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?
To the first assertion: Montesquieu states that the inhabitants of a country are extremely capable of electing their own representatives because they know very well the needs, customs, and characteristics of themselves and their neighboring countrymen. They are not, however, capable of being representatives themselves. This ties into Montesquieu's separation of powers theory, that the different branches of government, legislative, executive, and judicial, cannot be in the hands of one person or body. Thus, in a democracy, the people are essentially the rulers and choose their own government. They cannot, therefore, make the laws because they would then hold all of the power. I think that Montesquieu speaks to the experience and capability of the people and of the representatives here, saying that the representatives are people fit to make choices about public affairs because they are well trained in that arena, whereas the people, though they know what they want and need, are not trained in the process of attaining their wants and needs.
ReplyDeleteSecond Assertion: Montesquieu states that in a democracy, everyone gets a right to vote; whereas in an aristocracy, the government chooses who can vote. I agree that everyone should get the option to vote, but I also believe that suffrage is a privilege that citizens should honor and respect. To me, it is unbelievable that less than half of American citizens vote in the presidential election. If we are lucky enough to have the right to vote, why do we not all assert it and use the power that we have to make our own government. I believe that democracy, in theory, is a noble and just idea, but in practice, it is cheapened by the fact that not everyone uses their right to suffrage. If you have a voice in your government, why wouldn't you use it?
I agree with his assertion that the inhabitants of a nation know best the nation in which they inhabit and therefore should be given the right to elect the leaders. I also agree that the representatives are proficient in public affairs, otherwise, why would anyone choose to elect them? However, I disagree that this is a great inconvenience of a democracy. I believe that this makes perfect logical sense. The inhabitants individually elect representatives to voice the opinion of the whole hence I do not understand how this is a great inconvenience. I think the best discussion of public policies is in an open forum when dealing with the needs of the public, and then in a meeting of the representatives by themselves to determine how to put what was said in the public forum into action.
ReplyDeleteI believe that suffrage is important and that all of age who have a will to vote should unequivocally be given that right. If one chooses not to take advantage of this right, that is no one's fault but their own. I understand how a leader may be against suffrage because this does not guarantee a win, and politicians are looking to win. However, just because the ones in power do not favor a vote does not give them the right to take the vote away. The benefit of the whole is more important than the benefit of these political individuals and therefore it would be unjust for them to seek to regulate and amend suffrage.
I feel that this selection accurately identifies with the correct manner in which representatives should be elected and for what reasons. It states that legislature should be chosen from the particular place where one knows the inhabitants and issues of the area. I feel that this is very effective because it allows certain aspects of an area and a people to be heard and voiced in a way in which they would not be if legislature was picked from the general body. I think the best place for the discussion of public policies best takes place in a structured forum where the everyday people are allowed to listen and watch the decisions made that affect them directly.
ReplyDeleteI think that Montisque's assertion on this aspect of society is very accurate, and I agree completely. I feel that everyone should have the right to vote and should use it.
I agree that those acquainted with a particular area's unique characteristics are the only ones fit to legislate for it. However, their interests must be aligned with the national good, not only the advancement of their specific community. Furthermore, these individuals must be qualified for such a job. "The people collectively" are not capable of passing the best laws for the society because it is highly unlikely that all have the necessary capacities. As a result, I think the best forum for public discussion is within a body of elected representatives that can provide a voice for different groups within the society, but have more experience than the general public in governing.
ReplyDeleteThe second passage expands on the inherent imperfections of democracy. Whereas the first states that not all the people are fit to pass laws, the second states that not all the people are even capable of selecting the right officers to do this for them. I do think that in some cases more expertise is necessary in making proper selection. When choosing judges, as the Federalist papers mention, the people as a whole may not be able to discern which candidate will be the best for the position. However, in all cases where extra knowledge is not necessary and no other inconveniences are presented, the people should be able to elect their officials.
