At 11:50 AM 1/26/99 -1000, Jay Hanson wrote:
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Edward Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
>>and social complexity grew. While hunting and gathering societies needed
>>only transitory hierarchies, more complex societies needed permanent ones.
>>However, there is no reason on earth why these couldn't be democratic,
>>allowing a particular leadership limited powers and only a limited tenure.
>
>Democracy makes no sense. If society is seeking a leader with the best
>skills, the selection should be based on merit -- testing and experience --
>not popularity. Government by popularity contest is a stupid idea.
>
>Jay
Democracy does not mean putting the most "popular" candidate in the job. A
broad range of people (e.g. the workers in a factory) might choose a
DIFFERENT leader from what the Elite would choose, but they will not be
more likely to make a "stupid" choice.
But beyond the "choice of a leader" is the question of the "accountability
of the leader".
In our N. American democratic (so-called) systems the leader is not
accountable to ANYONE (i.e. is a virtual Dictator), except that once every
4 or 5 years the people (those who think it worthwhile to vote), can kick
the bum out and choose another gentleperson who will be equally
UNACCOUNTABLE, and who will thus, corrupted by power, become a BUM also!
Hence the concept of Direct Democracy:
" a SYSTEM of citizen-initiated binding referendums whereby voters can
directly amend, introduce and remove policies and laws"
Colin Stark
Vice-President
Canadians for Direct Democracy
Vancouver, B.C.
http://www.npsnet.com/cdd/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Listserv)
