What America needs today is a democratic movement. It’s obvious that the Democratic movement for “Hope and Change†has failed.
What’s so controversial about posting proposed legislation on the Internet for 72 hours to allow people to review it before a vote? Democrats oppose it. In my opinion, the major fault of the proposal is that 72 hours if far too short.
Certainly, refusing to let the public know what is being considered in Congress is not acceptable. It doesn’t seem to be one of those things you can just chalk up to a difference of opinion. The country belongs to its citizens. Congress belongs to its citizens. The money being spent belongs to its citizens. The results are our results. Representatives have been hired to represent us, not to form an exclusive power elite that churns away at some unknown plan in secret. Those bills are our bills. Resulting legislation is our legislation.
At the very least, those who disobey need to be recalled – taken out of service – fired. The idea that the public would wait patiently until the next election, allowing as much damage as possible to be done in the mean time, is the very peak of irresponsibility. If we want a serious chance at reducing corruption, further action is needed. Someone must look more closely, put allegations before grand juries, and see that corrupt politicians are prosecuted.
Let’s consider how other countries handle proposed legislation. Sweden operates a participatory democracy where “special interest group†is not a dirty word. It has for example, sign up sheets for special interests. When legislation is proposed, the government informs those on the list that there is pending legislation. Meetings are held to allow experts behind the bill to present information to those who are interested. Those who are interested in commenting on the bill are provided with copies. Sufficient time is allowed so that members of the public can review and comment.
It’s all part of “open government†– one of the buzz phrases thrown around by Barack Obama during his election campaign. Sweden provides and example of what it’s like when you actually have one. Moreover, it’s an inseparable part of real democracy. As former Soviet Premier Mikhail Gorbachev recently asked, “What is democracy when people don’t take part in it?” The act of refusing to allow the public to consider bills before passage hits at a fundamental level. It’s in the range of crimes against humanity – even if the timid might characterize it something closer to misdemeanor. Recall – impeachment – whatever – it’s the type of behavior that citizens of the civilized world should never tolerate.
Sweden has another advantage that allows it to hold government in line without too much fuss. Their multi-party parliamentary system allows voters to to more finely tune the balance of power. When large parties shift their agenda to something outside of the mainstream, they cease to be large parties. There are internal struggles for the heart of every political party, of course. Nonetheless, voters are not faced with the eternal struggle of “saving†the big two for the sake of the country. When a party ceases to serve the people, there will be another party ready to replace it.
