Why A Republic?

[Twilight Bark]

I would like to open a discussion on something that we all seem to take for granted, namely the form of "democracy" Armenia has. Even if it functioned ideally, a republic is a roundabout way of implementing democracy. Would it not be better if we had a system that had more elements of "direct democracy"? More decisions taken by referendum, for example. My intuition tells me that it would also be more immune to corruption. What do you think?

[THOTH]

Perhaps..but not as easy as it sounds..and requires much oversite to avoid fraud etc and coruption - through intimidation (as well). And who assures that referuendums are put together in watsfair & accessable to the public..etc etc...not knocking your proposal (whiuch is quite intriguing) - but not so simple I think...and yes ultimatly - why not (for same/many things) - and not just for small nations...

[Sasun]

TB, do you have examples of countries with such systems or this is a theoretical excercise?

[Twilight Bark]

TB, do you have examples of countries with such systems or this is a theoretical excercise?

Hmm. Switzerland comes to mind.

[gurgen]

Referendum? Are you sure?

 

Are you sure you'd want to let some very incompetent people decide for the whole nation? 80% of Armenia just isn't fit to take those decisions. Not that the current gouvernment is, but that's another matter.

[Sasun]

Hmm. Switzerland comes to mind.

Does the Swiss model have any real advantages to the republic system? If yes, why haven't other countries adopted this system. I don't know much about the Swiss government, I know they have strong local parliaments in the cantons. But are there frequent referendums and other types of voting? Perhaps this system is dictated by peculiarities of Switzerland such as the presence of several non-dominant languages.

 

I see a problem with too many elections and referendums, people might get exhausted and apathetic and would stop voting. That would mean collapse of the system in the absence of a strong executive branch. Perhaps a highly computerized system of voting would help. A computerized system would allow people to vote from their homes, without a fixed date of voting. Let's say they have a week or two to vote on any issue. This would make things flexible. Perhaps they could get small incentives to vote, such as tax brakes or monetary reward.

[gurgen]

Yeah only Armenia doesn't even have the funds to build the roads so computerized voting systems are very far away.

[Twilight Bark]

Does the Swiss model have any real advantages to the republic system?

From what little I admittedly know, I think it is far superior, especially in the case of a small country that does not have any superficial excuse of unworkability of such a system.

 

If yes, why haven't other countries adopted this system.

For the same reason that pressurized gas tanks do not deflate by themselves.

 

are there frequent referendums and other types of voting?

Yes, and that is the point right?

 

Perhaps this system is dictated by peculiarities of Switzerland such as the presence of several non-dominant languages.

Or for cultures where everybody knows everything and does not like to be led.

 

I see a problem with too many elections and referendums, people might get exhausted

Currently the problem is that people are not busy enough (i.e. unemployment in many guises). And when they are, the system must have worked.

 

and apathetic

Surely no more than now.

 

and would stop voting.

Those that do would be voting for something real rather than a mirage.

 

That would mean collapse of the system

No

 

in the absence of a strong executive branch.

which is almost never needed.

 

Perhaps a highly computerized system of voting would help.

Yes, in the future, but it is a luxury, not a necessity.

 

Perhaps they could get small incentives to vote, such as tax brakes or monetary reward.

Yes but once you start uttering "vote" and "incentives", it is a very short slippery slope before someone finds a way to manipulate the level of participation and the results without explicit fraud. I may be wrong about this (as about anything else of course).

 

Thanks much for your participation in this discussion Sasun. It is appreciated.

Edited April 9, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[Twilight Bark]

Referendum? Are you sure?

 

Are you sure you'd want to let some very incompetent people decide for the whole nation? 80% of Armenia just isn't fit to take those decisions. Not that the current gouvernment is, but that's another matter.

Most people are "not fit" for most decisions. Yet we allow them to marry, when they are emotionaly not fit, raise children when they are not really good parents, make investment decisions based on stupid thoughts and hearsay, manage companies or agencies when they are not fit for the job. The examples are endless. In a healthy system, all those people who really are not truly fit to make these millions of decisions every day, are and should be allowed to stumble along and find their way through trial and error and accumulated experience. We don't say "I can't give my wife orgasm, perhaps I should entrust the job to someone who can". We don't say "You know I don't really get this good parenting thing, perhaps I should give my kids to the orphanage; they are professionals and know what they are doing". The job of the "leaders" should be to convince people of the merits of a proposal, rather than convince them of their "pure hearts", "good intentions", "trustworthiness", and "presidential looks". Sorry for the flowery examples, but I have to substitute exaggerated examples for lengthy arguments, due to lack of time.

