Is it sometimes necessary for a government to ignore it's people's wants?

**JJDXB** · July 17, 2010, 02:31 AM

After seeing this discussion on another forum, I thought it may been worthwhile to bring it here.

The question is: Is it acceptable for the general public to have no say whatsoever in some issues of governance? I know many among the users in this forum believe that the public should be involved, and that the government shouldn't do anything without their prior consent.

As for me, I do agree that it is acceptable, and I will give two examples as my reasoning.

1. Suffrage in Switzerland

Switzerland's government runs public referendums on all major bills/amendmants, sometimes upwards of 5 times a year. This includes things like: increasing their own taxes (passed), cutting the size of the armed forces (failed, though it eventually happened).

Switzerland held its first referendum on suffrage in February 1959.¹ Since women were not allowed to vote anyway, and most men voted No, women were not granted suffrage on a federal level until 1971. It took another 30 years for universal suffrage to be granted on all levels, with the Swiss Supreme Court forcing the Canton of Appenzell Innerrhoden to give women the right to vote in local elections in 1990.²

If a referendum had not been held, it is almost certain that universal suffrage would have been granted much earlier, and the only reason it was granted universally was because the Federal Government forced the Canton-level administration into granting it.

I'm sure many of you would say that its wrong for the Government to go against the local public's wishes, but I am sure as well that you would be hard pressed to say that this didn't result in a freer country.

2. Gay Marriage in Argentina (recent)

On the other forum I was talking about, an Argentinian told us that the bill was almost certainly not going to be passed if the government had held a referendum, especially with the likely No votes in the rural provinces. There is continued opposition in these provinces with the Roman Catholic Church also involved in intense lobbying to get the bill repealed.

What about you? Please, please don't turn this into an issue whether gay couples have the right to be married. About that, I will only say that to not allow is to withhold from them the rights granted to a man and a woman, and that it has made the country a freer one.

**Manco** · July 17, 2010, 02:38 AM

Of course it is, a democracy isn't a tyranny of the majority.

**Snowball** · July 17, 2010, 04:13 AM

No, you mean that a democracy IS a tyranny of the majority...that's the problem

**Manco** · July 17, 2010, 04:35 AM

No, that's what some people think it is. But a true democracy has all kinds of checks and balances to avoid becoming a tyranny of majority, like separation of powers.

**Othniel** · July 17, 2010, 09:24 AM

Wants, yes. Rights, no. It may be possible to have checks and balances in a true democracy, but a republic would maintain them better, I should think.

**~~removeduser_4536284751384~~** · July 18, 2010, 07:38 PM

Originally Posted by Othniel

It may be possible to have checks and balances in a true democracy, but a republic would maintain them better

there's a common misconception amoung what seems like all Americans that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive things. Even American magazines are printing crap (that article is wrong).

A democracy is a state "in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (1)

A republic is a form of government whose head of state is not a [heriditary] monarch" (2) (3)

I think the myth that a republic is an "improved version" of a democracy came originally from Republican propaganda, trying to to discredit Democrats. It isn't. The USA is a Federal Democratic Republic.

**Lord Mandelson** · July 19, 2010, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by irelandeb

there's a common misconception amoung what seems like all Americans that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive things. Even American magazines are printing crap (that article is wrong).

A democracy is a state "in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (1)

A republic is a form of government whose head of state is not a [heriditary] monarch" (2) (3)

I think the myth that a republic is an "improved version" of a democracy came originally from Republican propaganda, trying to to discredit Democrats. It isn't. The USA is a Federal Democratic Republic.

Well said.

And of course it's necessary for a Government to it's people's wants. Not just some of the time, all of the time. You can't give neo-Nazis and KKK members what they want just because they have a vote.

**Phier** · July 19, 2010, 10:12 AM

Originally Posted by Lord Mandelson

Well said.

And of course it's necessary for a Government to it's people's wants. Not just some of the time, all of the time. You can't give neo-Nazis and KKK members what they want just because they have a vote.

You can try to stall it like they are trying in the Netherlands, but you can't stop it. This is why people say that democracy (or a republic) is a lousy form of government, its just the best one we have.

**Hattushilish** · July 19, 2010, 10:05 PM

Originally Posted by irelandeb

there's a common misconception amoung what seems like all Americans that a republic and a democracy are mutually exclusive things. Even American magazines are printing crap (that article is wrong).

A democracy is a state "in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them" (1)

A republic is a form of government whose head of state is not a [heriditary] monarch" (2) (3)

I think the myth that a republic is an "improved version" of a democracy came originally from Republican propaganda, trying to to discredit Democrats. It isn't. The USA is a Federal Democratic Republic.

Thank you. You have no idea how tired I get of explaining this.

**Poach** · July 19, 2010, 10:23 AM

Yes, it is sometimes necessary for a government to ignore the wants of it's people. How many average punters know how to run an economy, for example?

Sometimes, the right thing to do isn't the most popular option to the public but it has to be done anyway. I would cite the budget cuts the UK Govt. is arranging right now but the public seems surprisingly happy to live with them, few seem to have bought into Labour's fearmongering over the cuts.

**Aetius** · July 19, 2010, 10:42 AM

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship."

-Lord Woodhouselee

**Zhangir** · July 19, 2010, 02:28 PM

The question is: Is it acceptable for the general public to have no say whatsoever in some issues of governance? I know many among the users in this forum believe that the public should be involved, and that the government shouldn't do anything without their prior consent.

Sometimes (not often, not always, don't abuse that "Sometimes"), a Government knows better what to do rather than the people.

In a theoretical example (which is by no means perfect), a government has more knowledge of the issue and therefore has an adequate reaction.
A government FOR the people would still have to choose a long-term alternative at a short-term cost. Something that populations tend to not notice often.

The final line is, yes, the government sometimes has to ignore short-term wishes of the people for long-term stability/prosperity