In principle then, I admit that the People exists, that it is sovereign, that it is predicated in the consciousness of the masses. But nothing yet has proven to me that it can perform an overt act of sovereignty, that an explicit revelation of the People is possible. For, in view of the dominance of prejudices, of the contradiction of ideas and interests, of the variability of opinion, and of the impulsiveness of the multitude, I shall always ask what establishes the authenticity and legitimacy of such a revelation-and this is what democracy cannot answer.Irrepressible Thought
Proudhon on What Democracy Cannot Answer
Curious Leftist
2 comments:
The basic achievement that China invented that enabled them to move beyond "the dominance of prejudices, of the contradiction of ideas and interests, of the variability of opinion, and of the impulsiveness of the multitude" was enshrouding a pragmatic ideal into their constitution: Leading groups. It allows them, legally, a method, to solve problems in the best interest of the public when the official institutions of industry, military and governance can not. They can cut right across all the departments of government and have the power to use those institutions, step on toes, and cut through red-tape when necessary and still get approval from the legislature.
From Wikipedia:
"A Central Leading Group, also translated as a "Leading Small Group", (领导小组; lǐngdǎo xiǎozǔ) is an ad hoc supra-ministerial coordinating and consulting body formed to build consensus on issues that cut across the government, party, and military systems when the existing bureaucratic structure is unable to do so.[48] The authorization for the formation of leading groups comes from Chapter IX of the Constitution of the Communist Party of China.[49]
There are two types of LSGs. Party leading small groups manage policy for the Politburo and Secretariat, and State Council leading small groups coordinate policy implementation for the government.[50] These groups provide a mechanism for top decision-makers to exchange views – both formally and informally – and to develop recommendations for the Politburo and the State Council.
LSGs do not formulate concrete policies (政策; zhengce), but rather issue guiding principles about the general direction in which bureaucratic activity should move (方针; fangzhen). A fangzhen provides the framework for the development of zhengce. The recommendations of leading groups are likely to have considerable influence on the policymaking process because they represent the consensus of the leading members of the relevant government, party, and military agencies. In some cases, the Chinese leadership will adopt an LSG’s recommendation with little or no modification. LSGs, which have no permanent staff, rely on their General Offices (办公室; bangongshi) to manage daily operations and for research and policy recommendations. Consequently, the effectiveness of an LSG often depends on the effectiveness of its General Office.[51]"
About 86,000 leading groups have been formed over the years and most of the bold strategic decisions and state enterprises and partnerships with foreign industry and enterprises are run under their tutelage. They help build consensus and allow those of differing views to either jointly solve problems together or to tackle the same problem in different ways simultaneously. It's really smart. They still have to get approval from the national congress so it doesn't bypass the normal legislative process in the one party system. I think it would work great in our two party system as well. Might not work in Europe where they have real democracy with multiple parties and parliaments based on alliances of members.
I expect that a similar argument can be made about neurons. How can we say that the decisions of a brain are legitimate?
Post a Comment