|
 Thanks Maus, for your response to the Charter Commission. At the time I challenged you I was just beginning the analytical process and was sincerely searching for clues, ideas, anything that could be of help. I "called you out" (perhaps an indiscreet and irritating way of looking for help that totally backfired) because you, more than most others, seem to have some knowledge to back up what you say and are generally not disinclined to reason.
The work on the Charter Commission has been wonderfully stimulating from the beginning but now it is entering its most challenging phase. In some measure I am feeling increasingly out of my element as our work progresses. This arises as my knowledge and understanding of democracy grows. As each new window of understanding opens I am nearly crushed by what I sense I don't know.
We are becoming increasingly split on the Commission over the same ideological lines that divided the framers at the Constitutional Convention. Limiting democracy to the few (an oxymoron of course since rule by the few cannot by definition be a democracy) or opening it up and trusting our common fate to the masses. History tells us that limiting it to the few inevitably fosters corruption because there are few who can see and fewer who have the power to do anything about what they see. Take away the power of the people and soon, no matter how well intentioned or benevolent are the aristocrats, in whatever form they come (landowners, the wealthy, lawyers, politicians, corporate executives et al) they soon succumb to greed and tyranny. It is the nature of the human animal. Democracy is the agreement we make to curb these base instincts. It is only "eternal vigilance" that keeps democracy intact. If it is not constantly and conscientiously reviewed and examined, discussed and understood and renewed it will be lost.
In the context of what I now understand about democracy I have sincere trepidations that we are dangerously close to losing it altogether in the United States.
After 20 months of work on the Commission I sigh as I realize that I am just now approaching that level of knowledge that should be bare minimum to be doing what we are doing. How regrettable it is that it never occurred to the Commission that its work would have profoundly benefitted from at least a minimal study of democracy before setting out. Speaking only for myself I admit to how self-assured I was about my command of democracy. After all, haven't I been a diligent activist for over 40 years? Had I not been a lifelong reader and student of political science and philosophy? Haven't I spent the last dozen years in municipal civic affairs where I have been exposed to all manner of statute and rule? And last but not least, haven't I been living in the United States all of my life? How, I thought, could I not know all that I needed to know about this subject of democracy? How wrong I was.
Do we repress dissent for the sake of harmony? Do we exclude minorities for the sake of harmony? Should free speech be something that is bought? Jefferson tells us that dissonance is essential for democracy because it reveals our "misconceptions." His presumption is that if misconceptions are not revealed we go astray. Of course! How could we not?
Now we are embroiled in the essential struggle. Do we base our local rules with the intent of conveniently preserving the status quo or do we design them to reflect the profound wisdom of democracy?---spoon agave
|
distributed, or individual vs. crowd seem to be one of the major shifts
going on in society right now.
There are lots of examples:
Major record labels vs. independent artists
Corporate pundits vs. bloggers
Patents vs. open-source
Copyrights vs. creative commons licensing
World Book Encyclopedia vs. wikipedia
Commercial radio vs. community radio
It seems understandable that the debate would also surface in thinking
about governing.