felix qui possit rerum cognoscere causas
|
October 07, 2002
The inevitability of political elites
In my previous scribblings below, I looked at the differences between the US and European systems of democracy, and especially at the gap that exists between electors and elected. The American system keeps the gap smaller than democracy in most European countries. But that is not to say that the American system is perfect, or even working well on an absolute scale. It's doing OK, but the distance between the politicians and voters is still substantial. Washington politicians are an elite, and even newly inducted Congressmen become assimilated by the political machine in DC. And America has its political dynasties too, such as the Kennedys and the Bushes. So obviously, American democracy too has produced an elite. This is inevitable. No matter what implementation of democracy one chooses, the delegates that are sent to act on voters' behalf will be imbued with a sense of importance, which in time grows into the arrogance of power. But a country does need a political class. Somebody has to be President. Somebody has to negotiate on behalf of the country, sign treaties, command its armed forces. Even in a completely direct democracy these people will still have to exist. So the question is not so much whether a political elite will emerge, but how it can be contained so that it remains an approximately good representative of the people as a whole. Keeping political careers short through term limits precludes professional politicians from becoming too entrenched in their jobs, but it is a blunt tool. The main way of keeping the politicians in check is to make them less important, give them fewer things to influence. And above all, put safeguards in check that limit the power they can arrogate. And secondly, to the extent that politicians need to be given power, it should be devolved as close to the local level as possible. The movement to repeal the 17th Amendment is a step in this direction. As technology improves, it will become possible to hold electronic plebiscites with great frequency. That's the topic for the next article in this occasional series. Posted by qsi at October 07, 2002 10:41 PM
Read More on Democracy Comments
I would have thought repeal of the 17th, which would deny voters the power to choose their federal senators and place that power back with state legislatures, would be a further step AWAY from accountability of the government to the electorate, and hence away from democracy. But apart from that, have you considered the role of a totally irresponsible, ranaway Supreme Court that does the dirty work of the elite, which pretends its hands are tied and it's really all about what the Constitution itself commands? All the really important work in the US, for several decades, has been done by the Supremes. I have no idea whether Norway, Sweden, or any European country other than France has a comparable institution so handy for the revolutionary elites to hide behind. So, in that respect, at least, they would be less un-democratic than we are. Posted by: Marcus Tullius Cicero on October 8, 2002 02:44 AMThose are interesting points, but I don't have time right now to address them (there's a plane to catch). I'll go try to address them when I get back. As for the 17th Amendment, the reasoning is that if Senators are elected by state legislatures, they will be much more protective of states' rights. In essennce, the idea is to tie their incentives to those of the states, and to prevent them from being true Federal politicians. I am not sure whether this would work out in practice though, but it's an interesting idea. I agree that the 17th amendment was critical to the expansion of federal power. However, it's also correct that the judicial branch was complicit. They legislated from the bench, and set themselves up as the ultimate power. While the judiciary is the check on the other two branches, there needs to be a better check on the judiciary. Assuming the judiciary starts out full of right protecting constitutional federalists, what if the judiciary would nominate or elect n judges for any vacancies that might come up. The judiciary voters would consist of judges and lawyers (as officers of the court). They would be ordered from 1 to n, according to vote totals. The president and legislature would alternately choose one. In addition, either the legislature or executive could nominate a judge for removal, confirmed by the other body. Posted by: Gunnar on October 8, 2002 11:20 PMI am working with a Group called 'Friends For America' who are trying to repeal the 17th amendment. Post a comment
|