Options
In a democracy is it the role of the government to do the people's bidding or...
Regis Magnae
Posts: 6,810 Forum Member
✭
In a democracy is it the role of the government to do the people's bidding or guide them to be "better people"?
This above statement made think about what the actual role of our politicians is, to do the bidding of the public the supposedly serve or lead them to some better purpose, even if it appears to be against the will of some or even most of the public.
Taking the above quote for example, the baroness thinks that because juries, who are representatives of the public in court, are loath to convict for certain acts that new laws such be created to compel them to convict, even though the acts remains the same. It can be argued that the people do not regard the acts criminal and therefore no attempt should be made to criminalise such acts. On the other hand some will argue that the people needs a firm hand to guide them for their own benefit.
Baroness Thornton (Lab):The Crown Prosecution Service has been reluctant to authorise actions against hardcore porn websites under the Obscene Publications Act. It says that juries do not want to convict. That being so, the answer is obvious. Remove the need to bring obscenity charges and create a new regulatory offence.
This above statement made think about what the actual role of our politicians is, to do the bidding of the public the supposedly serve or lead them to some better purpose, even if it appears to be against the will of some or even most of the public.
Taking the above quote for example, the baroness thinks that because juries, who are representatives of the public in court, are loath to convict for certain acts that new laws such be created to compel them to convict, even though the acts remains the same. It can be argued that the people do not regard the acts criminal and therefore no attempt should be made to criminalise such acts. On the other hand some will argue that the people needs a firm hand to guide them for their own benefit.
0
Comments
In a democracy politicians are the servants of the people (or more specifically voters). Sometimes our modern politicians tend to forget that and the comment ' Remove the need to bring obscenity charges and create a new regulatory offence' is a classic example of this. The law exists to protect us from a capricious government. In this country one of the most basic rights we have is the right of habeus corpus, literally bring me the body - it is the right we all have of a trial. So they cannot avoid a trial if they want the offense.
Of course it is even more grey in that while there things which seem obscene to most people - it is not the same for everyone and what one person thinks is obscene may not be for others - so in getting any kind of conviction you would need to ensure the jury members agree. That said there are some things that the law defines as being obscene and the law is more exact in this.
I don't know how it arose, but it's leading to poor turn-outs in elections and the rise of "alternatives" like UKIP.
It's a puzzle to me, why they have become this way.
In theory you should know their views are similar to yours so it does not mean they do what you say only that you agree with what they say.
If you feel they have gone against your views then you have the right to vote them out at the next election.
how do you vote "them" out when all alternatives likely to gain office are the same
You dont vote for a party you vote for a person. if you feel that person does not represent your views then you vote for someone else who does.
What candidates are likely to win is irrelevant. you have a choice. that's a democracy.
The statement I quoted was made by a baroness. How do I vote her out? That's sort of different matter, though.
Have you seen this short film by Adam Curtis before?
We often see comments on these boards about political parties "dictating" to the general public (normally from people who don't vote for the party in question), but what people are moaning about is normally nothing compared to what Roy Jenkins achieved. Would I be happy with a politician being that controlling now, here in 2014? Probably not.
The things Jenkins pushed through I agree with, but again, I'm viewing them from here in 2014 not the sixties. I find the subject you've raised very interesting and complex, I've actually spent an evening or two discussing it with a mate (over a few pints) who argues that the public should get what they want no matter if it's good or bad for them, it always becomes quite heated, but it's always quite enjoyable. Sadly I can't remember what our conclusions are, or if we ever actually reach one.
Its a flaw in the parliamentary system.
Parliaments make laws, that's what they do, they have to do it continuously.
Have you ever seen a government that says "actually everything seems to be working OK, lets not make any new laws."
The problem is, every law they make removes another little piece of civil liberties and over a long period of time, that builds up to a wholesale removal of liberties.
I fully approve of the Jury system, but the other two are highly suspect.
The Jury system is the last chance of normal people showing the powers that be that they are not in control. I'd far prefer more Juries to be involved in far more of our justice system.
But in practice most people vote for a party. The person standing for that party is irrelevant. As MPs will generally go along with the party line, that makes sense.
In the case of a representative democracy the people get to choose who their representative in the government is.
The Baroness being a life peer is not elected, but she cannot make or change a law alone it needs to go through the house of Commons and house of Lords.
Should a government in a democracy pass unpopular laws if they think they are for the good of the nation and population? Yes I think they should do what they think is right not what is going to make them popular.
It actually makes very little sense in the context of Western culture, which has become more individualistic over the past few decades. If anything, you'd expect the local candidates to be under more scrutiny, not less.
I suppose we've started to see political parties like brands and the local candidate is merely a mixture of salesperson and customer representative for that brand. It's part of living in a consumer/capitalist culture: eventually everything is seen within the context of that culture. It's part of the reason why collectivism and socialism are seen as so alien by some.
Even worse, I think the major parties have started to see the candidates within that context too. No longer are they our representatives at all, or certainly if spoken of in that way it's only part of the marketing in many cases. They are there to be representatives of the party and the people who fund the party.
This thread is based on comments from a Labour Peer.
Are you saying people vote for the candidate who represents the party they want to win the general election irrespective of how well that person would represent their constituents ?
i found that interesting, thank you for the link. It rings true with me, too.
Yes, that's generally what happens. Unless the MP does something really terrible, people will keep voting for them just because of the party they represent.