I do agree with the idea that times change, and it’s unreasonable to judge historical figures and times by modern standards, I think they should be judged by how much they tried to move things to where we are now, not where they were at the time. I expect that we will look back in horror at things we do today (for example, that the USA locks up 1% of the population, which implies that convicted felons could sway the vote).
If your point is that there aren’t enough felons for this to make a difference, I refer you to the 2000 presidential election, and observe that there are some 1.5 MILLION people in Florida who are denied the vote because of a prior conviction.
If your point is that we incarceration rates are ridiculous, then I agree.
Yep. While I do like the questions Cory raises, and I think its not easy to argue the US was a democratic nation before blacks and women could vote, not to mention the 6 million ex-prisoners who can’t vote even now, without viable opposition to the status quo all the elections in the universe don’t really matter very much. Sure Obama is an alternative to the republicans on some important issues, for some of the most important issues of our day — kleptocracy, income inequality, corruption & war powers/spying powers, he’s no alternative at all.
His speech the other day made me want to barf: after spending 5 years propping up the plutocracy at the expense of the poor and middle classes, he now whines to us about income inequality. The chutzpah.
In 1960 First Nations got to vote in Canada (while still retaining ‘treaty’ status) as they were redefined as citizens rather than, basically, wards of the state. I think it was a few more years before they actually put voting booths in some of the reservations though, or even within 1000 km of some Inuit communities.
Criminals, including those in prison, are allowed to vote in Canada. So far there hasn’t been a politician who has run on the ‘let all the murderers go’ platform with any traction.
I think in the end a total ‘democracy’ will enfranchise every human within the territory. The concept of citizenship as a members only club is bullshit, and mostly just serves to exclude and/or dehumanize those we put outside the lines. When we finally just let the people who are affected by things vote on them - regardless of anything else - we will have at least the beginnings of democracy.
That said, it will be very difficult to manage and unlikely to happen in our lifetimes (more likely is the disintegration of the Westphalian state concept and subsequent absence or restructuring of our concept of government, which may or may not be a good thing).
Churchill’s comment smacks of the class prejudice you’d expect. The problem isn’t a lack of “education” in our Democracy, but a lack of DEMOCRACY, and a glut of propaganda and prejudice. It’s no surprise that past and present conservatives have called for (and used) tests* to try to prevent ‘commoners’ from voting and thus challenging the hierarchy. Screw Churchill, and his American counterparts…seriously.
Well, “legitimacy” is a social construct. For centuries, the “legitimate” ruler of a nation was the heir to its previous monarch (and wars were fought over who was a “legitimate heir,” e.g., the Hundred Years’ War over whether the monarchy could or could not descend through the female line). We find that quaint now, but I would not be at all surprised if, two hundred years from now, the idea that elections to gerrymandered “representative” districts, with no ability to affect decision making between elections, was considered “legitimate,” will be considered equally quaint.
I think that the problem is that there’s no way to separate the regulation of democracy from the parties that participate in it, and when a party feels that it can strengthen its hand not on the merits of its positions but on the manipulation of the system itself, it breaks.
I love this kind of thinking. So, take a long view. Not the sorta long view. The LOOOOOONG view. Go back to Greece 500BC, where the first flickerings of democracy sparked in the darkness. And then went out. And then when the flickering turned into a flame in 1788, when the US constitution was ratified. And Poland in 1791. And so on… Perhaps the flame will go out again for a while. Perhaps it will get stronger. It’s kind of up to us, isn’t it?
I wouldn’t argue that using culture/identity politics as a wedge isn’t effective. I’m one of those nuts that think pretty much all private money should be removed from the political process though…
I am not sure that “the first democratically elected leader” or “the first black president” are the best ways to remember someone like Mandela. He fought injustice, championed freedom, was a leader in a time of change and upheaval, and an inspiration to the people of his country and to the world. Compared to that, being the “first democratically elected president” sounds like being the 1 millionth customers at Joe’s diner – it celebrates where he was rather than what he accomplished.
In the same way I think we can celebrate other activists and leaders of the past (and present) for their accomplishments even if then (and now) they lived in a world of injustice.
Being Canadian I think I would have to take exception to your characterization of Canada prior to 1960 as being “violent, savage, and brutal in their repression of efforts to enfranchise all adults”.
Even to think about this question makes me angry, because it’s such a moving target. What do you need for a legitimate democracy? It depends on whose voices are considered important.
Being Canadian, I would have to point out the many examples of voter exclusion, race riots (at the mere threat of Asians getting the vote here in BC), and the painfully obvious brutal suppression of First Nations for about 450 years (the last 125 of which can be directly attributed to Canada)…
I’m not so convinced of that. Not when there are more laws than the Congressional Research Council can actually count. I say there’s nothing wrong with the people who have had a stake in the law in the past voting on those laws. I don’t actually think a convicted murderer is in danger of using their vote to introduce a whole new “murder is cool” law, and even if they wanted to, everyone else’s “nay” vote is enough. Actually, I think it’s just the opposite: If everyone and their brother is getting convicted of the same crime, maybe their vote should count on the subject of whether or not something should even be a crime.
ETA: It’s important to note RE:influencing the creation of new laws, that a convicted felon can still run for public office- from prison.