 

And people, please give some thought to this subject and participate. Thanks.

[Sip]

Sorry for the flowery examples, but I have to substitute exaggerated examples for lengthy arguments, due to lack of time.

One short example usually worth 1 page of posts! You had me on the wife one

[DominO123]

Most people are "not fit" for most decisions. Yet we allow them to marry, when they are emotionaly not fit, raise children when they are not really good parents, make investment decisions based on stupid thoughts and hearsay, manage companies or agencies when they are not fit for the job. The examples are endless. In a healthy system, all those people who really are not truly fit to make these millions of decisions every day, are and should be allowed to stumble along and find their way through trial and error and accumulated experience. We don't say "I can't give my wife orgasm, perhaps I should entrust the job to someone who can". We don't say "You know I don't really get this good parenting thing, perhaps I should give my kids to the orphanage; they are professionals and know what they are doing". The job of the "leaders" should be to convince people of the merits of a proposal, rather than convince them of their "pure hearts", "good intentions", "trustworthiness", and "presidential looks". Sorry for the flowery examples, but I have to substitute exaggerated examples for lengthy arguments, due to lack of time.

 

And people, please give some thought to this subject and participate. Thanks.

I agree 100%

 

Just one problem, don't you think that it will be expensive for Armenia to implament such a system?

[Stormig]

Even though nowhere near the size of the project mentioned above, the e-visa project, I think, gives Armenia some pride and hope.

But, even assuming this road is taken, you have to think of "infrastructure" on this one, too, even if you can create the necessary database and what have you. Not too many homes have access to computers and what have you under the current conditions and perhaps for the foreseeable future - what are people going to do, vote in internet cafes? Are there actually going to be terminals in government offices for such? The circumstances of Switzerland ought to be very different from that of Armenia. There are probably other issues (and they are not technical but social) in the implementation, but this is the first thing that comes in my mind. Please enlighten me.

[Twilight Bark]

don't you think that it will be expensive for Armenia to implament such a system?

If you mean internet voting, that is not what I had in mind. As for frequent referenda, I don't think it would be expensive, if implemented efficiently. And the thugs would also get tired of trying to interfere with the voting, especially when it's not "my guy" against "the other guy", but rather whether a specific proposal is a good thing or bad. Many of the usual suspect would not even know which side they should be, and even when they do, they would not be as motivated as in the case of personality-driven races.

 

And whatever its expense, it should pay for itself in vastly better governance, not only in terms of intangibles, but also in plain old economic performance.

[Twilight Bark]

Even though nowhere near the size of the project mentioned above, the e-visa project, I think, gives Armenia some pride and hope.

But, even assuming this road is taken, you have to think of "infrastructure" on this one, too, even if you can create the necessary database and what have you. Not too many homes have access to computers and what have you under the current conditions and perhaps for the foreseeable future - what are people going to do, vote in internet cafes? Are there actually going to be terminals in government offices for such? The circumstances of Switzerland ought to be very different from that of Armenia. There are probably other issues (and they are not technical but social) in the implementation, but this is the first thing that comes in my mind. Please enlighten me.

Stormig,

I did not mean to discuss "internet democracy". The idea is direct democracy, with or (currently) without internet help.

[Sasun]

No

I say it will collapse assumint in such a system all major issues are decided upon people's vote. And when people refuse to vote then what else could be other than a collapse?

 

Actually, I don't think people should be bothered with much of the decisions. It would be really impractical. The executive branch can be inefficient more often than not but it is simply indespansable. The executive does have skills, knowledge and experience in doing what they are supposed to do. They make informed and competent decisions. If we give the authority to make such decisions to people it may lead to a disaster. People will hardly find time and motivation to take part in half of the voting, let alone getting acquainted with the problems behind the ballot. I think it is simply impossible even if people are permanently unemployed as it would require the voters to be quite knowledgable in every field of governance. So there can't be a working direct democracy.

On the other hand, direct democracy can be increased to a certain degree. Top executives can be elected and recallable, in such a case their efficiency will increase. But then this is also prone to deficiences that come with politics. Where there is politics there will be inefficiences and incompetences as political interests come into picture. In addition, how are people supposed to know who is better suited to make day to day decisions regarding the countries tax agency, for example? They would much prefer to have a trustworthy elected president or prime minister who will appoint the right person for the job.

 

To conclude, there is a certain degree to which direct democracy can work for the benefit of the country. It is quite likely that the Armenian government is operating below this degree and there is room for more democracy. We can talk about that although I doubt we know much about the specifics of the workings.

 

Thank you TB for opening this interesting thread

[Twilight Bark]

I say it will collapse assumint in such a system all major issues are decided upon people's vote.

