Opening Passages to consider:
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests, than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours, than of that of the rest of the countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place, a representative should be elected by the inhabitants. The great advantage of representatives is their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy.”
The above is a selection from the chapter “The Constitution of England” that is NOT in your Ebenstein text. What is your reaction to his assertion?? Where do you think that discussion of public policies best takes place?
“The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy. The suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one; but animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country. Yet, as this method is in itself defective, it has been the endeavour of the most eminent legislators to regulate and amend it.” p. 415
What do you think about this assertion?
In response to the first section, "The Constitution of England", in its prose, seems very optimistic, until its final line in which reality seems to return. I agree that an entire population/people cannot speak or understand the troubles and needs of select regions to the extent that said region's inhabitants can. By selecting a representative from each area (somewhat like a mayor it seems), the greater good of the people will, ideally, be served, for the ability to understand and acknowledge differing problems would be present. However, the final sentence, despite its rather unfortunately dark yet realistic outlook on life, does raise a very important flaw with such an optimistic system of government. Democracy provides each individual with the prospect and supposed opportunity to serve his country; yet when unfit members attempt to rule, the majority of whom are not suited to perform such a task effectively, chaos is unleashed. In terms of where would discussing public issues be most effective, I would suggest a town meeting with the representative present, who would then report to the official governing body at their following meeting. In terms of where this document should be read, at some kind of pep rally to promote understanding and education (somewhat funny).
ReplyDeleteIn response to the second selection, I completely agree. Democracy, in form, is positive, for it gives each citizen a say in their leader. However, such a government cannot please everyone, and at times, the majority unfortunately is displeased/ suffers. However, it does give every citizen hope that he/she can make a difference. Aristocracy is by choice and agreement, subjecting its denizens to the rule by few, yet such few are normally wanted by all; therefore, it becomes the fault of choice when something goes astray, as opposed to a democratic government when elections led to a result that may have been close and now many are left to cope with unhappiness. Democracy is somewhat like, "All or nothing". However, it is easier to amend and has been successful throughout its practice.
I, for the most part, agree with the passage from "The Constitution of England." I think it's foolish to assume that one centralized government could possibly know everything about an entire country, especially a large one; different areas have different interests and needs, and they deserve those needs to be properly recognized and addressed on a federal level. This is why we have governors and mayors, after all - there's simply way too many people with way too many varying interests to not break down government into smaller, more manageable levels. So yes, I agree that there needs to be local representation in government. I'm not so sure that the best form of government would just be comprised of local representation - I do think we need a strong federal government to keep everything in order - but it's definitely an important aspect of a fully functional country.
ReplyDeleteI think the second statement is a tad cynical. It's important that everyone in a country feels as if their voice is being heard - universal suffrage is an important right in our society. It seems as if Montesquieu doesn't really believe in the power of democracy, however; he seems to be saying that democracy keeps the people happy, but doesn't really allow the masses to make a difference. I don't understand how he can say that universal suffrage must be "regulated" - it's either universal or it's not.
The first assertion makes complete sense. The people who know the key issues in any place are the residents. Usually, when one nation rules over another and controls the laws, the citizens usually suffer and revolt often follows. Similar to the current American system, areas’ votes should be weighted depending on the various populations. Representatives who are educated in the law, are capable of debating, and are well-informed should be elected by each smaller area, and then they can all meet together for larger, collective discussions.
ReplyDeleteThe second statement seems to hold true. Democracies are well-liked in theory, because each member feels as if his say is represented. But in practice, there are various flaws. For instance, the say of the rural, unpopulated areas are often drowned out by the cities. Also, without representatives, the public would need to vote on every single bill, which is completely impractical.
Montesquieu presents an interesting premise observation in the first passage, as political leaders are often assigned to specific regions, when in actuality, this makes no sense. His assertion reminds me of the American political system, where the president nominates people to certain positions. I wrote a paper on Ray LaHood (the secretary of transportation), who was elected by Obama. Previously he worked with transportation in Illinois, and before that I believe a union leader. But what in the world qualifies him to oversee all the transportation in the entire nation? Similarly, the machine politics and urban bosses of, I believe, the late 1800's(?).The power people are allotted in government is often baffling, in comparison with their actual experience. Yet, the cycle continues with lobbying and moral hazard, and hundreds of years after Montesquieu, we still fight it.
ReplyDeleteUnless I am interpreting it incorrectly, I don't know why Montesquieu believes democracy is defective, if it is the most fair (sarcasm?). He is certainly correct in asserting that, though democratic elections seem to be the most fair, politicians and rulers feel the need to fix a system that is not broken, which has resulted in much havoc over time.
