[Skybird]

@Respenius, 1/2

Originally Posted by Respenus

Yes, Skybird, he is. For a very simple reason. If the Alphas decided that they will allow such a system of representation to take place and to be the system used to decision making of whatever level, than the final leader, while kept in check by the 12, is democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas. It is the same system we have today, to a certain degree. We still vote MP and they hold democratic legitimacy. The problem of this legitimacy is in my answer to the next paragraph.

You did not get my point, it seems. The point is that the Alphas originally have legitimised the Betas only - and only them. Any further alienating in the legitimation of any higher levels in a hierarchy, as represented by the Deltas, the council and it's chief, have not gotten their legitimation. Because for the Alphas did not get asked what the Betas should do if this or that situation occure in the future - that at the time of election was not to be forseen. And in case of the EU and the Lisbon dictate, since you said the Alphas allowed these rules to define the legitimation process - as a matter of fact the Alphas (the EU citizens) are actively hindered to express whether they want it or not, since it is no secret that most people reject it. And that rejection is what the Betas, the Deltas and the council do not want. - In my fictional example, the council does not wish to ask the Alphas on it's own existence, since they may say No to it, which then would be the end of the council on top.

Democracy, and legitimation of future decisions, only functions if expressed more or less directly. With each addition of in-between-levels in the higher hierarchy of decision levels (sorry, don't know how to say it better), the vote at the very basis loses legitimation, and loses it rapidly. After just one or two additional steps like that, you already have created a reality in leader hierarchy that nobody ever got asked about, that has no direct or indirect legitimation, and maybe even was impossible to be forseen for the voters at the basic level. Do you think any significant group of voters voted their national presidents and/or parliaments so that they should form the EU constitution to be like it is now in its draft, and make the voters' national votings meaningless in the future? Hardly.

Then consider that this very draft, which in content is still identical with the Lisbon dictate, rules that the EU commission shall have the right to rule by extraordinary rules that allows it to bypass the veto of the parliament, na din principle can govern completely by just using emergqancy decrees for an unlimited time and wiothiut any criterions defined what an emergancy is, and that the EU already has the power - and uses it massively - to set up proposals that national parliaments cannot reject anymore, but must let pass through due to legal obligations. But the voters in the given countries have voted for their national parliamnts during the past national elections, and maybe they voted for a given party so that it should not allow a policy like what the EU now is enforcing - the voter's legitimation only is regarding the candidates he sent into the national parliament - and there, his chosen candidate is doomed to be helpless more or less, and must nodd off what voters wanted him to never accept.

Sovereign parliaments? Soveriegn national coinstitutions? Forget it.

80+ % of all legislation and laws in the eurozone are EU proposals already, that never have seen any - even distant - legitimation by voters at all. These proposals for the most not even get created by the parliament or the commission, but the bureaucratic apparatus that stays the same even if the names in parliament or the commission changes. These high bureaucrats never have to face a legitimiation process by the public. But still they are enormously powerful and influence the commission to a huge degree. the commission tends to follow their input almost uncritically.

And this also is possible if the Lisbon dictate comes true: that governments in their countries face a blockade in parliament over an issue, hand the issue to the commission, which turns it into an EU proposal - and then it must be nodded off by the parliament that originally strictly opposed it.

THESE POSSIBILITIES, THAT IN PARTS ALREADY GET PRACTICED, MAKE COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE SOVEREIGNITY OF PARLIAMENTS AND OF THE DECISION OF VOTERS WHOM THEY LEGITIMISE AND WHOM THEY REFUSE. - IT IS NOT ABOUT FULFILLING VOTERS' INTENTIONS AND WILL, IT IS ABOUT DOING A POLICY DECIDED IN A FEW CIRCLES AND LOBBY GROUPS AT THE TOP, AND DOING THAT POLICY DESPITE THE VOTERS, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY AND VOTE FOR, IN COMPLETE IGNORRATION OF THEM. It is in the draft, read that damn thing, one of the most dangerous political pamphletes I ever heared of. There is a reason why it is so extremely complex and all the bad stuff is hidden not in the main text, but the appendices (roughly 600 pages of appendices to a document only around one dozen well-sounding but vague pages long???) Even most politicians do not understand it in full, and not a few admit they have never read it. They do not know what they are doing by agreeing to it, then.

