Democracy or An Alternative?

In a comment here, Michelina says "He is not helping Nicaraguan people in their struggle to built democracy.". She is talking about an article by Toni Solo supporting what many see as Ortega's effort to create a dictatorship here. Her assumption is clearly that Nicaraguan people both want "a democracy" and that they are actively trying to do that. This thread is not about what Ortega is or isn't doing—it is about what Nicaraguans want.

On the most basic level, it seems like a question of what people want the government to provide for them. While many people see "democracy" as an answer, it would seem that when you use that word it just means you have the right to tell the government what you want and the government will then take care of it for you. Or, put another way, the common view of a dictatorship is "the government doesn't listen to you" and in a democracy "the government does listen to you".

I think we can all point to examples where what is supposed to be a democracy didn't address majority interests. While it may be harder to both find and verify that dictators have supported the interests of the majority, it does seem that at least for some time, Somoza Garcia may have been that person.

Besides democracy and dictator being "trigger words", another trigger word is "socialism". The reality is that any government is going to be socialistic. By nature, creating this "service entity" for the people means they will end up collecting money somehow and offering various services. For example, a driver's license is such a service as is a police department. So, the real question is what items do the majority of the Nicaraguans want from the government.

Here are some of the possible services:

• Internal security and public safety—police, fire
• Infrastructure—roads, water, electricity, transportation, communications
• Public services—education, health care
• Welfare (safety net?)—basic food and shelter; retirement benefits
• Defense—protection against external invasion
• People's rights—workplace standards, anti-discrimination

There are lots more but that will do for my example. As each of you look at the list you will see things you think the government should provide and things you think should not be the responsibility of the government. That's fine. But, what matters in Nicaragua is what the majority of the Nicaraguans want.

The obvious next step is how to pay for all these items. That is going to be some form of taxation and, in a democracy, the majority of the people should get to decide how to structure taxes.

Now, we all know that it would be impractical to have everyone vote on each decision to structure the services and the taxes to pay for them. The typical solution is to create a "representative democracy". Instead of each person getting to voice their opinion on what the government should do with each issue, they select people who are paid to represent them. Or, are paid by them and should be representing them.

People have already given up "their democratic rights" by selecting these representatives. They feel that getting a chance to pick these representatives every few years in close enough. But, is it?

As a current (and easily verified) example, the majority of U.S. voters want the Iraq war over. But, the elected representatives are ignoring that request. In a few months those voters will get to re-select their representatives but both presidential candidates and the majority of the Congresscritters don't seem to want to listen to the voters. So, this seems like an example of where a representative democracy doesn't really work. That is, it seems more like you are told you have democracy but you effectively have a dictatorship.

We could analyze this—in Nicaragua, in the U.S. and in lots of other places—but it boils down to "vested interests" rather than the majority of the people getting to direct the government. In Nicaragua, some will say Ortega is just doing what Hugo Chavez asks, some will say he is just trying to satisfy his ego and still others will say it is humoring bankers, the U.S., the IMF, ... rather than doing what the people really want.

Is there an alternative? One method is to have the ability for the people to vote on whether or not they are happy with the current "leader of government". A vote of confidence. If he or she doesn't receive a majority of the votes, it is time for a new one. This was done in Venezuela for example. The result was majority support for Hugo Chavez. In Bolivia, Evo Morales has called for the same thing. He feels a positive result will actually help him move forward with his plans.

Now, if the government could be structured such that there was some guarantee that a leader would step down as the result of a vote of no confidence, does it matter how many people become your representatives? If this could be implemented, wouldn't a "representative dictatorship" be more efficient and yet still give the people the needed control?

Ok, yes, this is all theory. The point I am trying to make is that we need to get beyond the trigger words and actually look at how things need to work to benefit the people. A benevolent dictator, for example, can be a lot more representative than a large representative body that had allegiance to something other than the majority of the population.