Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
OK, on one hand you are saying that we should delegate the power to make important decisons to politicians and on the other you're blaming them for throwing dust in our eyes. Do you also believe that politicians are the only ones who have the ultimate knowledge? I don't think so, and it is not correct to underestimate the qualities and the capability to make judgement of all the rest. Also, how do you judge people's expertise? In my opinion, things are not black and white as we all wish they were.
About power: I think it is the common people who give the power to the "shrewd guys", of course not always to the right ones, but still I do believe that we must not underestimate their importance as an element of a society. And I still do believe in the ideas of democracy. You and me and our generation, unlike our parents, have been brought up in the spirit of democracy.

I can resist anything but temptation.- Oscar Wilde
by Little L (ljolito (at) gmail (dot) com) on Mon Feb 20th, 2006 at 04:54:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]
It is very important to make this clear. I do not BLAME politicians for throwing dust in the eyes of people. I simply state, that they do so. On the contrary, I justify them because this is the way it has to be done. This is how politics is conducted. The concept of transparency is another made up principle, used by politicians. Nobody of us knows what is going on there, and how politicians make decisions. And we would never know the real truth. We are permitted to know as much as they let us know.

I am not a politicians' poodle, and my parents or close relatives are not politicians. In fact, I do think that some of them do not deserve to be in office. But not because they are not educated, but because of other reasons. And this was my whole point. As I responded to another comment a minute ago, people that do not have knowledge in a certain domain should not be allowed to make decisions that concern it. Yes, politicians are not perfect most of the time, but still they are the people that are close to the issues discussed and have more knowledge than us to deliberate on those issues. And I talk about the best possible decision, not about the perfect one.
Yes, it is the common people that give the power to the shrewd guys, namely because those, the same common people, cannot earn this power for themselves. Being incapable of doing so, they have to elect someone who can. This is why there are leaders in any kind of group. I certainly do not underestimate the importance of the common people as an element of a society. I am also one of them. Everything that I wanted to state was that there are different people for different positions in society.

As I responded to another guy's comment to this diary: You do not call a lawyer, if you need a plumber, right?

by verchenceto (veronique@mail.bg) on Mon Feb 20th, 2006 at 05:25:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]
And I talk about the best possible decision, not about the perfect one.

Best for whom?

You confuse expertise with interest when looking at the motivations behind political decisions. Also, you confuse expertise with ability to influence people and get support when looking at what makes a politician politician.

The elite of a democracy is not necessarily meritocracy, and even less so in an oligarchy.

Also, history saw too many assassinations, coups, conquests, civil wars, slave or peasant revolts and revolutions for your nice vision of "everyone knowing their place" to having been a historical truth.

*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.

by DoDo on Tue Feb 21st, 2006 at 07:50:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]


Occasional Series