Here I agree with you. No matter how "democratically legitimised" a system of representatives is, it can never and should never do something which is against the general wished of the population. The people should see which laws are being passed in parliament, see what the Government does and how it leads the state or whichever different form of organisation and decide on a "day-to-day" basis if they like or dislike the policies of the Government and if the MPs are truly acting as representatives or are they just a bunch of bureaucrats.

This is why I like France and the French people. While all states as the Governments are of the people, by the people and for the people, I believe that it is only the French people which takes the reins of Government and what laws are passed into their own hands and this is something which would prevent the further spread of apathy in Europe and democratise the democratic process, which has fallen into a bit of a crisis. This world has become so vast and difficult that it is hard for a citizen to follow all the laws necessary to lead a state and its complex structures. But more on that latter on.

But that is a problem in itself, since it interferes with longterm policies. Although I criticise that too many in-between steps in legitimation processes rapidly lose legitimation of the top, I still see and agree that in the relation between voter and that he directly voted for not all future decisions the latter will do, are forseeable at the time of voting. Also, stability and constancy only is possible if voters cannot interfere at every opportunity and time on the basis of daily changing moods. This is one argument often given why those being voted should be allowed to elect a superior gremium from there own within circle that is not available for direct voting by the voters. In principle I agree, since else too much daily moods and protests that are more against something than that they are in favour of something, would have an effect on national politics. One needs to find a balance there, and the slider has to be as close to the basic voter's level as possible.

I have argued in the past that I tend to think that democracies only work in relatively small communities. The bigger their size, the stronger the tendency of non-democratic oligarchic structures appearing from their middle and taking over the leadership and economy.

DO you not believe this would set a dangerous precedent? Is only 5% of the electorate or even less vote than we have taken the first step to the dictatorship of the few, that is the people who go to the elections. The elected would still be democratically elected, yet the question of legitimacy would fade away, as this few voters would probably vote for someone who will bring them the biggest benefits. It would not be long before these elected people would change the law so that the few would govern, while others would need to follow their orders. And while this scenario is not entirely different from what we have today, we still have the possibility and the choice to go en mass and vote for those we believe will represent us the best.

You see it still as a democratic legitimation, I do not, and while the result eventually will be the attempt by the few to establish an elitarist form of tyranny over the many (a feudal structure, in principle, and once can argue that we already have that), I see another result, spiced up by the pressure of the material changes in our environmnt as well: revolution.

A revolution may be successful in washing away the old order, or not, and it may be successful in establishing a new order, or not. It is risky business. But I see that sticking to the old order in the ways I criticse to vehemently, already has sealed our doom in the face of things to come. These very structures are the reason why we do not adapt as fast as we must. We need to get rid of it, or we are done in the longterm - of this I am more or less convinced. So, a revolution offers no guarantees, but at least a chance. Sticking with the old order guarantees chancelessness. We must not cry for it, since it has lost major parts of its democratic legitimation anyway, and is only a hollow facade of a democracy anyway, maintained to mislead the people who should be obedient and should vote - keeping on to assume their vote has a substantial meaning.

Obviously more and more people do not see their votes having a substantial meaning anymore. And differences between major opposing political factions like SPD and CDU in Germany, are disappearing. In some aspects, the conservative CDU is as left or even more left than the SPD ever was. Outside campaigning, the SPD has adopted some conservative hardcore economics. Voting only has a meaning if two conditions are fulfilled: you have the choice between a diverse set of different options, and those being elected fulfill the intention the voters have voted them for. If you have no real choices, or choices that only are represented by shorttermed and cosmetic differences, or those being elected, afterwards do what they want, then voting does not make sense. It only expresses an agreement with the system being like it is: distorted, hijacked, and constantly alienating itself more and more from the people.