|
|
|
| Authored by: sproggit on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:36 PM EDT |
There's some terrific replies to my original post; thanks for those.
These responses bring a number of important points to the discussion, not least
of which is perhaps best paraphrased with the expression [quoted in reference to
a highly participatory democracy] that a nation typically gets the government it
deserves... [ How true is *that*??? ]
1. "Vote on Everything" ?
I think that, pragmatically, we're largely agreed that this is neither feasible
nor likely. So where would we look for the balance between what we have today
and such a "fully democratic" process?
We already have multiple ways that we interact with our respective governments.
So, during an election cycle, when individual households receive voting forms,
include something like a "book of voting vouchers". These will be
tailored to a voter, will have unique reference numbers on them [for
cross-checks in case of theft or loss] and space to permit the voter to record a
"vote" identifier and their decision [for which the template may need
a series of option boxes].
Using a legislated decision framework to determine which legal, governmental or
policy decisions must be put to the electorate [and not discounting optional
offerings] the government could announce the opening of a voting window on topic
"X". Citizens would take a voting slip, and could use one slip per
vote to record their decision. Each citizen would retain a piece of personal,
memorable information that they would use to authenticate with the process.
Those that wanted to take a voting slip to a polling station would be free to do
so, but others may phone in, use a web site, use a lottery machine, etc, etc.
I'd suggest that it would be appropriate for the "inclusion"
guidelines to cover eventualities such as "if a government needs to make a
decision not covered by the election manifesto, then the party in opposition has
the right to call for a ""Referendum Vote"" - which
translates to putting the vote to the People. Such a call would have to be
ratified in the government itself, but to a much lower threshold [say 25% of the
total representatives, or 80% of the opposition, whichever number is smaller].
That way no sitting government could steam-roller legislation or block a call
for a ""Referendum Vote"".
This is just one solution. We have some incredibly bright people here on
Groklaw, so I am sure that others can up with improvements, or something even
better.
2. PJ's Concern Regarding Terrorist Threats
This is a very real concern, and it's incredibly important to explore this
properly. I'm not qualified to give a full analysis of this, but I have read the
subject extensively and find that Bruce Schneier, for example, [ check out
http://www.schneier.com/ ] gives a good overview.
He thoroughly, comprehensively and categorically de-bunks 99% of the steps that
governments have taken post-911 as what he calls "Security Theater". [
A week after the 7/7 London Bombings, I flew out of London Heathrow Airport to
the US on business. The British Government had put a small "armored
personnel carrier" on station outside the building, complete with an Army
presence. This thing lacked tractor treads [it had 8 dinky truck wheels] but it
did have what appeared to be some form of anti-aircraft calibre turret-mounted
weapon. Total theater. Did the government *seriously* expect people to think
that this was a rational response to an aircraft bomb threat? Shoot down the
plane? At an airport? Puhlease. Clearly not - it was security theater. The point
is that although PJ rightly cites scenarios where there have been suicide
bombers, and I don't mean to belittle this threat, the response that we have is
entirely disproportionate [and ineffective] towards it. What we have [read
Schneier for the scientific analysis] is a massive, comprehensive and
far-reaching curtailing of the rights of the individual, implemented on the
false premise that it is necessary for the "war or terror", when no
evidence can be offered to show that any of the measures have worked.
Evidence of my claim?
Osama Bin Laden had a computer in his Pakistan compound, but it was not
connected to any network: agents worked as couriers and brought in memory sticks
containing data he exchanged with remote parties.
Tell me, how is intercepting all our email communication and web site access
going to counter those terrorist tactics???
3. Limiting The Number Of New Laws
I want to get really specific with this, so I'm going to narrow down my response
to bring back in PJ's comments about the threat of terrorist activities.
Like other nations around the world, the UK and the Republic of Ireland
experienced decades-long armed conflict between Republican and Loyalist forces
that resulted in literally hundreds of dead.
After decades of armed terrorist conflict, with so many dead, you would think
that the British Government would have all the anti-terror legislation it
needed, right?
Well, you would be wrong. After 7/7, the Labour Government decided that it
needed even more sweeping powers to fight terror, including the right to hold
suspects, without charge, for extended periods of time; to try them without
disclosing either all the evidence against a suspect, or the source of the
evidence, etc, etc. Civil Liberty organisations were in uproar.
Now, my specific interest in this relates to the competence of government. The
Labour Government, suddenly decided that they needed a raft of new powers to
fight this "new terror threat". They singularly failed to explain what
was different about this new threat, or why, after 20 years of fighting
terrorism in Northern Ireland or the Irish Republic, all these legal changes
were needed... [ Or, more accurately, none of their explanations held water ].
If we were kind we might say that the government wanted to show that they were
taking the threat seriously. If we were dismissive we would say that the
government had no idea what they were doing. If we were cynical we might say
that the government were being opportunist, introducing a draconian curtailment
of human rights and personal freedoms on the back of a tragedy, because they
knew that there was no way they would get the changes through any other way...
This is a tremendous example. It shows why, in most cases, laws pulled together
in haste are bad.
It absolutely supports the point that PJ has made to us, over and over, that
whilst the law might not get things right on day one, there is an in-built
process of continuous improvement that pulls such legislation back into review
in a timely manner.
However, if we'd got adequate, built-in checks and balances, we might have been
able to curtail the ability of any government to rush in knee-jerk legislation
that we then get saddled with on a permanent basis.
If this reads as though I'm frustrated, then you're being observant. I try to
remember that a government - any government - works *for* the people that
elected it, not the other way around. Power *should* reside with the people.
When a government - any government - believes that it should have more power
over it's people, or that it knows best, then it's time for us to be
concerned...
Maybe I needed to wrap this response in <rant></rant> tags?
[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- Fixing Things... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM EDT
- Fixing Things... - Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, June 26 2012 @ 05:28 PM EDT
|
|
|
|
