With the Danish referendum on whether to join the European Monetary Union almost complete, I get an urge to make a few comments on democracy
. This is the sixth referendum Denmark has had regarding European affairs and once again the consequences might be felt outside our borders.
First, let me say I felt empowered by voting. I consider it as much of a priviledge as a right. It's a theory that actually works in practise (well, somewhat) and it's the great equalizer; the wealthy businessman is as powerful as the beggar on the street. This appeals to me.
Polls suggest a dead race - the nay's currently have it with 50.4%, the ayes have 49.6%. Denmark is deeply divided on this topic and there are some interesting trends.
Amongst educated people, the ayes have it by about 73%. Amongst women, around 70% vote no. Men tend to vote yes. Those who vote yes are, according to statistics, mostly unemployed, pensionists, extreme wing party members and others that fear joning the EMU will somehow compromise our very generous welfare state, and fear loss of "Danish values" and that there'll be a United States of Europe.
Voter turnout has been, as always, very high, with an estimated 90% of voters actually voting.
With that background, I think there are some apparent flaws - like dragging nearly half the population into/out of something. With the huge difference between educated and non educated people in terms of how they vote. With the nay sayers asking their voters to vote with the heart, not with the mind.
Luckily in this country voter turnout has traditionally always been high - but tere are other nations, the defender of democracy itself for instance, where voter turnout is quite low - and that leads to a whole new set of problems.
How representative is democracy? What *exactly* does it represent. The wishes of the majority of course. But with a race like this one, one really wonders about the tyranny of the majority. This race has also illustrated a division between the educated and the non educated - with the latter being more prone to fall for emotional, rather than factual, arguments. Which begs the question; a nation might suffer because of it. It is analogous to saying no to a new system that, for the sake of the argument, could save say 1000 additional lives. And saying no based on feelings. A similar argument could be made about saying yes.
Which leads us to the question of meritocracy - i.e letting the decision fall to those with expert knowledge. In questions where no decisive expertise can be found, a general election would be held. Obvious flaws here that I won't discuss, but meritocracy does have its merits (pun not intended).
How to resolve these issues? YOU tell me
.
------------------
StSanta
JG54 "Grünherz"
