Administering is the process of following established rules and procedures. For example the law might stipulate that the speed limit in an area is 35 miles per hour and that a fine of $100 applies for any person exceeding that limit. To administer the law is to simply be a part of the process of applying that law. There is a politicisation of those who administer the law when they are elected. The business of deciding what the laws will be is necessarily politicised in a democracy, but it is dangerous to politicise the process of administering the law any more than is necessary.
It is far better for the law to be administered equally, fairly and impartially. Electing the administrators of the law (judges, police, etc) obviously makes impartiality impossible.
Obviously, partiality in how laws are enforced is worse than having no laws at all. It means the law only applies to those who have no political influence.
>
>>Democracy is ideally about democratically determining what the law will be, on the understanding that the law will then be administered impartially. (Representative democracy falls short of the ideal in that it only permits citizens to democratically elect the people who will make the laws, rather than being able to make the laws directly.)
>
>Well, if your view is that only "direct democracy" is really democracy, you're a lot more of a purist than I am. Where in the modern world is direct democracy operative?
Thatr isn't my view. I was merely pointing out that direct democracy is the ideal form of democracy, in the sense that it more accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate.
>> The problem with electing administrators though is the elected administrators of the law (judges, police etc in the US system) can no longer be impartial. They are subject to political pressure. The law will not be administered fairly, the elected police and judges must get and retain the support of a majority (and only a majority) in order to retain their position.
>
>I wonder where you get your information about the U.S. system. Some jurisdictions have elected judges, some do not. There is a lot of controversy about judicial elections where they are held -- some argue as you do that this is a bad system. But I'm not aware of any evidence that the jurisdictions with elected judges manifest any more corruption or less corruption than the ones without them. Perhaps the lawyers on the list can express their opinions.
It wouldn't even be regarded as "corrupt" for an elected judge to administer the law in a way which was more popular though, would it? It is entirely obvious that judges must tailor their decisions to pander to popular prejudice or fashion, rather than simply apply the law as it stands, equally and impartially.
>
>Police in this country are not elected. They are hired by city, country, state, etc., governments, which are run by elected officials.
>
>>This is cancerous, undermining democracy. I wasn't merely being rhetorical. I genuinely believe that Americans don't understand this, don't even understand the basics of democracy. Maybe they were world leaders a few hundred years ago, but they don't seem to have kept up with the pace over the last 300 years, are still wedded to their primitive vision of democracy.
>
>Primitive because representative?
No. Primitive because of the outdated systems of electing representatives. Modern political democracy is by necessity representative democracy. The US system is not really representative though, it is something of a lottery. Not only are governments elected without any sort of mandate from the majority of voters, but it is not even possible for political parties to stand candidates of their choice for election, thus preventing any organised mobilisation behind a clear political platform. In other modern demcoracies political parties can democratically (or otherwise) choose their own candidates and democratically determine what their policy platform will be, and put that platform before the voters.
Of course once elected the politicians are free to abandon their platform and do something entirely different. But that is in the nature of representative democracy and it is still better for the party to be able to determine its policies and give the voters a chance to vote for or against such policies, than the US system where political parties can have no other role than cheer squad for individual candidates.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas