You know all those theoreticians of democracy who appear not to have grasped one of the most basic principles of parliamentary-representative government? Well, they've got one of them right now in Australia. He's Ramesh Thakur:
Worldwide, millions marched to demonstrate strong opposition - a unique example of a powerful anti-war movement before a war had started. But the war went ahead anyway.
The American, British and Australian governments brushed aside the public as ill-informed and dismissed the United Nations as lacking in cojones...
The consequence was disastrous for people's faith in answerable, responsible and responsive government. Countless times as a senior UN official in audiences around the world, I heard the refrain: we made our views known very clearly; they (meaning government) ignored us, don't trust us and are contemptuous of us...
Strangely, Thakur does show himself to be aware of the principle of representative government I alluded to above: the principle, namely, that representatives are called upon to exercise their own judgement. He says that governments shouldn't be slaves to public opinion and that government should not be by plebiscite. But never mind, hey, chuck in the unresponsive, they-ignored-us, stuff anyway. What it amounts to is this: representatives in a democracy should decide the way I, or we, think on any issue. As you would soon discover were a democratic government to go with public opinion where public opinion is disagreeable - say, over capital punishment - to that sector of liberal opinion which knows it is always right. Then, there'd be no complaints from the same bunch of theoreticians. (Thanks: IM.)