Although Montesquieu is speaking of the Constitution of England in this excerpt from the Spirit of the Laws, the American Constitution too stays true to his philosophy on representation: the entire “body of the nation” does not represent all of the interests of the individual areas. His assertion is sensible, because each smaller area of a country have varying interests. Montesquieu is right in asserting that there needs to be local representation in government, for an entire federal government cannot function without the order of its individual components. His final assertion is relatively pessimistic and critical; yet, in order to progress in the realm of public affairs, it is important to assess the pros and cons of the current system. According to Montesquieu, the people collectively are unfit to discuss public affairs, but representatives can meet the job adequately. Smaller meetings led by representatives would be the best place for discussion of public policies.
ReplyDeleteMontesquieu considers democracy almost to be flotsam. He criticizes the system by saying that although universal suffrage makes people happy in democracies, it is defective. I agree and disagree with this assertion. Naturally, universal suffrage is crucial in electing the most prominent leader of the community (i.e. the President as an example in the US system); however, the concept that the entire nation would vote on individual pieces of legislation in place of only representatives doing so seems illogical.
These two passages bring up some key issues, when examining representative democracies. I of course, completely agree with the first notion: it is imperative for a functioning democracy that each sub-section of the general population be represented in a larger body, and without the house of representatives, this nation would not live up to the ideals of freedom, and equality. Of course, there are arguments against regional representation, based on population, but a country like the United States is too fragmented to not employ such a system. A rural district in North Dakota has vastly different needs than the 8th Congressional District here in New Jersey. The House of Representative's really is the people's house, and thus, its members feel a need to get things done for their constituents. This is where important policy debates must happen.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to the second notion presented, I do agree that there are clearly flaws in this type of a democracy, from a practical point of view. Because of the partisan bickering that occurs due to the differences between different regions of the nation, there sometimes appears to be a lack of progress in a body like Congress. For example, each member of the body is so concerned about their own constituents, that it is hard for them to make compromises on major issues: this is the true tragedy of the House of Representatives.
The passage suggests that the discussion of public policy best takes place among those who are intellectually fit to discuss public policy. I agree with the author in how he says most people are unfit to discuss public affairs. But I agree with how inhabitants should elect representatives.. People may not be able to think on a large scale of whats essential for their country, but they can think about what is essential for their region. Therefore, I do not agree with Monty's idea of democracy being inconveniant
ReplyDeleteI agree with the passage from "The Constitution of England". I feel that it is true that the needs of the people are known by the people. Thus, the people should elect from within the community to represent them. However, I do think that the best way to discuss political policies is with all representatives or some sort of public forum.
ReplyDeleteI again agree with the second passage in that the main ideal of a democratic society is suffrage for all. If there was not suffrage for all then the first passage would be obsolete.
I strongly agree with the sentiments expressed in the first statement by Montesquieu. Once centralized group of people (who all live in the same place) cannot make laws over an entire nation. Rather, each local group should have a representative, and then the representatives together create laws which the entire nation can agree upon. However, local towns should have the ability to rule over themselves.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the second statement, which seems to reflect the first. While direct democracy, in theory, is good, in practice it concentrates much of the power in a few large, urban centers, which is why it has to be amended so that we have a representative government.
Like Sarah, I mostly agree with the idea set forth in "The Constitution of England." The inhabitants of a town, state, or country tend to know their own area best. The government and the people coexist in a symbiotic relationship. The success of the government is dependent on the happiness of the citizens and the happiness of the citizens is dependent on the government's rule. If this relationship is disturbed, then the country will fall into inevitable turmoil. Educated and well-liked representatives will be the most effective in discussing public affairs. I think public policy should first take place among the people then brought to the representatives. The people know their own issues and the representatives serve as the higher power that ameliorates them.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second statement, I agree. Most revolts throughout history have been initiated because of the people's discontent with a non-democratic government. Therefore, it makes sense that Democratic governments are well-liked. Democratic governments make people feel like they have a voice in government because of their common principle that each individual is represented.
