A NEW DEMOCRACY

Ancient Athens had the purest form of Democracy in history (as long as you don’t count all the people who were not entitled to vote). Instead of electing a Congress and abdicating authority to these lawmakers to decide how they had to live, most major decisions were simply put to a vote of the citizens. As city states grew into nations, and populations rose, this became impractical in two respects.

First, the geographic spread of the population would prevent most citizens from voting on issues as frequently as they arose, thereby leaving only the ones nearest to polling places to decide issues for everyone. Secondly, as issues became more complex, the dissemination of sufficient information to the entire population for them to make intelligent decisions became impossible. Finally, there was a third reason for the institution of Representative Democracy (what most democracies have today); the “landed gentry” simply did not trust the people to make the decisions they felt would be best for them. That, after all, is the rationale behind the Electoral College by which American presidents are elected. The Framers of our Constitution simply did not trust the people, and wanted a “safety valve” so that someone they didn’t like would not be elected by a disenchanted and ill informed population.

In the 21^st Century, however, most of these considerations have evaporated with universal education and the Internet. I would not advocate a return to the Athenian, “pure democracy.” Even with almost universal instant communications, there will always be issues that are too complex for a public untrained in subjects such as Science, Economics, law, etc., there will always be areas of national security in which the needed information could simply not be disseminated without harming the defensive posture of the nation, and there are frequently time constraints in which actions need to be taken before such information could be disseminated and voted upon. None the less, there is nothing preventing, both at the national and state levels, the use of the “public referendum” as it exists in some states.

This would accomplish two things. First, laws that people want but their legislators are too politically insecure to pass would get voted upon by the people they would affect. Certainly not all of these statues would be good ones, or even well thought out, but neither are many that are passed by elected legislatures. Just look at all the bills passed by Congress that most legislators have never even read. Secondly, and perhaps of even greater importance, is that such a referendum process would enable the public to repeal acts of a legislature with which the majority of people disagree. As a safeguard, a vote to repeal could even be made to require a super-majority of those who vote (i.e. the same test used to override a presidential veto in Congress).

People would then not only get the government they deserve, but the effect of money spent by corporate and special interest groups on lobbying would be mitigated by the will of the people. We could once more have both efficient government though our representatives in the state and national legislatures, and true democracy, allowing the citizens to enact legislation the majority want, or override the influence of well funded lobbies. Government of the people, by the people and for the people would once more flourish in the United States.