the primary school? What if he bands together with others who feel the same way and have the time and resources to lobby members of the planning committee, attend planning meetings, make proposals, and call for votes on their motions? Tom and friends' participation in the process is inclusive, but again, how do we validate his and their competence to have a say; how do we validate that Tom et al's have the interests of the community at heart or simply themselves? What if Tom isn't just a bloke with a bee in his bonnet, but a shill working on behalf of an interested business; what if Tom isn't making noises about traffic management but public health, education or taxation policy? What if Tom is a shill on the planning committee itself? These questions are mostly rhetorical...
"I think that the people of Great Britain have had enough of experts from organisations with acronyms saying that they know what is best and getting it consistently wrong, because these people - these people - are the same ones who got it consistently wrong."
-- Michael Gove, 2016
Not so long ago elected representatives would turn to experts with demonstrable competences and mandate them with a public interest obligation to look at things related to public policy. Politicians would then try and arrive at decisions in the public good on the basis of the evidence available. This was far from perfect, and often controversial, but the principle was straightforward at least and easily challenged on public interest grounds. Today Liberal-minded politicians generally outsource their policy development to thinktanks funded by interested parties and then turn to those same bodies to draft legislation in their own interests. In this arrangement the politician merely acts as a conduit between the interests of those who already have a disproportionate amount of power and the statue book, and they take a commission for that service in the form of party donations and non-executive directorships etc.
The Liberal democratic (not the 'Liberal Democratic' argument) argument is that parties such as businesses are 'stakeholders' in society and so have a right to a say: a right to be included and to participate in the democratic, decision-making process. The reverse face of that argument is that people like experts and academics don't have an interest, a 'stake', in the outcome of, say, tax policy or environmental regulation in the same way a business does, and for that reason their voice is less important, less valid, and their inclusion and participation in decision-making processes are, you know, kind of undemocratic. That's what Gove was articulating when he dismissed reports from academic institutions which cast the Brexitarian claims to the wholly beneficial social and economic consequences of the UK leaving the EU in a less than favourable light.
Anyway. I suppose we could say that if Tom isn't a shill but just a concerned member of society then his contribution to decision-making processes is exercised at election time, where he gets to have a say but nobody gets to actually hear or respond to his ideas and views. And I guess that's fine when the system operates in and for the public good. But when the system doesn't operate in and for the public good then Tom's vote along with his views are largely, or even entirely, irrelevant - and we can multiply that irrelevance by the number of eligible voters.
