This page represents only my own views, and not those of any university or other body.
Posted Tuesday 15th November 2011 at 8.04pm
An underrated skill
From Lambchop's - underrated - Is a Woman.
Several interesting things happened today, at least two of which I can't, or won't, talk about here. This article from the Guardian will have to do instead. It seems to be proposing that "direct democracy" - in terms of more regular referenda - is a fix for some of the ills of present governmental practice. It then raises, itself, the main problem with this proposal. I am taking this quote out of context, but "it would be prejudicial against the interests of minorities".
I was involved in an argument about this once. Clare College, my college in Cambridge, had - like most colleges and universities - a group of students who were elected to take care of things like welfare, entertainment, and housing, and to sit on college and university committees. At some point the possibility of banning smoking in the bar and common room was raised. This was before (but not too long before) the ban on smoking in all workplaces was introduced in the UK, and it caused a fair stink. The elected group of students therefore decided that we should have a referendum across the student body to decide whether smoking should be banned in the bar. To me, this seemed like a cop-out. Everyone knew the referendum would show that most people supported a ban on smoking. Probably 90% of people in the college didn't smoke.
Was it the right decision to ban smoking in the bar? Yes, I think so. Was it the right decision to hold a referendum on this decision? No, I don't think so. Not only was it a waste of everyone's time, but the smokers were a minority group who stood no chance of having their views - no matter how strongly felt - taken into consideration by the process. One of the main points of having a government (in this case the student committee) is that they can take into account less widely held, but strongly felt, views and come to a reasonable decision for the good of the whole population.
Now the context for the quote from earlier: "the particular minority that was had in mind here being the rich". That is, electing a government helps minority groups have a say; the rich are a minority group and they are having too much of a say. I agree wholeheartedly, but I don't think regular referenda are a way of preventing this. As we have seen in elections in the UK, and the recent referendum on the alternative vote, money can bias democracy as well as governments. Do I have a way of preventing the rich having too much of a say? No. If I did I'd be shouting it from the rooftops. Some possibilities that might go some way to diluting the effect are stricter controls on political party spending (and funding), pressure on journalists to reveal their sources (and funding) and an independent body to ensure that paid-for media is reasonably neutral. That's not to say that no-one should be allowed to express an opinion, but that the media by which they express that opinion should be obliged to give reasonable coverage to a relevant range of opinions.
Return to blog
Comments
Write a new comment: