And they call it Democracy

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.