A brilliant article in the Economist a while back analyzed the financial crisis of California and identified reasons for it. One reason that has stuck in my head is that Californians have perfected the art of using Propositions in the way they make rules. For those not familiar with Propositions, these are questions included in an election ballot asking public at large what to do about certain issue---say, providing a new type of service, changing a law, or taxing something. These votes are binding, and can not be changed unless there is a judicial decision or passage of another Proposition overturning it.
Every time, some propositions pass, some are defeated. Not surprisingly, the Propositions dealing with increasing taxes get defeated and those for providing new services pass. Equally, not surprisingly, the Propositions are thus a major cause for budget deficits.
The reason we elect representatives to go and make laws is that they are empowered to make tough choices on our behalf. They are suppose to lead the way by doing what is right not what is popular. Changing this long accepted way of running country into that run by propositions inevitably leads to a disaster.
Stretching this further, I look at the revolution in Egypt. Enabled by the new social media technology, this was the first instance of a leaderless way of changing the government. The population was able to do what would have required a charismatic leader in the past. It was an electronic equivalent to pushing a binding Proposition.
However, now I wonder what comes next. How will this new found power be wielded? Will the same leaderless population decide to reduce the tax rate? Increase social services? Will they ever be able to make tough choices? Do people ever decide to increase tax or reduce expenses without a leader?
Or will a leader emerge out of this, curtailing the power of the population in order to take unpopular decisions and make changes? I hope so, because in my opinion, a leaderless democracy does not work, because the population at large can not make tough choices.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Ashok.I enjoy the thoughfulness of your writings.
ReplyDeleteI agree that a leaderless democracy will not go too far.
However, Isn't it amazing that the non violent opposition and seemingly leaderless movement,was possibly driven by a collective consciousness of such movements that succeeded in other parts of the world, eg India? Gandhiji was the force, but soon in India too it took hold and became a way of life for many. Hopefully that is evolving in Egypt,and leaders will emerge who will reflect the wishes of the people for a peaceful and egalitatian way of life.
Well written, Ashokkaka. Even when we run our small enterprises, if we leave all decisions to be taken democratically, things may not work. People have very different answers when they are asked "what should we do?" and "what would you do if you had to take the responsibility for this decision?" Participating in a democratic process without the need to take responsibility for the choices that are made makes a very irresponsible democracy.
ReplyDeleteGood post! In this speedily developing world of technology after democratization of innovation you are talking about an e.g. of democratization of leadership. I guess it might come up as trend but yet to mature. You come together solve your problem as a group and disperse. Then other set of people facing some other same problems come together solve it and disperse... who got time to wait for leader to come. When s/he comes s/he will also do his/her job and descend.
ReplyDelete