The beginning of the passage indeed seems very optimistic and also very reminiscent of our current system. Even small towns now have counsels or towns people who vote on minor issues, these counsels are made up of citizens from the town just as Montesquieu first suggested. The last line of this passage however is extremely pessimistic and even negative as Montesquieu claims, "For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy." I disagree almost completely with this statement as I think that the people are the only ones fit to make decisions as the decisions that are made will directly affect them. Again in the second part of the passage Montesquieu says that democracy is defective but once again I disagree. While democracy has failed a few times there is no reason to give up on it yet.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first statement because one can not properly rule over a land that they do not know well. A ruler can not dictate what is best for the people or an area in a place they do not know. I also believe that the people should be able to elect their leaders because they have the common interest of what is best for the people in minds.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the second statement as well. Again, similar to the first statement, it is best that the people elect their ruler because they represent their country, but once the ruler is in power there is opportunity for the government to fail the people because the power has shifter from the people to a select few.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI think that while it's easy to agree with this assertion, and that yes, this is in many ways the foundation of Democracy, the ability for the commoner to use suffrage wisely depends largely on the society itself. I would not recommend an overnight switch to full on democracy to a feudal society because frankly, it would fall apart. No serf would be fit to lead or vote for their rights as the mass majority of the commoners would be uneducated and unaware of the workings of government. In fact, I would claim that the ONLY country in a proper state of being to follow a democratic system based on this assertion, is a nation that arrives at democracy itself. Only a nation whose people care enough about their government to suggest and instigate a democracy are those who posses the intelligence and interest as a majority to function within the confines of the democratic system. So while I do not disagree with these assertions, I believe they need to be amended to include this necessary circumstance. And because the writers of this proclamation lived in a country where this had obviously not occurred and democracy hadn't just erupted from the people as it must, I can understand the disapproval of democracy entailed in their work.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the first assertion. A town is more aware of its own situation then someone from outside the town. Landowners getting taxed by some third-party without representation has never worked out well.....(tar and feathering of tax collectors?) . I do, however believe that there needs to be a central location for the local representatives to meet as this is necessary to discuss the macro issues rather then the micro ones.
ReplyDeleteAs for the second passage, to quote the Rolling Stones "you cant always get what you want". Its simply impossible to please everyone and have a functioning government. Direct democracy is great in principle, but you simply cant leave each person, each town/area to their own agenda and expect an entire country to stay together
I agree with Montesquieu as he states, "The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests, than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours, than of that of the rest of the countrymen." The people who are inhabitants of set- place are the inhabitants and would know what is best for the people in terms of laws, governance, environment, etc. I also agree with Andrew when he states that each area should have a different representative, and then those representatives should collaborate and make laws that are beneficial across the board. There does, in fact, need to be a cohesiveness amongst the laws in a given area, so that is where the collaboration is necessary.
ReplyDeleteAlong with my piers, I agree with the second statement. Throughout history, a democratic government has been shown to be the most successful. A common theme amongst governments that are unstable, or that are hated amongst the people, is that they have not given the people any power- which is something glorious about a democracy.Everyone wants a voice and to be heard and a democratic government is one that allows that to happen.
Regarding the first statement, it's a sentiment that inspires a number of reactions in me. For one, the initial idea that a specialized group of individuals are better equipped to define the laws and boundaries of their own land is one that ensures the voice of all citizens in a government, which is obviously (well, at least from my perspective) conducive to a healthy democracy on the whole. I do think that these voices should confer with one another because otherwise there lies the risk of people never leaving their own intellectual bubble, but therein lies the advantage of an appointed representative. In any case, the idea of a government run by the people (albeit by proxy here) for the people is one that appeals to my sensibilities. I believe in the notion of a federal government, but it should be build upon smaller and more specialized interests as well - the micro feeding the macro.
ReplyDeleteThe second statement feeds into this thinking, in that suffrage for all guarantees that every citizen has a voice, even if they themselves cannot express it in the way that an appointed representative can. While Montesquieu seems to regard that later statement with some weariness, as though it is a mere act of appeasement, I think it has repercussions regarding basic government functionality that he would probably even appreciate it, though there are flaws to it as well. Brian mentioned the issue of practicality, and there are some issues that perhaps not all citizens would approve of that the federal government should take a stand on (civil rights came to mind for me).
I agree with the selection from "The Constitution of England" - the people who inhabit a particular place are well acquainted with it and should elect those who will represent them. I agree with frazzledazzle about the idea of discussion within a public forum. This way, the people can be involved in the government beyond simply electing those who they feel would best represent them. Representatives, however, are essential to a successful government that meets the needs of the people. Laws should be made by these representatives because a vast body of people will not be able to do this successfully.
ReplyDeleteI also agree with the second statement. Democracy suits the needs of the people directly because the people are actually involved in this type of government. The problem with Democracy in practice is that, due to representation, it is only natural that a lot of voices will be silenced. I agree with Sydney - once representatives are elected, power shifts dramatically from the people to the newly elected representatives. Once this happens, the government may fail to meet the needs of the people