There’s a famous Churchill quote about democracy that is almost always misquoted:
‘Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…’
To me, the key words that are often left out entirely are: that have been tried.
For the Aztecs in this picture, it may actually be true that their system was the best one they’d tried so far. Maybe ritual sacrifice of a tiny minority was a small price to pay compared to what they’d experienced until then. Representative democracy with voting rights for all citizens over the age of majority might be the best system we’ve tried so far. Kings willing to devolve some power to their barons in the Magna Carta was the best system for England so far.
We shouldn’t stop trying to make things better. Otherwise we’re like these Aztecs.
What i find sad is that almost no democracy has a sane initiative/referendum system. This is important as inhibitor for politicians lying or otherwise doing what they want.
Their referendums have the force of law, but they passed a referendum that violated the terms of a treaty that had been carefully negotiated to allow them some of the benefits of the EU without actually joining it. It put quotas on immigration and residence permits, including from EU states, but their EU treaties forbid that, and if it had gone into effect it would have meant canceling all EU treaties.
Swiss-EU bilateral treaties on single market participation are all co-dependent; if one is terminated, then all are terminated. Consequently, should Switzerland choose unilaterally to cancel the free movement agreement, then all its single market agreements with the EU will lapse unless a compromise is found.
The Swiss government had to, ‘[climb] down from the initial referendum proposals, adopting instead a “light national preference” to implement the referendum’, which technically violated the terms of the referendum, but it was the only way to preserve Switzerland’s treaties with the EU.
It’s extremely likely that at least some of the people voting on the referendum didn’t understand that it would cancel those treaties. The treaties are basically the reason that Switzerland is so rich. They have a lower individual tax rate than the rest of Europe, but they have treaties allowing people to move freely between the countries. That means that bankers, accountants, consultants, etc. from across Europe are housed in Switzerland where they pay low income tax, but are able to work freely throughout Europe. It’s why the main European bases of the tech giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. are in Switzerland, drawing employees from all over Europe to the low-tax haven. So, even though Switzerland’s tax rate is low, these are all very highly paid jobs. So, Switzerland gets 20% of 300k CHF, where France gets 50% of 50k Euros.
They thought they could have their cake and eat it too – get the benefits of all the highly paid foreigners coming in to plow money into their economy while also keeping out the foreigners they wanted to keep out. Only people who actually understand the law (the staffers of the Swiss government) truly understood how insane the referendum was. So, to avoid the chaos of an accidental Swiss Brexit, the government had to basically ignore the results of the referendum and implement something very mild which was allowed within the terms of the treaties.
But, far from learning their lesson, there was yet another referendum just a few years later in 2020 that tried an even more explicit break in the treaties. This time it was voted down.
So, it’s pretty insane to have a referendum that could potentially cancel the treaties that your entire economy is based on, leaving the vote up to people who have little to no understanding of the result of that vote. (Hi Brexit!)
Representative democracy with voting rights for all citizens over the age of majority might be the best system we’ve tried
Where? Closest thing I see is a “Rule of representatives elected by representatives elected by less than half the citizens over the age of majority” thing.
I believe that’s the point being made. “Representative Democracy”, or at least the pretense of which some live under at this time, is the best we (“we” referring to a particular group of people, not humanity as a sum) have found so far.
I get the point. My point is that we’re still far from trying an actual “Representative Democracy” for any largish group of people, and that the Democracy of ancient Greece, with all its glaring flaws, was more Democratic than anything we have right now.
Expression of agreement with the previous comment.
I highly encourage everyone to learn…
My wish is to improve the knowledge of the reader and anyone else…
…about how “democratic” they actually are.
…about the different political systems which get called “democracies” by different countries around the world, and how their practical applications differ from the idealized concept of “democracy”.
There’s a famous Churchill quote about democracy that is almost always misquoted:
To me, the key words that are often left out entirely are: that have been tried.
