Quote:
Originally Posted by FishlessExistence
I believe in direct, Jacksonian democracy – in such a system an informed voter is important, and yes in some countries there's apathy and ignorance about some issues, but when people have direct control over their government it fosters a spirit of education and people generally become more informed. No decision making on the part of elected officials, just pure uninhibited democracy and lots of campaigning and political activism from the people themselves.
|
I'm not saying I support it, but I often toy with the idea of sort of the opposite of this. Kind of like the old Roman republic, where government offices could only be held by an elite caste. Our current political system often puts people in office who really have no business being there, but a much smaller pool of candidates who have been raised since birth in the ways of governing might actually be a better solution, assuming you could account for the obvious problems inherent with an aristocracy. Some kind of official like a tribune, elected from the common man, would obviously act as a counterbalance. It might not be the prettiest or fairest form of government to sell to people, but if it could work... ?
Again, not saying I support this idea, but it's interesting as a thought experiment at least. Democracy and "the will of the people" are kind of a fetish in the modern Western world, and no matter their merit, people often support the whole philosophy simply because... well, it's democracy, man. It's... you know, like, the thing. The only moral system of government... or whatever. Most people don't even consider for a moment that something less "We the people"-y might actually work better.