Is this the Future of Democracy?

marco_polo

Disturbing letter from yesterdays Evening Herald

Crass campaigning

As a 20-year-old voter, the referendum on Lisbon was the first time I had made my mark on a ballot concerning an EU treaty. I voted 'No' because I thought the anti-treaty campaigners were more honest than those advocating a 'Yes' vote.

In particular, and in common with most of my friends, I thought Coir's campaign, especially their posters and YouTube feature were very engaging and convincing.

In what turned into six weeks of crass electioneering from the political parties, anyone who used fresh images and clever marketing was going to be the winner.

I was glad to see that some 65pc of young people voted 'No'. We deserve a better future in Europe.

D JAMES BY EMAIL

http://www.herald.ie/opinion/letters/football-experts-put-the-boot-in-1423379.html

I sure hope that this guy is not your typical 20 year old Irish male voter or this country is heading for a lot of trouble in the future. Whether he voted yes or no is not really important but the stark absense of any informed decision making from the process is very worrying.

Is the future of democracy who has the flashiest youtube video?

molloyjh

I think this is the future marco. We're heading the way of the Americans in so many ways and politics is bound to be one of them. Just look at the Presidential elections there at the moment. Its more like a cross between Big Brother and Pop Idol than a serious political campaign. People want the information fed directly to them instantly. They don't want to have to research it for themselves or try and make up their minds between two opposing sides. The ones with the flashiest most asthetically pleasing marketing wins. Its not about the issues or facts at all really as these can be misrepresented and "proven" easily, or better yet summarised into catchy sound-bytes for the masses.

That mail was just another indicator that we, the Irish people, are heading down that road now.

RDM_83

So when was the golden age of irish voters?What about the people who voted in a guy that had his own private island when the unemployment rate was about 14% was that an informed descision

Scofflaw

RDM_83 wrote: »

So when was the golden age of irish voters?What about the people who voted in a guy that had his own private island when the unemployment rate was about 14% was that an informed descision

Good point (even if the private island is not quite the sunny paradise the phrase conjures up). I don't think there's ever been a 'golden age' where none of the people could be fooled any of the time. It's only a question of what kind of bread and circuses are involved.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

RDM_83 wrote: »

So when was the golden age of irish voters?What about the people who voted in a guy that had his own private island when the unemployment rate was about 14% was that an informed descision

Well it ceertainly isn't now thats for sure.

Maybe I am just a crazy idealist but I feel that people have a duty make some effort to inform themselves properly before voting. Otherwise whats the point?

Kama

Perhaps our lamentations on how poorly informed people are bespeaks a much-increased standard of information than in previous eras? Perhaps we are just now more aware of our ignorances and 'faith-based' voting patterns?

Politics has always been a pretty dirty game; idealism functions best with a healthy dose of realism.

FionnMatthew

Kama wrote: »

Perhaps our lamentations on how poorly informed people are bespeaks a much-increased standard of information than in previous eras?

I don't think so. There've always been critics of the standards of democratic informedness of the electorate.

There's also an argument to be made about the influence Pulitzerian media has had on the role of media organs in democratic processes, and on the convergence between reportage and entertainment, in all forms of media.

Perhaps we are just now more aware of our ignorances and 'faith-based' voting patterns?

But who's the "we"?

I for one wasn't around to see what things were like. I wouldn't wish to pretend that things used to be better. The low tide mark I perceive that we fall short of is the low tide mark indicated by the implied (and mostly esoteric) ideals of democratic government. If democracy is a good idea, it's a good idea for a reason. But most of us don't even know why it's a good idea, and the result is that the form we practice simply isn't a good idea.

Growing up in a Western democracy has always made me feel uneasy. I used to cast around for explanations of the political concepts that were supposed to be our life and blood, and nobody could ever explain them clearly, could ever relate the concrete, systematic ideals behind them. It was never convincing. My primary and secondary education did nothing to rectify this. I came to doubt that there was any substance to it, beyond the unfounded conviction that everyone being involved was automatically a good thing, just because! I came to doubt that there were substantive justifications of any philosophy, that all ideals one might come across were just some thin fabric of self-important hums and haws, with no skeleton, no flesh. It was only when I chose to do what many people cannot afford to do, and what many people look down upon, to study philosophy, that I discovered that it had not been an inappropriate question to ask for consistency, to ask for understanding. That all of these things are to be discovered, for those who know where to look, and that the electorate (and the the people in the executive government, let's not forget about them!) at large, fed on a diet of mediatainment-vetted simplifications and banalizations of what democracy stands for, just doesn't know, and doesn't know it doesn't know, and doesn't care either way, because the truth of one's own ignorance is much harder to deal with than one's ignorance of the truth.

