>In societies where political government is democratically elected,
>the laws are to a large degree in the hands of the ruled class
>(because they constitute the overwhelming majority of the people and
>their votes swamp the votes of the capitalist class.) This helps
>ensure that, to the extent possible within the context of capitalist
>economics, the legal structure will be acceptable by the majority and
>workable. Which is of immense benefit to the capitalist class.
>
>*********
>Point of information:
>Selection of candidates comes before election of law makers/judges and the
>selectors are not members of the ruled class in a bourgeois democracy.
The selection of candidates for political office varies I gather. Here in Australia the system is generally that candidates nominate and pay a deposit, usually a few hundred dollars I think, which they forfeit unless they receive a certain number of votes. Never really looked into it, must ask a friend of mine who was a candidate endorsed by the Democratic Socialist Party at the recent Tasmanian State election.
Party nominated candidates of course are determined by the parties, with registered parties having to jump through a few extra hoops in exchange for the privilege of having their candidate(s) grouped under the party's name on the ballot paper. But the candidates still have to pay their deposit and follow all the other procedures to get their name on the ballot paper. There are few restrictions on anyone who wants to nominate. You have to be an Australian citizen I recall (there's been the odd case where people who weren't citizens have slipped through and even been elected, then not allowed to take their seat because their non-citizenship was discovered) and enrolled to vote.
Some places, like Iran and the USA are a lot more restrictive, for different reasons. Of course political power in the USA, especially at the level of the national executive government, is exceptional because (unusually) it is both immensely concentrated (in a single person) and the military power of the USA is today so immense. Perhaps that goes some way to explaining why so much trouble is taken to fetter political democracy? I think I recall Chomsky having something to say along those lines. Something to the effect that the practice of political democracy was far better outside the US, precisely because the outcome didn't really matter outside the US.
Personally, I've always thought that election of the judiciary was a repulsive practice that conflicted with the principle of an independent and impartial judiciary. Americans do seem to go way over the top on the democracy front, with direct election of all sorts of other minor bureaucrats. But Americans have always preferred quantity to quality in all things, why should democracy be any different? ;-)
But in the more developed and established democracies, I wasn't aware it was usually the case that candidates are vetted by the ruling class. Correct me if I've got the wrong end of the stick? Maybe Australia is exceptional, in that its form of democracy is freer than usual?
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas