Opening Passages to consider:
“The inhabitants of a particular town are much better acquainted with its wants and interests, than with those of other places; and are better judges of the capacity of their neighbours, than of that of the rest of the countrymen. The members, therefore, of the legislature should not be chosen from the general body of the nation; but it is proper that in every considerable place, a representative should be elected by the inhabitants. The great advantage of representatives is their capacity of discussing public affairs. For this the people collectively are extremely unfit, which is one of the chief inconveniences of a democracy.”
1. The above is a selection from the chapter “The Constitution of England” that is NOT in your Ebenstein text. What is your reaction to his assertion?? Where do you think that discussion of public policies best takes place?
“The suffrage by lot is natural to democracy, as that by choice is to aristocracy. The suffrage by lot is a method of electing that offends no one; but animates each citizen with the pleasing hope of serving his country. Yet, as this method is in itself defective, it has been the endeavour of the most eminent legislators to regulate and amend it.” p. 415
2. What do you think about this assertion?--please comment
I agree with his assertion. I think that if each place has a representative, it lets the peoples' voices be heard. I also agree that it will allow the towns to prosper because those elected will be well informed and know how to make positive change. If the power is in the hands of all the people things could go wrong and there could be chaos.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that it is defective if each person can vote. I think it is beneficial and fair. If everyone votes for representatives and has a say in what goes on with their government, it will allow for justice.
1. I think that his discussion of public policies is odd in that those representing a nation should be elected from the inhabitants of a particular town. Though I agree that people living in certain towns versus the countryside may be better educated or more equipped to govern properly, I don't think Montesquieu is correct in saying that representatives should always be elected from the one town. There could be just as intelligent or strong leaders coming from the countryside. I think that by leaving the election open to anyone, the people should elect the best leader. Though that leader may come from one town more frequently than from the countryside, if they've given equal opportunities to be elected, they will be able to prove who is the better leader rather than it being assumed that the leader from the one town is the better ruler.
ReplyDelete2. I think that Montesquieu's statement is viable. Suffrage by lot gives everyone the possibility of an equal opportunity to rule. It rallies the citizens and encourages them to become excited by and involved in politics, for they never know if they could be the next leader or not. I agree that it is defective, because by having more of a lottery type of selection of a ruler, the ruler who comes to power could be a complete buffoon or tyrant, but it also gives everyone the same chance to have a loud and resonating voice.
1. I think this assertion is quite accurate. I think it is very true that those who live in a particular area are most knowledgeable about what does and does not work within their community. This the system of electing a representative from your area to best cater to the needs of the people is something we employ in our own government, as we have elected officials from our state, from our counties and even our towns that represent the population in the community because, being from that community, they can work in the best interest of the people living there. I think he is right, also, in the statement that people collectively are unfit for discussing public affairs because not everyone is equipped to have political power. Not everyone has the ability to make tough political decisions, yet they can still have some part in them by choosing the representative they feel best embodies the ideals they have, and put the trust in them that they will make the tough decisions for the good of the people.
ReplyDelete2. I think this assertion goes back to the same point I made earlier, which is that while everyone would like to have some kind of say in politics, I'm not sure if I would necessarily trust just anyone with difficult decisions that affect everyone. That being said, people can still have some say in how politics are constructed because they can help choose who ends up making those decisions. This method appeases many's hope of "serving his country." I'm not quite sure what he means when he says the method is in itself defective, however, but while he says legislators try to amend the system, I believe that certain kinds of corruption within politics stems from the legislator's desire to regulate it, or "fix" it in their favor in order to continue serving the people, so in that sense I can see the defective nature of the system as people can try to do anything to stay in charge of it.
1. Because Montesquieu was such an admirer of England's government, it makes sense that he would promote the effectiveness of representatives. I agree with him in that the leaders and decision makers of a government should be able to account for the wants and needs of the inhabitants in "every considerable place" rather than merely the entire nation as one body. If each citizen were able to voice their opinions in the discussing of public affairs, the government would neither move forward nor be able to create effective legislature. This is where representatives provide a voice (that mirrors the people of a specific region) but also the capacity to compromise.
ReplyDelete2. Suffrage by lot does give each citizen the chance/hope of serving his country, but I don't fully think that it is necessary for a democracy to flourish.
