{ link » subject article}
It doesn't matter how many people participate in any given demonstration of the sort reverently remembered in the subject article. Such a demonstration, though certainly 'a glorious exercise of democratic rights', is, nevertheless, merely a democratic rite. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanics of governance for Britain, America, or any other modern representative government. It is a boisterous exercise in venting of prejudices, but is in no way a legitimate example of participatory government in a modern democracy.
Of course the prime minister 'went to war' not in the name of those who opposed it. So what? The action of a prime minister is in the name of the nation he has been elected to lead. Obviously, it is vanishingly rare for any action to have the unanimous approval of the citizenry. This is the fundamental raison d'etre for representative government.
The author of the subject article would have you believe that the large number of protesters somehow de-legitimizes the government's actions. This is a false insinuation. Even if a majority of citizens had been protesting ('a significant part' can mean any fraction the author deems significant), it would still not matter. An elected official is not beholden to crowds.
This is a recording.
[snip] The million or so people who marched through London on February 15 2003 did not stop the Iraq war - but they came close, frightening a prime minister who was already past persuading. [snip] The Iraq march brought together all sorts of people of all sorts of views in the biggest single political protest in British history, a glorious exercise of democratic rights. [snip] The march also gave the lie to the claim that people no longer cared about politics. Other cities - in Britain and abroad - held demonstrations too, some bigger. But it was the London march which told the prime minister that if he went to war it would not be in their name [etc.]This sort of pseudo-news is a well worn routine that relies on the dictum that if you repeat something, anything, often enough it will become conventional wisdom. The reality, unfortunately, is that it works, as has been demonstrated by all the usual suspects — Hitler, Stalin, Mussolini, as well as a host of lesser polemicists. This is why it is important to refute the fallacies, both explicit and implicit, tiresome though it may be to refute and to read. My apologies if you have heard it before.
It doesn't matter how many people participate in any given demonstration of the sort reverently remembered in the subject article. Such a demonstration, though certainly 'a glorious exercise of democratic rights', is, nevertheless, merely a democratic rite. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the mechanics of governance for Britain, America, or any other modern representative government. It is a boisterous exercise in venting of prejudices, but is in no way a legitimate example of participatory government in a modern democracy.
Of course the prime minister 'went to war' not in the name of those who opposed it. So what? The action of a prime minister is in the name of the nation he has been elected to lead. Obviously, it is vanishingly rare for any action to have the unanimous approval of the citizenry. This is the fundamental raison d'etre for representative government.
The author of the subject article would have you believe that the large number of protesters somehow de-legitimizes the government's actions. This is a false insinuation. Even if a majority of citizens had been protesting ('a significant part' can mean any fraction the author deems significant), it would still not matter. An elected official is not beholden to crowds.
This is a recording.
No comments:
Post a Comment