One of the salient features of democracy is the right to
dissent. If the average person were to imagine a state without dissent we would
think of the one-party states of communist societies or fascist societies in which
only one party is allowed. There are also defacto one party states where there
are nominally elections, but one party completely dominates. For a long time,
Mexico was essentially a one-party state. These examples seem to us undemocratic
because they don’t allow dissent or make it too difficult to achieve.
We have our own example of a defacto one party state in
Greece. It is not simply the fact that republicans dominate, after all there
are many places in the US where one party has dominated for a long time, it is the
fact that the Greece Republican party allows no dissent. Every item that goes
to a vote is passed with a 5-0 vote. Moreover there is never discussion that indicates any deviation from
the party line.. It doesn’t matter if the people elected you, the party has
control. Dissenting is a sure sign that you will be removed as a town board
member
I wonder why this is necessary. After all an item before the
board that passes 4-1 or 3-2 still passes. Republican control of the town is
hardly threatened. Nor would the occasional dissent bring collapse. It might
even lead to improving a proposal. I can only conclude that the reason for the
lack of dissent is the need for absolute control by and fealty to the Republican
Party. In Greece most town board members fortuitously end up with jobs for other
republican politicians like Joe Robach or work for the county government. Given
this kind of patron client relations it seems to me fair to ask whether our
elected representative serve the people or are guided by their ties of loyalty
or to a generous patron. That is certainly not democracy. Instead it seems to
assure a system I which benefits, and rewards are given to other friends and
cronies with little consideration of the public interest. It takes political
sovereignty away from the people who are supposed to have the authority
When confronted with these issues in the past, that the real
discussion happens in the agenda meetings that are usually held a week before
the board meetings. There they say you will see real debate and discussion.
There are two problems with the claim. The first is that it is not true. As far
as I can determine there is not a lot of discussion that and input at these
meetings either. A lot of time is expended over who gets to introduce items and
who seconds. It is more like a preshow run-through of a tv show than debate.
But let’s be generous and say that discussion goes on. This still falls short
of the bar. Democracy is not a system in which we elect leaders and let them to
go off in private to make decisions. Democracy is a theory of public authority
and elected officials have to vindicate their policies through public debate
and discussion. While they get to set an agenda, the agenda is still open to
critical examination and open deliberation just as we see on the state and
national level.
I won’t ask anyone here to vote for a specific candidate nut
I think you should not vote for anyone who does not pledge to dissent if needed
and to make government more transparent and open.