For the Aztecs in this picture, it may actually be true that their system was the best one they’d tried so far. Maybe ritual sacrifice of a tiny minority was a small price to pay compared to what they’d experienced until then. Representative democracy with voting rights for all citizens over the age of majority might be the best system we’ve tried so far. Kings willing to devolve some power to their barons in the Magna Carta was the best system for England so far.
We shouldn’t stop trying to make things better. Otherwise we’re like these Aztecs.
What i find sad is that almost no democracy has a sane initiative/referendum system. This is important as inhibitor for politicians lying or otherwise doing what they want.
Unfortunately, a lot of initiative / referendum systems are pretty insane. See California or Switzerland.
I’m partially familiar with the Swiss referendum system. In what way is it “pretty insane” ?
Their referendums have the force of law, but they passed a referendum that violated the terms of a treaty that had been carefully negotiated to allow them some of the benefits of the EU without actually joining it. It put quotas on immigration and residence permits, including from EU states, but their EU treaties forbid that, and if it had gone into effect it would have meant canceling all EU treaties.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Swiss_immigration_initiative
The Swiss government had to, ‘[climb] down from the initial referendum proposals, adopting instead a “light national preference” to implement the referendum’, which technically violated the terms of the referendum, but it was the only way to preserve Switzerland’s treaties with the EU.
It’s extremely likely that at least some of the people voting on the referendum didn’t understand that it would cancel those treaties. The treaties are basically the reason that Switzerland is so rich. They have a lower individual tax rate than the rest of Europe, but they have treaties allowing people to move freely between the countries. That means that bankers, accountants, consultants, etc. from across Europe are housed in Switzerland where they pay low income tax, but are able to work freely throughout Europe. It’s why the main European bases of the tech giants like Amazon, Google, Facebook, etc. are in Switzerland, drawing employees from all over Europe to the low-tax haven. So, even though Switzerland’s tax rate is low, these are all very highly paid jobs. So, Switzerland gets 20% of 300k CHF, where France gets 50% of 50k Euros.
They thought they could have their cake and eat it too – get the benefits of all the highly paid foreigners coming in to plow money into their economy while also keeping out the foreigners they wanted to keep out. Only people who actually understand the law (the staffers of the Swiss government) truly understood how insane the referendum was. So, to avoid the chaos of an accidental Swiss Brexit, the government had to basically ignore the results of the referendum and implement something very mild which was allowed within the terms of the treaties.
But, far from learning their lesson, there was yet another referendum just a few years later in 2020 that tried an even more explicit break in the treaties. This time it was voted down.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54316316
So, it’s pretty insane to have a referendum that could potentially cancel the treaties that your entire economy is based on, leaving the vote up to people who have little to no understanding of the result of that vote. (Hi Brexit!)
Thanks for the thorough response. I was unfamiliar with this part of the story.
Where? Closest thing I see is a “Rule of representatives elected by representatives elected by less than half the citizens over the age of majority” thing.
I believe that’s the point being made. “Representative Democracy”, or at least the pretense of which some live under at this time, is the best we (“we” referring to a particular group of people, not humanity as a sum) have found so far.
I get the point. My point is that we’re still far from trying an actual “Representative Democracy” for any largish group of people, and that the Democracy of ancient Greece, with all its glaring flaws, was more Democratic than anything we have right now.
deleted by creator
I don’t think everyone being forced to elect would yield better results.
As opposed to FPTP, gerrymandering, multi-layer representative cutoffs, regional vote weight balancing, or the D’Hondt method?
What’s your basis to think that?
There’s democracies that are not the USA, you know
Indeed. I highly encourage everyone to learn about how “democratic” they actually are.
You’re gonna have to explain that if you want it to mean anything
Sure:
Expression of agreement with the previous comment.
My wish is to improve the knowledge of the reader and anyone else…
…about the different political systems which get called “democracies” by different countries around the world, and how their practical applications differ from the idealized concept of “democracy”.
Hilarious.
I’m not american and know about half of those words.
I’m not USA-n either, so only most of those apply to the flavor of “democracy” I get. It’s still a good exercise to know about the options.