[pp.int.general] 3. Re: One good, one bad (Jerry Weyer)

[Ole Husgaard]

Hehe, nice that Erik Ernst got some reaction on his slightly provocative
viewpoint about democracy.

I have had long discussions with him about the subject. And while I do
not agree fully with him, I think he has a point when he says that
democracy can evolve into some kind of dictatorship of the majority.
While I had to agree on that, Erik has been unable to propose anything
better for large assemblies (for small assemblies I also think consensus
is better than majority rule).

Jerry Weyer skrev:
> On 3 nov. 09, at 21:40, erik ernst wrote:
>> , because free citizens refuse to sign a contract they do not
>> understand.
> Doesn't mean it's bad. We don't understand 90% of the regulation of
> the EU, nor of our own national parliaments.

The people have to be able to understand the law. If the law cannot
easily be understood by the people, we have a problem. How can we
require that people respect something they do not understand?

>> , and Im slightly worried about the enthusiasm of the word
>> "democracy". The concept of democracy is used to justify just about
>> anything its humanly possible to concieve, but the actual meaning is:
>> Rule by the majority of the people". If we are to claim that the Eu
>> is an democratic institustion, is it then too much to ask, that we
>> actually act accordingly? Agreeing to this new contract, without
>> asking the citizens of EU, is not an act in defense of democracy, but
>> quite the opposite.
> As I said, the procedure can be more democratic. But we shouldn't
> forget that the people signing are still elected! We should worry more
> about people voting for the same people over and over again. With the
> new treaty the EU Parliament plays a bigger role making the procedure
> more democratic. Even if you might not like it, it's practically
> impossible, not even desirable that "we the people" are asked about
> everything. I don't see how to organize the EU other than in a democracy.
The procedure has been directly anti-democratic: The constitution was
voted down in two countries, and then referendums in other countries
were cancelled. Then the constitution was amended to make it harder to
require national referendums. Only Ireland still had to vote, and when
they voted no, there was a minimal change, and another vote on
essentially the same treaty was called.

Best Regards,

Ole Husgaard.