Politics has always been a pretty dirty game; idealism functions best with a healthy dose of realism.

Agreed.

The first step of any idealistic philosophy is a penetrating realist perception. eg: "The world is such, but it ought to be so instead."

************

To the OP: This is the future. It's the past. It's now. But it's not democracy whatever way you look at it. We've never really had democracy. We've had something that allows everyone to get involved to some, but little, consequence, and we've had something that involves much of the perverted rhetoric of liberty, equality, pluralism, etc. What we have now is similar, worse or better than it has been. But let's not bring democracy into it. It doesn't belong.

Kama

I agree, Fionn. My scpeticism is of a 'Golden Age', when we 'had democracy. I regard this position as unfertile and unhelpful, regarding the democratic project as always a work-in-progress, rather than an attainment to be boasted of.

There's also an argument to be made about the influence Pulitzerian media has had on the role of media organs in democratic processes, and on the convergence between reportage and entertainment, in all forms of media.

Unquestionably. With any extension of the franchise, or increase in the span of democratic practice, proceeded coeval attempts to delimit or control it, whether in the age of print: 'Why would I own a newspaper if not to control opinion?', to a more techno-mediated culture of concentrated media ownership and infotainment. Yet I view the very existence of this system of distortion and manipulation as proof of the latent possibilities for democratic expression, the present lack as condition of possibility of greater presence, the perception of shortcomings from the (unrealizable) ideal, as not a cause for hopelessness, but for the opposite.

"The world is such, but it ought to be so instead."

Agreed. The question, and practical-political project, is the how

We've never really had democracy.

Again agreed. I've also never 'had' happiness, or felt absolute joy.

However the small steps towards these ideals, even if perhaps asymptotic, appear to be movement in the right direction.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

i've had happiness and felt absolute joy, you're missing out.

Kama

Don't I knows it >.<
Everytime I seem to grab em briefly, those selfish buggers seem to slip away...

Too many years being a miserable git, pointers welcome ^_^
And heh, I'm happy for you!

nhughes100

Fionn, I think you need to get your head of the books for few minutes. We've never had democracy?? Well your understanding of the word must be different to mine - you know one person one vote, government by the people for the people. The idea that every person of voting age has the exact same power at the ballot box. That different opinions are allowed to be aired, attacked and defended and let the people make up their mind.

Ireland has an excellent democratic system, we have PR, we usually have coalition governments, we have very vocal small parties and most importantly we have referendums. The days of families voting for FF or FG because they always did are coming to an end.

Politics and democracy is the art of the possible, you can't please all the people all of the time but at the same time you can't fool all the people all the time.

Not everyone is interested in politics and who could blame them but most everyone has a sence of whether things are good or bad for them and given an alternative will take it. Look at Labour in 1992 and how they've been very ordinary since, the pd's got decimated in the last election like the Greens will at the next.

But the most beautiful thing about our democracy was the Lisbon referendum, every major party for it yet we showed we were mature enough to make our own minds up and vote no.

Democracy is alive and well in Ireland, give me a viable alternative.

José Alaninho

nhughes100 wrote: »

But the most beautiful thing about our democracy was the Nice referendum, every major party for it yet we showed we were mature enough to make our own minds up and vote no.

Yes, and the powers that be decided our democratic decision wasn't what they wanted to hear, and railroaded a second one through. Yes, we have most of the basic vestiges of democracy in Ireland, it's just that when the government chooses to ignore that democratic right to suit themselves I personally tend to get a little disillusioned with the 'democratic system' in Ireland. Democracy only works when the powerful actually choose to respect the democratic decisions of the people. Hence, there is something fundamentally flawed with Ireland's 'democracy', not at grassroots level, but at the top of the chain.

However, the government appear this time to be at least trying to respect our decision with regards to Lisbon, so we'll hold our breaths in hope and see what happens :rolleyes:

nhughes100

Apologies but that should have read Lisbon not Nice, Yes I posted already on this site that what happened with Nice was not democratic but it looks like the uproar out of Nice 2 will stand us well with Lisbon.

Hitman Actual

nhughes100 wrote: »

Apologies but that should have read Lisbon not Nice, Yes I posted already on this site that what happened with Nice was not democratic but it looks like the uproar out of Nice 2 will stand us well with Lisbon.

