Reading 18 - Democratism

Page 1

Democratism does not ever argue for ideal democracy or "pure" democracy as compared to say pragmatic, realistic democracy say. It argues only for genuine democracy. If people are not governing themselves but being governed, that is not democracy. If representatives are free to vote their personal consciences or to "lead the people" by theirown lights overruling that of their constituents that is not democracy which requires self-government.

If citizens are pushing their individual or factional interests as compared to the interests of the cooperative group this is not democracy. Either you agree to cooperate and cooperate or not. You can do it in small, varied, de-centralized groups through tandem, complementary effort, but it still has to be cooperative, not mutually obstructionist. If people just will never do that, but always look out for themselves only, then democracy will never exist. It's that simple. It's a form of cooperation and cooperation is not looking out for yourself, the other be damned. Also democracy is voluntary. If you force people to look out for each other it's not democracy either.

Of course you can have democracy by degrees. And you can have more democracy than less which makes a system primarily democratic, primarily voluntary and cooperative. It's not all-or-none. But to the degree this is widespread, democracy has a seriously problem. It's not acceptable because pragmatic.

In a Republic the idea is that everyone pushes their own interest then it's up to the government, the representatives to look out for the whole system. If government is not democracy but society it's up to society to do it with us all as its representatives.