1. I think that having the people of one region elect an official to represent them is necessary, for it allows for the needs of that region to be expressed without any bias from someone in another area. I do not think that having these representatives inconveniences anyone, but actually improves a society. This concept is best scene in the House of Representatives in the American legislature branch. It is here that people are elected to represent a specific region of a state to the Federal government.
ReplyDelete2. Suffrage is the one undeniable goal for a democracy or republic to bring freedoms to the masses. However, I do agree that legislative do regulate and modify it. For example, the Patriot Act is one law that was passed to protect our freedoms by limiting our freedoms. Allowing for the masses to have to give up a little freedom to privacy to be protected. By doing this the truly free democracy becomes flawed and defective as Montesquieu points out.
1. I agree that there are issues that do only affect certain areas and are only familiar to the people that live in them. For this, I believe local representatives are important; in order to best represent the will of their people, representatives must understand the issue. However, I also think that there are some issues that affect the people at large and that there should be a certain degree of cohesiveness in the government in order to handle it. I think there should be a balance of local and broader representation, similar to the way the U.S legislation works, with the various districts of a state selecting the members of the House of Representatives whereas members of the Senate are chosen by the state as a whole. Yet, the election of senators still represents the value of understanding where you come from and what is important to your constituents, just on a larger scale.
ReplyDelete2. I absolutely agree with the merits Montesquieu attributes to suffrage by lot. I think that the efforts of legislators to regulate suffrage by lot is something that is also reflected in our society, as there are numerous positions reached by appointment and not election.
1. I think that it is a well reasoned claim that people who are in constant communication with one another will know each other better than people who are not. Neighbors understand the specific struggles of their neighbors because it’s likely they deal with the same hardships. In this regard, it makes the most sense for a representative to be a part of the community which he/she represents. I also agree with the claim that if an entire people is made sovereign by democracy then the interests of the smaller towns and cities with less people will be ignored. Thus, a kind of representational democracy would be the best place to discuss public affairs of the entire public by having a representative from each part of the public present for such discussions.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that democracy in itself is a flawed system; yet, what would these eminent legislators have democracy be amended to? As of yet, all governmental systems are defective in one way or another but it seems to be the case, in my limited understanding, that democracy, or at the least, partial democracy is the best of the imperfect systems.
1) I think that he is correct in the sense that citizens of a particular town will be able to meet that towns wants and needs more easily than an outsider. That citizen knows how the town functions and will be able to understand how the town should be run in order to be successful. If there was to be an outside representative who is not part of daily life, than he will fail to see the steps needed to keep the town running smoothly.
ReplyDelete2) Legislators would not have to amend and regulate if there weren't four different classes and both military employments and senators and judges were elected in the same way. Having four different classes makes it easy for people to be elected and sometimes unfair, but if there were no division of classes it would be a more sound system. If elections as a whole were by lot than there wouldn't be as much to fix within the system by the legislators.
FROM KASSIE:
ReplyDeleteI agree with Montesquieu when he says that the inhabitants of a town know best what is right for the town regarding laws and legislature. It makes sense that there be a different representative for each area, because each area has different needs, and no one knows these needs better than the inhabitants. Legislative decisions affect the inhabitants of a town more than anyone else, so it is only fair that the people whom these decisions affect have some say in how the decisions are decided and who decides them. I think it is true that not every inhabitant is capable or knowledgable enough to discuss public affairs; however, every inhabitant still deserves to be represented in some way.
I can see where Montesquieu is coming when he says that suffrage by lot is a defective system. Even though the people may vote for who they think will be the best leader, by allowing the citizens to choose the leader, the person who comes to power might go back against his word, break his promises, and serve in a way that does not ultimately benefit the citizens. It is impossible to predict what type of leader someone will be, and because of this, it is risky to allow the people to vote on a leader. It is also defective, in my opinion, because even though the people have a say in who will represent them, they have no say in what those representatives will do once they actually come into office. I'm not sure what a better solution would be, however, because I do believe that the people should have influence over who represents them, and some people are not fit to make legislative decisions, so voting for who will represent them is the next best option. Though it is defective in some ways, I still believe that suffrage by lot is the best solution.