4 ms·

You do have to wonder about the long term stability of a nominal democracy where 72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while 77% of their representatives v

You do have to wonder about the long term stability of a nominal democracy where 72% of citizens oppose digital monitoring, while 77% of their representatives vote for laws they emphatically do not want. Put more bluntly, is this even a democracy in anything other than the trappings?

Dah00n 5y ago
Well, they have a better voting track record than the US vis-à-vis citizens vs politicians, so I guess the answer world be No if the US is authoritarian but Yes if it is democratic.
LanceH 5y ago
A discussion I've never really seen take place is, "Why does law enforcement have a (prominent) seat at the table for which laws should be passed?" We in the US continually hear from the FBI and other agencies how they need to abridge rights in order to be more effective. IMO, that really shouldn't be in their wheelhouse. They should be enforcing only laws that exist. Making new laws for their convenience should be none of their business. If they are hamstrung by some pesky civil rights, tough. I'm sure there may exist counterexamples, but I can't think of where an agency has advocated in favor of more personal protections.
- _trampeltier 5y ago
  Good point. Of course every kind of worker has his wishes to change law/rules for work. But the agencies are really good in pushing for new laws (and more work .. perpetum mobile).
CameronNemo 5y ago
How is it not a democracy? It is representative, sure, but it is still more democratic than many other nominal democracies which do not even have proportional representation. Perhaps people just do not consider this an important issue, and do not factor it in to how they choose their representatives very much? What do you suggest as the alternative? Direct democracy? Anarchy? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-support-democracy https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-su...
- mhitza 5y ago
  Funny, just posted this to a parent comment thread on a whim. Representative democracy is really not that good, when you can't recast your vote; and you're forced to pick X/Y for Z years. Your options are vote a representative, don't vote a representative, become a representative yourself. I personally am a firm believer that due to the proliferation of technology, Liquid Democracy can become feasible for our generation. But I doubt those in power would let the democratic process evolve in that direction.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
estaseuropano 5y ago
- this is not new, it only is an urgent law to enable continuation of current practices as a previous law ran out - this is temporary legislation limited to 3 years - hopefully we get some real dialogue on the final legislation
buran77 5y ago
This is the misunderstood part of democracies as we have them now. The only democratic parts are the process of electing your representatives, and the decisions taken between the representatives. Of course that's still a (small) win, and there's the reasonable assumption that a representative will at least partially represent the interests of their voters. But in reality there's a massive disconnect between the principles of democracy and the implementation. We now get probably the narrowest interpretation that could still be considered a democratic process. The people have the power for the fraction of a second it takes to cast a vote, followed by years of absolutely no real power of any kind, beyond the vague "consultation", and no real obligation from their representatives to represent the people.
- mhitza 5y ago
  Maybe just maybe some day we will be empowered again when digitalisation leads us to a Liquid Democracy. Ah, who am I kidding, no one in power wants to give the plebs more power.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  When you have bills with 70% and higher disapproval getting 70% of the MPs voting for it, then “narrowest interpretation” seems like a cruel joke. To be blunter still; systems of government can collapse and be replaced in function but not in form. The early emperors of Rome ruled surrounded by the trappings of republicanism, even though we now know that they were autocrats who had killed the republic whose skin they wore. I wonder if later generations will consider us to be oligarchies and not representative democracies, considering how little the will of the voters seems to matter to those who nominally rule on our behalf.
estaseuropano 5y ago
Its more complex than this. You cant put complex questions to simple referendum as a yes/no question (see brexit). Law making requires compromise and seeing the whole picture and its very easy to get people to say yes (or no) just depending on how you frame the question. Great example is maternity leave: amazing thing, exists across Europe for a length of 4 to 36 months. In some countries moms can take nearly three years off, and still get paid. Great in principle but after three years (or more with more kids) those moms basically have no chance to get a job in their field as their knowledge is outdated and they often end in precarious low wage low skill jobs. I'm 200% in favour of maternity leave, but if you set the incentives wrong you don't help families more - you just kick women out of the workforce. So how do you put a referendum on this? You need trial, expertise, analysis - not a simple 'do you want 12 or 36 months of paid maternity leave' as most voters don't understand the long term consequences.
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  People's knowledge in a field doesn't get outdated in just 3 years. Even in Javascript world. Any lawyer, social worker, data scientist, product owner, pharmacist, bank manager, midwive, content writer, day care worker or nurse will be perfectly capable of picking up from where they left off after 3 years.
  - estaseuropano 5y ago
    You might not like that conclusion but the data is clear https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-womens-careers https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-wome... My point was this is complex, policy has side effects and referenda will not necessarily be able to answer such questions. The world is too complex to be answered by occasional yes/no questions
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      I don't think the data is clear though. The article specifically says: 1. "Some of our experimental data comes from studies involving university students, who tend to have limited work experience; future research will attempt to study these situations in a wider variety of organizations." 2. "In addition, some of our effects appear small." Basically they discount themselves. Also it's about perception of their EMPLOYERS. Nothing in the study suggests women are less capable or less hireable after two years. It literally says many times in different ways that a long maternity leave could possibly lead to some employers having a negative opinion of a female employee's commitment to their job. But the problem here is with the employer; why should women be penalized because of this, thus being forced to have shorter maternity leaves? Being based (at least partially) on university students, these people might not have the same range of commitment say a 30 or 40 year old with a house and established professional network might have. They may genuinely seem uncommitted to their jobs by the nature of their inexperience in the work force (trying out different things, different types of jobs) and place in life. So maybe that really biases the study. Also it's just ONE study. So one study based on university students, with "small effects", doesn't really prove anything, even if it is published in the Harvard Business Review. But if I may repeat myself: If a woman is penalized for taking a long maternity leave because her employer has become prejudiced or biased against her, the problem lies with the employer or some systematic issue in the workforce, and the solution should be addressed there. If it's legal, it should be perfectly fine for her to take the full length of her leave.

Dah00n 5y ago

Well, they have a better voting track record than the US vis-à-vis citizens vs politicians, so I guess the answer world be No if the US is authoritarian but Yes if it is democratic.

LanceH 5y ago

A discussion I've never really seen take place is, "Why does law enforcement have a (prominent) seat at the table for which laws should be passed?" We in the US continually hear from the FBI and other agencies how they need to abridge rights in order to be more effective. IMO, that really shouldn't be in their wheelhouse. They should be enforcing only laws that exist. Making new laws for their convenience should be none of their business. If they are hamstrung by some pesky civil rights, tough. I'm sure there may exist counterexamples, but I can't think of where an agency has advocated in favor of more personal protections.

_trampeltier 5y ago
Good point. Of course every kind of worker has his wishes to change law/rules for work. But the agencies are really good in pushing for new laws (and more work .. perpetum mobile).

CameronNemo 5y ago

How is it not a democracy? It is representative, sure, but it is still more democratic than many other nominal democracies which do not even have proportional representation. Perhaps people just do not consider this an important issue, and do not factor it in to how they choose their representatives very much? What do you suggest as the alternative? Direct democracy? Anarchy? https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-support-democracy https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/ziq-do-anarchists-su...

mhitza 5y ago
Funny, just posted this to a parent comment thread on a whim. Representative democracy is really not that good, when you can't recast your vote; and you're forced to pick X/Y for Z years. Your options are vote a representative, don't vote a representative, become a representative yourself. I personally am a firm believer that due to the proliferation of technology, Liquid Democracy can become feasible for our generation. But I doubt those in power would let the democratic process evolve in that direction.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

estaseuropano 5y ago

- this is not new, it only is an urgent law to enable continuation of current practices as a previous law ran out - this is temporary legislation limited to 3 years - hopefully we get some real dialogue on the final legislation

buran77 5y ago

This is the misunderstood part of democracies as we have them now. The only democratic parts are the process of electing your representatives, and the decisions taken between the representatives. Of course that's still a (small) win, and there's the reasonable assumption that a representative will at least partially represent the interests of their voters. But in reality there's a massive disconnect between the principles of democracy and the implementation. We now get probably the narrowest interpretation that could still be considered a democratic process. The people have the power for the fraction of a second it takes to cast a vote, followed by years of absolutely no real power of any kind, beyond the vague "consultation", and no real obligation from their representatives to represent the people.