In the US, for example, people from Alaska should not choose reps/senators for Tennessee - each state has its own set of issues and concerns particular to its location and culture. The inhabitants of a specific area will be able to converse more intelligently and more effectively on local concerns, and should choose the representative they believe is most capable of promulgating the citizens' welfare, rights and interests.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the Roman forums were the ideal locations for political discussions to go on - merchants, senators and scholars conversed freely and all were aware of what was going on in their state. The discussion of public policy in state governments is most pertinent to that particular state, but there is the need for a grasp of national concerns that should be incorporated into those discussions.
I am reminded of the political bosses of the late 19th century and the lack of privacy and autonomy of citizens to elect who they thought best fit.
The Founding Fathers certainly attempted to regulate suffrage - denying it to blacks and women (and those without property) and creating the electoral college to make a "judgment call on that particular state's elective wishes. There is, of course, the danger of ignorant people voting, but I do believe the popular vote reflects the general sentiment of the people and is sufficient, as (hopefully) more people in 2011 are literate in comparison to those in 1789.
Montesquieu talks about the danger of factionalism in the majority and that is the heart of the problem and when public government is manipulated by the biased interest of one group. I agree with Montesquieu that there should be mechanisms set in place to regulate factionalism and partisanship so that there is never a majority that votes into existence harmful legislation.
I think his assertion sounds like he's recommending a system of government very much like the one the US has today. This passage generally goes to say that representatives must be chosen from individual sections of the territory to make up a full and complete government. Officials cannot be nominated at random from all over the country as it might cause there to be representatives from the same area. Yet, if there were to be diversity in the government, there would be diversity in affluencey- and therefore there'd be people who may be more educated than others in the government, it seems. Stereotypically, governmental officials have the gift of public speaking and having a good public persona- something someone from a less affluent part of the state may not have. I'm not sure how off base I am, but I think he's sort of poking fun at the intellect the civilians who are voting for the leaders of government have. If uneducated people elect their representative, than that representative may be as uneducated as the people whom he is representing. I think the assertion is ultimately that every state should have a representative and discussion of public policy should take place among this group of a dozen or so men- provided that they are educated.
ReplyDeleteHe's saying that voting is great and voting for a representative makes the people feel like they're involved in government. Beyond that, voting doesn't have many positives besides keeping the people happy. In the end, no matter who the people keep, the legislators will "regulate and amend" the selected officials. If someone gets elected who the head honchos deem to be unsuitable for the position, these legislators will do their best to "fix" this mistake- doing what they can to minimize this unfavorable's power or rid them of their power all together. Though voting pleases the people, it gives the legislator representatives who may not appear to be as refined or educated as they think themselves to be.
I personally find this assertion to be logical and effective. When discussing public and localized affairs, a collective body of the public cannot make an educated decision on what is best for democracy. National issues and decisions most likely benefit the most from this type of organization as all subsets of regions are represented and can offer the best mutual agreement in respect to democracy.
ReplyDeleteThe second assertion is quite perplexing when considering Montesquieu's overarching theories. I agree with the assertion that suffrage by lot allows countrymen the feeling of service to their country, however when claiming this system is defective I cannot help but think he is referring to sovereignty of regional lands. Sovereignty is made just with suffrage by lot, and I believe Montesquieu, along with all of the modern world, would appreciate amendments and regulation.
I think that the discussion of public policies best takes place in a legislature made up of representatives, but not in the same way as described above. The legislative power has to be divided up more evenly instead of leaving all the representatives with it. This ties into Montesquieu's idea of separation of powers. They cannot make all the laws because they would otherwise unintentionally hold all the power.
ReplyDeleteIn a democracy, suffrage is a right for all; however, this is not the case with an aristocracy. I agree that suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one, but I never thought about why most eminent legislators would try to regulate and amend it. It seems as though the process works very well- everyone has the right to vote.
The first quote follows a logical argument. The idea of having representatives from local communities seems fair in terms of a balanced government. This ensures that specific issues are addressed while maintaining a strong central government over the entire nation. The best way to discuss these policies would probably be in some type of forum where each representative can express his or her concerns. The entire legislative body can then determine ways to deal with local problems and have a specific plan for the larger ones.
