> 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.
Not obvious to me. Some judges are corrupt, some are not. As I said, I don't know of any studies which show that corruption is more prevalent in jurisdictions with elected judges vs. appointed ones. I'm not a close student of this subject. But I do know that all of the issues you bring up are quite familiar to Americans, and have been extensively discussed in this country. What ticks me off a bit is your assumption that we are some sort of political boobies who have never even thought of the ideas coming out of your fertile brain. I assure you that we are not that politically unsophisticated.
(And I wish you would read what I wrote and respond to it! The police in the U.S. are not elected! Are they in Australia? If you can't be bothered to read what I write and correct your mistakes of fact, I can't have a rational discussion with you.)
>> 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.
My view of democracy is that the system which most accurately reflects the wishes of the electorate at any given moment is not necessarily the best. A good case in point is the late war. A majority of U.S. citizens were in favor of the war just before it started, when it started, during it, and even now most of them still approve of it. Does that mean they were right?
In other words, I'm not too impressed by schemes for formal democracy. To me, democracy is more a constant process of struggling with whatever powers that be to produce a more humane world. Any system that allows such a struggle to proceed is at least minimally democratic, and the more democratic movements can empower themselves, the more democratic it is. "Ideal democracy" is a term that means nothing to me. Actual, on-the-ground, concrete struggles are what matter.
> 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.
I think the lawyers on the list might be able to explain this to you better than I, but the clear distinction between administration and legislation that you are trying to draw is not realistic. There is literally no such thing as "applying the law as it stands, equally and impartially." Legislators, lawyers, judges, juries, and defendants are all individual human beings, each with their own mixed-up minds, each trying to do what they think is right by their own lights.
While there are rotten judges in the U.S. (and I dare say, in Australia as well), there are also very good, conscientious ones, and yes, many of them are elected. Some judges, believe it or not, are lefties (though they don't make that fact too obvious -- but look at some recent decisions in this country on political issues and you'll see).
The big problem at this is not corrupt judges, IMHO -- it's the same old problem of class, race, etc., divisions. From recent experience in my own family, I realize how important it often is to be able to hire a high-priced attorney in order to get a good result in court. If you don't have the money, or the right skin color, you often get screwed. Whether the judge presiding in your case was elected and appointed doesn't particularly matter.
If the case is a matter of a constitutional issue, and you're in the Appeals or Supreme Court level, the judges are of course not elected, but appointed by elected officials. Some lean to the left, more to the right. Some are more affected by popular opinion (thank our lucky stars the majority of the Supremes seem to have been affected by increasing sympathy for gays, and ruled in a gay-friendly direction in the last term) and some are less so.
>> 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.
I'm afraid you're quite out of touch with the realities of U.S. politics. Of course our parties "run" (our term) candidates of their choice for election -- who else would they run? It's just that we don't have a proportional representation system. I'm agnostic about whether a PR system would be "better" in some sense or other (especially better in the sense of making things easier for progressive, leftist movements) than the US system. We who have grown up with this system just learn how to make use of it for progressive purposes. Sometimes we win, sometimes we lose. Guess what? In countries with PR systems, leftists sometimes win and sometimes lose, too. Oddly enough, I hear leftists in those countries complain often and loudly about how hard they have it, too. Social change is a tough job all over, friend.
> 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.
They have a lot bigger role than that, but I don't have time right now to spell it all out for you. I'm off for a few days of vacation. Talk to you later.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org ___________________________________ "Cry for the eye that has cried for you and feel merciful for the heart that has felt for you." "A poor man shames us all." -- Sayings of the nomadic Gabra people of Kenya