I'm genuinely curious to know, what uproar are you talking about?

José Alaninho

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious to know, what uproar are you talking about?

For 'uproar' you should probably read 'a bored and uninterested electorate being browbeaten with the same tripe again and voting yes just to get the politicians off their backs'. Just as bad as uproar...:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

José Alaninho wrote: »

Yes, and the powers that be decided our democratic decision wasn't what they wanted to hear, and railroaded a second one through.

Wait - they railroaded a second decision? We weren't allowed a free vote? News to me. If Nice I was democratic, so was Nice II - they were both free and secret ballots. Just because you feel we should have kept the first one doesn't invalidate the second one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hitman Actual

José Alaninho wrote: »

For 'uproar' you should probably read 'a bored and uninterested electorate being browbeaten with the same tripe again and voting yes just to get the politicians off their backs'. Just as bad as uproar...:rolleyes:

My interpretive skills must be a bit weak at the moment, because I didn't quite take "uproar" to equate to that semi-hysterical line you came out with.

And if I recall the Nice referendums, in Nice II, the public were given assurances and clarifications on neutrality (one of the main issues from the original referendum), which they were obviously happy with.

José Alaninho

Scofflaw wrote: »

ust because you feel we should have kept the first one doesn't invalidate the second one.

So, first time round they didn't get the answer they wanted. Solution: have another referendum! And if Nice II had been a 'no'? Nice III? Nice IV? etc etc.:rolleyes:

The only thing being invalidated here is the democratic decision of the people my friend.

Scofflaw

José Alaninho wrote: »

So, first time round they didn't get the answer they wanted. Solution: have another referendum! And if Nice II had been a 'no'? Nice III? Nice IV? etc etc.:rolleyes:

The only thing being invalidated here is the democratic decision of the people my friend.

In the case of Nice by a further democratic decision. One it appears you consider illegitimate for some inexplicable reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

José Alaninho

lenny_leonard wrote: »

the public were given assurances and clarifications on neutrality (one of the main issues from the original referendum), which they were obviously happy with.

Which are now being undermined by Lisbon. The people weren't happy with that were they? Just one of the many reasons for the No vote winning out.

José Alaninho

Scofflaw wrote: »

In the case of Nice by a further democratic decision. One it appears you consider illegitimate for some inexplicable reason.

cordially,
Scofflaw

It was and remains a case of asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want. If I could demand that they re-draw the lotto on the night until they draw my numbers I would, but I can't now can I? Maybe Cowen could but hey, he's wealthy enough...:p

Hitman Actual

José Alaninho wrote: »

Which are now being undermined by Lisbon.

Undermined how?

José Alaninho wrote: »

The people weren't happy with that were they? Just one of the many reasons for the No vote winning out.

Strange, I don't see any mention of that in the preliminary survey carried out after the referendum. Care to back up your opinion with some facts?

José Alaninho

I heard it time and time again on the doors when campaigning for the No vote, neutrality was a big issue, not only around my area but in many areas around the country where we were campaigning. Talk of 'common defence' and 'battlegroups' and increased military spending in the midst of a recession weren't popular. Of course I don't have a big EU survey to back me up; I can only tell you what I heard from the people themselves.

Lads, I have to be off now but don't worry, we'll continue the debate tomorrow; it's been a pleasure having it out with such well-informed adversaries

Hitman Actual

José Alaninho wrote: »

I heard it time and time again on the doors when campaigning for the No vote, neutrality was a big issue, not only around my area but in many areas around the country where we were campaigning. Talk of 'common defence' and 'battlegroups' and increased military spending in the midst of a recession weren't popular. Of course I don't have a big EU survey to back me up; I can only tell you what I heard from the people themselves.

For some reason I didn't get that you were talking about neutrality (I thought you meant people voted no this time to protest over a second Nice referendum), so in your defense, the survey does point out that 6% of No voters did so because of fears over neutrality. Apologies for that. I personally think those fears were unfounded, but I can understand how some people would think otherwise.

Scofflaw

José Alaninho wrote: »

It was and remains a case of asking the same question over and over until you get the answer you want. If I could demand that they re-draw the lotto on the night until they draw my numbers I would, but I can't now can I? Maybe Cowen could but hey, he's wealthy enough...:p

If the government thinks X is a good idea, it has to put it to the people. If the people say No, the government may still think it's a good idea, and put it to the people again - usually with a couple of modifications, guarantees, or the like. What they can't do is go ahead and do it anyway - that's the democratic, respecting the vote bit. We voted No, and the government therefore cannot ratify the Lisbon Treaty - that's the vote being respected. More than that (no further referendums on the subject, the EU dropping the whole idea) wasn't on the table - all we voted on was our government's ratification.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

José Alaninho wrote: »

Which are now being undermined by Lisbon.

