Is it possible for us to get a state of direct democracy here in the United States of America? If possible, would it be desirable? In order to answer those questions with some logical clarity, before we are even able to decide whether it is possible or desirable, we first need a definition of democracy.
Jean-Jacques Rousseau defines democracy as when he states that government is “… government over the whole people, or the greater part of the people, so that there are more official citizens than ordinary private citizens” (p. 110)”. This definition of democracy asks more questions than it answers. Or perhaps he is asking a bigger question than answering, that is, who or who is the leader? In order to understand the presentation of democracy, that question must be answered.
In Rousseau’s democracy the people are sovereign. It’s easy to say, but what does that mean? Does this mean that the will of every citizen is supreme? Can any citizen make a law? The answer to both of those questions is no, of course not. The government of the people was united. In the assembly the people are the leader, making power and exercising the law. When they did not agree, the citizens were subjects, following the law which the prince had made. What does this tell us about the most serious laws?
In Rousseau’s democracy there are no high laws. All the laws passed by the prince will be based on the common will, which is another reason for the common good. All laws passed by the highest citizens will be the best for the citizens as subjects. These laws will always be good. These laws will always be in the best interest of the citizens. I see some problems with this video. How does a citizen know whether his will is a manifestation of the common will or the common will?
The people were summoned by the leader alone. If the assembled citizens carry their preference, that preference is the manifestation of the general will, provided it is viewed objectively, that is of the greatest interest of all. But if in an assembly the supreme people make laws so that the citizens may not assemble, what is to be done? According to Rousseau, and according to the type of discussion, a citizen who refuses to obey the law must be forced. A citizen is truly honest only if he obeys the laws passed by the prince. A citizen must be compelled to freedom.
This is the perspective, or analysis, of direct democracy presented by Rousseau. The question that must be addressed now is whether Rousseau’s idea and vision of democracy is possible and desirable in today’s society and culture. It is neither possible nor desirable to contend that First, there is the issue of people’s borders. Our nation spans most of one continent. People are widely scattered, often unable to meet. According to Rousseau, this could be overcome by moving the seat of government from place to place, and assembling in each place in turn. Not only does this sound problematic, but it also leads to other problems.
The people of the United States are no longer homogeneous. They explained differently about the equal and the unjust mind, according to which region of the country it moved. An example of this difference is in the political opinion of the 9th US Circuit. The difference of the peoples is so distinct that it allows the movement to break this circuit in two, so that the challenges from each state are heard by judges who have similar ideas in their circuit. Should the laws established by the top people in South Carolina be abolished or honored when the people met in California? Will the laws created by the people at the top be completely changed in each assembly ? This is not the only problem to pursue in direct democracy.
Our country celebrated its 223d birthday. Perhaps this is not old compared to China, or perhaps India, but it is old enough that our nation can no longer be considered docile. Our nation, while not homogenous, has passed, so that it could know new frauds. It is easy to note that with the advent of the Internet, everyone can meet, or everyone can now cast their vote online. Using the Internet would free us from having to move the seat of government around, but it doesn’t allow us to learn new tricks. Our old country buffet never learned to use direct democracy, and now we are old people to start.
There is also another question about direct democracy. We have no civil religion. There is no virtue in the earth. Public works are not carried out. Patriotism is something that is despised for praise. Men are no longer concerned with the common good, but seek their own interests. According to Rousseau, “As soon as the public service ceases to be the greatest concern of the citizens. The state is already close to destruction (p. 140) if it were desirable.
According to Rousseau, it would be a democracy if the government had the authority of more than half of the people. Who chooses? I’m sure I’m not the only one who sees the issue with that! Do we exclude people of color at some point and still call it democracy? What about women? Such an event is too dangerous to risk. For this reason and others written above, I feel it is time to abandon the idea of direct democracy, for such a democracy can never be benign in the United States.