Indeed all major issues should and could be decided by popular vote. Minor issues do need to be left to competent bureaucrats.

 

And when people refuse to vote then what else could be other than a collapse?

You mean when there is low turnout. Not the end of the world.

 

Actually, I don't think people should be bothered with much of the decisions.

Minor, mundane decisions, no. But they should be bothered with important ones.

 

The executive branch can be inefficient more often than not but it is simply indespansable.

What I said was a "strong executive branch" was undesirable. Not the existence of an executive branch.

 

The executive does have skills, knowledge and experience in doing what they are supposed to do. They make informed and competent decisions.

Sure, they should offer their competence in mundane, day-to-day running of things and daily decisions. And that is all they should do.

 

I think it is simply impossible even if people are permanently unemployed as it would require the voters to be quite knowledgable in every field of governance.

But voters would not be alone. There would be stake-holders on both sides, making their case in the media. It would be the job of the issues' advocates to make them understood. And if this process displaces some mindless junk from the media, all the better.

 

So there can't be a working direct democracy.

Sorry Sasun, but that is non-sequitur.

 

... day to day decisions

That is not the function of direct democracy.

 

Thank you TB for opening this interesting thread

Thank you for your worthwhile participation. I hope others also come in with their well-thought-out opinions. This is not, or rather should not be, an off-the-wall, wacky proposal, and deserves to be discussed.

[Stormig]

Stormig,

I did not mean to discuss "internet democracy". The idea is direct democracy, with or (currently) without internet help.

OK, sorry.

Even then, though - how frequent would referenda be taking place? How frequently do they take place in Switzerland? How do you get people in the countryside to come out every so often and participate? I imagine it could be a problem. Of course, that is all logistics, but...

[gurgen]

And how do you get all of them educated on the object they are voting on?

[Sasun]

TB, your points are well taken, but I don't know what exactly you mean by direct democracy. More specifically, to what degree are government's actions and decisions tied with voting?

To my mind, the executive should have some level of autonomy. They can't be told what to do every step. OK, I know you are saying day to day decisions should not be voted on. But there are many other tasks that common people haven't the slightest idea of. I highly doubt that many people would want to know such mundane things. And if they do there must be something wrong with them It has to do with the complexity and high level of specialization of modern society.

 

But voters would not be alone. There would be stake-holders on both sides, making their case in the media. It would be the job of the issues' advocates to make them understood. And if this process displaces some mindless junk from the media, all the better.

Surely, it would have some advantages. But what if there is a good candidate for an executive job, but he/she has very bad political skills of convincing. And the opponent is a populist with good rhetoric skills yet lacks the executive skills. Peopl will vote for the second candidate without realizing they are making a mistake. Sure, that is democracy in its pure form, but that is not correct in my opinion.

Should such form of governance happen, the TV stations would be full of political / executive debates instead of entertainment. People might revolt provided they don't go crazy j/k

[Twilight Bark]

But there are many other tasks that common people haven't the slightest idea of. I highly doubt that many people would want to know such mundane things.

As I said before, if it is truly mundane, it would not generate enough interest to come to a vote. There are ways to gauge whether something is mundane or not.

 

 

But what if there is a good candidate for an executive job, but he/she has very bad political skills of convincing. And the opponent is a populist with good rhetoric skills yet lacks the executive skills. Peopl will vote for the second candidate without realizing they are making a mistake.

Exactly my point, Sasun. Thanks for agreeing with the whole point I am making here. Votes should be about issues, as advocated by its stakeholders and experts, and not about personalities.

 

Should such form of governance happen, the TV stations would be full of political / executive debates instead of entertainment. People might revolt provided they don't go crazy j/k

Populations are dumbed down and trained to avoid actually relevant issues precisely because it allows the continuation of personality based politics. Issues and principles don't have a chance against real live people, when it comes to hijacking democracy to accentuate their importance. Real live people tend to perpetuate a system that makes them, rather than the issues, seem important. However, once the population gets a taste of actually mattering in the process, that much superior system has a chance to be self-perpetuating, and produces a much more intelligent and involved population.

Edited April 12, 2004 by Twilight Bark

[Hyerenaser]

I have given much thought and I beleive that the most effective system for Armenia would be Evolutionary Socialism. This type of government is a wonderful idea in my opinion. Some countries that have adopted similar styles are as follows: France, Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and i beleive there are a few more European countries as well (cant think of them at this minute). Armenia has recenlty come out of the Soviet system but also there has been increading demands for democracy so I beleive this would be the best system for now. Tell me what u think.