José Alaninho wrote: »

I heard it time and time again on the doors when campaigning for the No vote, neutrality was a big issue, not only around my area but in many areas around the country where we were campaigning. Talk of 'common defence' and 'battlegroups' and increased military spending in the midst of a recession weren't popular.

So what you're saying is that people you spoke to THOUGHT our neutrality was being undermined (when in reality it was not)?

oscarBravo

djpbarry wrote: »

So what you're saying is that people you spoke to THOUGHT our neutrality was being undermined (when in reality it was not)?

I'd also be curious whether or not someone campaigning for a "no" vote set their minds at ease on that score, or played on their fears to help secure the "no" result.

auerillo

oscarBravo wrote: »

I'd also be curious whether or not someone campaigning for a "no" vote set their minds at ease on that score, or played on their fears to help secure the "no" result.

I think playing on fears was pretty evident on both sides of the recent campaign, an dnot just confined to one side or the other.

Indeed, the main argument now for us overturning the result in another referendum seems to be centred around that we should be grateful to the others in the Eu who are all, apparantly, united in horror at our no vote, and on mainland europe, we are told, virtually 100% of the people would be linking arms and singing happy songs as they scamper together towards a brighter and more wonderful future in the EU, only to be scuppered by us naughty naughty No voters.

Both sides were determined to win, and politics is not usually a clean and honest forum. Politics is the art of winning and If anyone really expected the campaigns to be balanced and fair, on either side, then that seems to indicate a lack of reality. If only it were not thus, but that's the way it is.

nhughes100

lenny_leonard wrote: »

I'm genuinely curious to know, what uproar are you talking about?

A lot of people pre-Lisbon were asking the question what's the point in voting no, sure we'll only be given another referendum I myself was absolutely convinced that should Lisbon be rejected that it would only be a matter of time before we'd be asked to vote again with a few assurances that would merely play on words.

The last thing I expected was for senior members of the government to come out days afterwards and say there would be no referendum. This I have to attribute to the second vote on Nice which we were told was absolutely critical to the effective running of the EU, ring a bell??The second vote left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and I think the politicians heard this loud and clear.

In fairness there was a general election in between NiceI+II and the second vote was made an issue so even though I didn't personally agree with it I could see a mandate for it.

Although this is getting slightly off-topic, to get back on I still don't see where the notion that we've never had democracy is coming from. We may have some shortcomings that are a disagreeable but for the most part I think we have a good democracy here that could only be strengthened by a good FF trashing in the next general election.

Hitman Actual

nhughes100 wrote: »

A lot of people pre-Lisbon were asking the question what's the point in voting no, sure we'll only be given another referendum I myself was absolutely convinced that should Lisbon be rejected that it would only be a matter of time before we'd be asked to vote again with a few assurances that would merely play on words.

The last thing I expected was for senior members of the government to come out days afterwards and say there would be no referendum. This I have to attribute to the second vote on Nice which we were told was absolutely critical to the effective running of the EU, ring a bell??The second vote left a very bad taste in a lot of people's mouths and I think the politicians heard this loud and clear.

I don't recall any of this 'uproar' you're talking about, and genuinely haven't seen any evidence of it. If there was such a "bad taste in a lot of people's mouths" at having to vote again, surely they would have voted No in protest? But wasn't the No tally in the mid-30%, or something like that?

oscarBravo

auerillo wrote: »

Indeed, the main argument now for us overturning the result in another referendum seems to be centred around that we should be grateful to the others in the Eu who are all, apparantly, united in horror at our no vote, and on mainland europe, we are told, virtually 100% of the people would be linking arms and singing happy songs as they scamper together towards a brighter and more wonderful future in the EU, only to be scuppered by us naughty naughty No voters.

I'm not sure on what planet that's the main argument, but on the one I live on, the only argument for overturning the result will be a majority "yes" vote in another referendum. The arguments (as I see it) for another referendum are that the percentage of the electorate that - by their own admission - didn't understand what they were voting for is substantially greater than the margin of the result, and that the consequences of failing to ratify were not made apparent prior to the referendum (nor have they yet).