mhitza 5y ago
Maybe just maybe some day we will be empowered again when digitalisation leads us to a Liquid Democracy. Ah, who am I kidding, no one in power wants to give the plebs more power.
ashtonkem 5y ago
When you have bills with 70% and higher disapproval getting 70% of the MPs voting for it, then “narrowest interpretation” seems like a cruel joke. To be blunter still; systems of government can collapse and be replaced in function but not in form. The early emperors of Rome ruled surrounded by the trappings of republicanism, even though we now know that they were autocrats who had killed the republic whose skin they wore. I wonder if later generations will consider us to be oligarchies and not representative democracies, considering how little the will of the voters seems to matter to those who nominally rule on our behalf.

estaseuropano 5y ago

Its more complex than this. You cant put complex questions to simple referendum as a yes/no question (see brexit). Law making requires compromise and seeing the whole picture and its very easy to get people to say yes (or no) just depending on how you frame the question. Great example is maternity leave: amazing thing, exists across Europe for a length of 4 to 36 months. In some countries moms can take nearly three years off, and still get paid. Great in principle but after three years (or more with more kids) those moms basically have no chance to get a job in their field as their knowledge is outdated and they often end in precarious low wage low skill jobs. I'm 200% in favour of maternity leave, but if you set the incentives wrong you don't help families more - you just kick women out of the workforce. So how do you put a referendum on this? You need trial, expertise, analysis - not a simple 'do you want 12 or 36 months of paid maternity leave' as most voters don't understand the long term consequences.

hungryforcodes 5y ago
People's knowledge in a field doesn't get outdated in just 3 years. Even in Javascript world. Any lawyer, social worker, data scientist, product owner, pharmacist, bank manager, midwive, content writer, day care worker or nurse will be perfectly capable of picking up from where they left off after 3 years.
- estaseuropano 5y ago
  You might not like that conclusion but the data is clear https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-womens-careers https://hbr.org/2018/09/do-longer-maternity-leaves-hurt-wome... My point was this is complex, policy has side effects and referenda will not necessarily be able to answer such questions. The world is too complex to be answered by occasional yes/no questions
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    I don't think the data is clear though. The article specifically says: 1. "Some of our experimental data comes from studies involving university students, who tend to have limited work experience; future research will attempt to study these situations in a wider variety of organizations." 2. "In addition, some of our effects appear small." Basically they discount themselves. Also it's about perception of their EMPLOYERS. Nothing in the study suggests women are less capable or less hireable after two years. It literally says many times in different ways that a long maternity leave could possibly lead to some employers having a negative opinion of a female employee's commitment to their job. But the problem here is with the employer; why should women be penalized because of this, thus being forced to have shorter maternity leaves? Being based (at least partially) on university students, these people might not have the same range of commitment say a 30 or 40 year old with a house and established professional network might have. They may genuinely seem uncommitted to their jobs by the nature of their inexperience in the work force (trying out different things, different types of jobs) and place in life. So maybe that really biases the study. Also it's just ONE study. So one study based on university students, with "small effects", doesn't really prove anything, even if it is published in the Harvard Business Review. But if I may repeat myself: If a woman is penalized for taking a long maternity leave because her employer has become prejudiced or biased against her, the problem lies with the employer or some systematic issue in the workforce, and the solution should be addressed there. If it's legal, it should be perfectly fine for her to take the full length of her leave.