Democracy was invented by the Greeks. George Papandreou, to be precise. After he made the shocking suggestion that the people should have a say in their fate, to a collective dropping of jaws that caused a small earthquake in central Europe, the response was varied and frenzied, from the media and politicians alike. Buried beneath the various surprised "Wooo democracy!"s, dark "how irresponsible"s and cynical "just trying to save himself"'s was a certain uncomfortable implication.
It was more plainly evident in another case of spontaneous referendumitis that threatened to break out earlier in the UK when backbenchers again had the temerity to suggest asking the opinion of the citizen body, this time on EU membership. The Cabinet's response, along the lines of "its too big an issue and the wrong time", was a more revealing look at the implication inherent in the world's most prevalent system of democracy - representative democracy. An implication which is not so much ignored as actively avoided whilst noses are held. The stinking leprous elephant in the corner.
I'm going to make a shocking admission: I know practically bugger all about economics. I'd have to do some very hefty research before being able to give a detailed list of the pros and cons of EU membership. I wouldn't trust me to have a say on such crucial matters that need such technical knowledge. Sure, I've got an opinion, but you know what they say about opinions and arseholes ...everyone IS one. So what I do instead is elect someone who hopefully does know these kinds of things. I judge how knowledgeable, reliable and trustworthy a candidate seems alongside how closely their views mirror my own and then I say "go to it then, represent me". A referendum means asking the opinions of an entire country. Some of whom may well know plenty about the topic, some of whom will, like me, know bugger all. Everyone's opinion will be counted as equal regardless.
Imagine if a full referendum were announced on EU membership. The propaganda war would begin immediately. We know what positions the media would take. We all know which papers are this wing or that, and we can probably write the headlines ourselves without even needing to ever buy the damn things. But people tend to stick to what they know and agree with. Look at America, for example, where politicised and polarised news organisations and broadcasters are the norm and you could go your whole life only ever getting your information from Fox. Sorry, a bit late for Halloween I know. How many of us take the time to absorb opposing viewpoints? I avoid the right wing press like a plague ridden elephant.
The flip-side of this coin is that while it's easy to think that listeners to or readers of a particular media source are sheep being told what to think, it's not the media which tells people what to think; it's the opposite. The media will stick to a line because they know it's what their readers or viewers want to hear. The Daily Mail will always be the Daily Mail, and it's readers will always know what they're going to get and buy it happily. The effect is that our existing views get reinforced and existing presumption, prejudice and instinctive reaction get external validation. Every new bit of information gets filtered through a prism of these components, in the form of our chosen media outlets.
That smelly elephant quietly falling to pieces in the corner is the implication that in a representative democracy we are acknowledging our own inadequacy, that we are unqualified to make all the tough decisions involved in running a country. If the sort of uninhibited, free democracy that a referendum embodies is a national gauging of deep-held opinion, then representative democracy is a buffer that should allow a degree of separation between instinct and decision.
No comments:
Post a Comment