ReplyDeleteThe idea that every person can vote is considered a basic right in many nations. However, it can also be argued that not every citizen should have the power to vote. There are fears that some citizens are not educated enough to make a fair decision, and some could be influenced by bribery or corruption. This is why some governments implement a specific system to combat this issue. The electoral college is an example of this procedure. I believe that Montesquieu's assertion is a sound arguement that addresses the possible conflicts caused by suffrage.
For the first statement, I would have to agree with Montesquieu. If we were to zoom out of his statement to compare a town in Nigeria to a town in the United States, we would see that there are much different needs and opinions of the way certain people want to be ruled. While this difference would be less in towns within the same country, I believe the same logic remains that it is important to pick legislature representatives from each town or area to best speak for the region's needs and desires. I think that the given discussion of these public policies are best discussed in a larger country that holds many different types of towns with many different types of people because this setting would lend itself to "the chief inconveniences of a democracy."
ReplyDeleteJust as Montesquieu believed that suffrage is a positive way to choose a country's rulers, I think it is important for people to feel connected to their country by serving it through voting. He also mentions that there are defective aspects of suffrage. This is something that the Founding Fathers of the United States took into consideration by establishing an Electoral College. However, now a days, there are still questions as to whether the Electoral College is the best way to regulate elections and if the people truly get a say in their government.
I agree with the assertions being made in the first quote. The best laws/decisions made concerning the people of a certain area are always by the officials who are the most familiar with the life and needs of those people and that area. When a general government tries to make a law concerning very specific needs, they often are unable to create one that fits the needs of everyone, meaning that the needs of some areas are not fully met or disagree with the opinions/lifestyle of that area while the needs of other areas are met with a surplus, thus wasting resources. However, the people themselves cannot make these laws on their own. Most people are unaware of political science, the law and the effects of laws. The discussion of politics should take in a classroom or another learning environment with an informed an individual(s) and a larger group of people, so that the people can debate the issues, but also be taught about the topics they are unaware of.
ReplyDeleteI agree with this statement. In a true Democracy, the people would vote on every or almost every issue brought up for debate. When the people vote on everything, the government and laws are truly for the people and developed by the people. However today, people are allowed to personally vote on very few issues. When the people do have to privilege to personally vote on an issue, they are restrained by other laws such as a voting age or citizenship. Even though the people can elect officials to vote for them, the officials do not always represent the wants of the people nor replace the importance and weight of an individual's vote. Therefore this is not a true Democracy.
1st Passage: I agree 100% with his assertion. I agree with this for the same reasons that I believe that it would not make sense for a freshman to be president of the senior class, or a man from Bolivia to be the president of the United States. In order to be an effective ruler, you need to understand the people as one of the people, in order to rule the people.
ReplyDelete2nd Passage: While i'm not sure I completely understand this assertion.. If I am interpreting it correctly I agree. I agree that everyone should have the right to vote, and I agree that everyone should take advantage of it.. however he recognizes that unfortunately, some people do not.
First: I disagree with the notion that there is any inconvenience of this sort in democracy. Representatives, though they do not have the capacity to know all there is to know about every small town or hovel they speak for, are elected for a reason. They're elected because the majority of the people of these small towns and hovels believe that the elected representative best understands the public interest. It is then the duty of the representative to all the needs of his or her people in a sort of town hall meeting, decided fairly what is most pressing for his/her people, and present them to other representatives in a meeting of just the representative, like our congress.
ReplyDeleteSecond: In my opinion, democratic suffrage by lot is the best for a state. However, I agree as well that this can be somewhat "defective" if countrymen abuse heir privilege to vote. Regardless, everyone deserves the right and the chance to have a say in their country's government
I agree with his assertion. I believe that he is correct that particular groups of people are best able to choose from among themselves their representatives, as opposed to having the nation, or any larger group choose them, however this has the possibility of leading to an overly large government, if every small group has a representative. I think that the discussion of public policies needs to be split into levels, as the federal government is about as fit to talk about a particular town's 4th of july parade as the town is to talk about foreign policy. Thus to avoid unnesscary governmental clutter and slow down the responsibilities and powers of government should be separated.
ReplyDelete