From: alain@elevia.uniforum.qc.ca (W.A.Simon)
Newsgroups: socs.misc,alt.canada,soc.canada,alt.politics.canada,mcgill.general,soc.culture.canada,can.politics
Subject: Re: Canada and Quebec (was: REFERENDUM '92)
Date: 07 Nov 92 08:39:53 EST

In <1992Nov4.052742.16237@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu>
mouse@thunder.mcrcim.mcgill.edu (der Mouse)
agonizes over our institutions:

> >> Don't mind me, I'm in a cynical mood today.
> > How could any half intelligent device not become cynical?
> Gee, how odd, you sound cynical too. :-)

	This device has evolved its cynicism as a survival
	mechanism.  This device is not programmed for faith.

> > There seems to be a growing feeling that our system needs change, not
> > just new faces.  Maybe it is time to come out with (very firm)
> > suggestions.
> I think it does too.  Unfortunately I have no suggestions, because I
> don't know what the right thing to do is.

	On this issue, rest in peace: democracy, however brittle,
	however fragile, is the only way.  Any other way leads
	to abuses of power.  Democracy only leads to abuses of
	sanity.  I don't believe we should torture ourselves in
	order to find alternatives; there are none.

>                                            All the good-seeming (to me)
> systems of government simply do not work when applied to as many people
> as are in even a small European country, never mind places like Canada
> or the US.

	Think again.  Here, you confuse democracy as principle
	of government with democracy as implemented.

>             Communism works fine up to somewhere around 25 to 50
> people; beyond that it seems to be extremely hard to keep it from
> either being torn apart by internal friction or turning into
> dictatorship in disguise.

	It is called peer pressure... |8-)

>                            Democracy works for larger groups, but is
> utterly hopeless for the number of people present even in Montreal,
> never mind Canada - I don't think I've heard of a workable democracy
> ever involving more people than the city-states of ancient Greece.

	Then we must find another way of managing democracy.

> Anarchy is fine provided that all the people involved truly do value
> the common good above the individual good, but *that* requires either
> some screening we don't know how to do yet or else a fundamental change
> in basic human nature.

	Anarchy, even more than democracy, is a form of society
	for wise and educated people.  People are never wise.  And
	our current institutions have insured that we are not really
	educated.

>                         Any of various forms of dictatorship is fine
> provided the dictator is truly benevolent and the populace all agree
> with the dictator on a few basic values - but that too we don't know
> how to ensure.

	And then, when the benevolent dictator disappears,
	the wheels and gears are in place for a really nasty
	bugger to take over...

> And any of these would cause a major upset during the transition from
> our current system to the new system.  No, I really don't have any
> suggestions....

	This is also why I don't advocate radical change; I intend
	to show that our best interest resides with the introduction
	of slow, phased in reforms in the attitude of our leaders.
	I don't expect them to cooperate willingly, but that's a
	whole new post...                               ... coming up.



--
 Alain
 [ ... usual disclaimer... ]
Xref: sparky soc.culture.canada:8486 can.politics:9615