Very cool, if true

Can a system of elective democracy represent the will of the people?

Yes in some ways, when supplemented with other things. It's not perfect, but nobody seems to have come up with a better system as yet.

Does a group of rich countries pushing for what suits them provide any guarantee that it'll be good for everyone, in their own countries or without?

There are no guaruntees of anything. Which is why it was important to get across to the leaders that 'the people' considered the African situation untenable and that something should be done.

From:

I can't really defend these points as I don't personally hold them (I don't know enough) but a friend of mine was one of the protestors at the G8 and he basically said the following:

The purpose of the G8 is not about poverty and climate change, although yes this year those were big things on the agenda - in general though it's about how the richest countries can shape the world for their own aims, as it is the G8 that controls the world bank (or was it the WTO, I can't remember what he said).

He agreed that there was good that came out of the G8 this year, but he was against the way that the rich countries impose their will and often do things that are only in their interests (and not those of the others). In particular this year he said that the conditions attached to the aid given to some of the African nations were completely unreasonable - and served mainly to allow western corporations to come in and start to 'own' various parts of those countries industries.

I don't really understand it (I'm generally clueless when it comes to politics) but I think the protestors generally do have well thought out and reasoned objections to the G8.

From:

Certainly, in the past unreasonable economic demands have been made on countries that were getting aid from the IMF, but these have (I believe) been waived for the debt forgiveness schemes.

And yeah, the G8 meetings _can_ be selfish - in the same way that any group can choose to be selfish. But that doesn't make them talking a bad thing - it just means that the general population need to pay more attention and complain loudly if things we don't like are happening.

From:

Certainly, in the past unreasonable economic demands have been made on countries that were getting aid from the IMF, but these have (I believe) been waived for the debt forgiveness schemes.
Not according to my friend who spent the last two weeks cycling to and protesting at the G8 and I consider him to be very well informed. I'd get specific examples if I could get hold of him, but he'll have just got back to France and might not be online for a day or two.

And yeah, the G8 meetings _can_ be selfish - in the same way that any group can choose to be selfish. But that doesn't make them talking a bad thing
I agree - I think they protest though because it is generally always selfish (and not only that but harmful to those non G8 countries).

it just means that the general population need to pay more attention and complain loudly if things we don't like are happening.
That's exactly what the protestors are doing!

From:

The G8 _have_ acted in selfish ways on numerous occasions. This time round was a healthy breath of fresh air.

Yes, and I've not said a single thing against people protesting. I believe in the right to peaceful protest.

Is there any particular reason you think that I have something against them?

From:

The G8 _have_ acted in selfish ways on numerous occasions. This time round was a healthy breath of fresh air.
Agreed.

Is there any particular reason you think that I have something against them?
"I have a complete failure to understand people who are pushing for an abolition of the G8 - what exactly are they looking for?"
That's what a lot of the protestors where protesting about.

From:

thepaintedone.livejournal.com

Depending on how you look at things, the G8 leaders acting in a 'selfish' (i.e in the interest of the country they represent) way is representative democracy in action.

In most elections, people mostly vote based on thier personal selfish interest to a greater or lesser degree. The differences in parties tend to boil down to what the voter perceive as their personal interest, or thebest way to achieve it, rather than pure ideology. In the last election, where was African poverty in the list of important electoral issues? Lower than hospitals, schools, crime, tax and the econonomy in general.

So by concentrating on thier domestic economies, which in turn fund things like schools, hospitals, police, etc, the G8 leaders are doing what their electorate ask them to. 200,000 at Live 8 might make good TV, but it won't convert into many votes at an election.

That isn't to downplay the issues, it's just a comment on people in general.

From:

thepaintedone.livejournal.com

Ahh, but the G8 are 'them' and 'they' have a bottomless pit of money which they can choose to spend in any amount on whatever they want without any impact on my personal taxation or the level of public spending on things that matter to me.

I am eternally amazed at the general publics inabbility to link the concepts of 'government money' and 'tax', which are of course the same thing.

Another example is ID cards, when hearing of the possible £300 cost for the card, how many people go 'the government should pay for it, not us'. It doesnt maske any difference. If the government spends £300 per citizen on ID cards, thats a £300 per citizen tax bill that has to be generated, you still pay for it no matter what route the money goes through. Except that by the time the cost has washed through God knows how many layers of the civil service it has probably mushroomed several times over.

From:

I agree entirely.

From:

_some_ of the protestors are protesting about that. The vast majority (i.e. the ones on the MPH history march) were protesting so that the G8 would hear them and do what they said, not for their abolition.

From:

I voted, and a party I would have voted against (were that possible) got in. Does that mean the G8 is not me since I do not support the representative that Britain has sent (or the one the USA has sent(?

People are always saying this like Democracy's "not perfect, but nobody seems to have come up with a better system as yet". I disagree. I think that it is a dreadful system with no real redeeming features. Almost any other system would be better as far as I am concerned. :)

From:

Suggest a better one. Any better one.

From:

benign dictatorship, meritocracy (any), communism

pretty much anything

From:

The problem with benign dictatorships is that there's no way to tell if they're going to be benign in advance, or to stop them going malign (or insane).

We have a meritocracy - where the merit is 'percieved ability to run the country'. Would you rather it was something else?

And communism has been shown to not work, repeatedly, as it doesn't offer incentives to people.

From:

Democracy has been shown not to work, and we have a non-benign dictatorship which has not been shown to have the merit of ability to run the country.

People's complacancy about the flaws of democracy just really bugs me. Let alone the flaws of FPTP "representative" Democracy

From:

Oh, I agree that FPTP democracy is pretty abysmal.

And, apart from changing to some kind of more proportional democracy I'm not sure what system would work better.

I'm not in any way convinced that there is _any_ decent system for managing 55 million people.

From:

well as far as I can tell Democracy is a big con, telling people that society's flaws are their fault. Never mind that they weren't consulted (referendums anyone).

Which is to say noting of comments like "how many of these people didn't bother to vote in the General Election, thereby negating their right to influence the debate one way or another?". I mean I did vote and that offends me. I can easily picture having had no options wished to support on the ballot paper, and knowing that whoever you chose will interpret that cross as unconditional support for all their policies

ok as a compromise let's scrap representative democracy and have online/telephone poll referendums about everything. Then it really will be the people's fault

From:

I'd be tempted by referenda if I actually believed that 'the people' weren't composed by a fair amount of idiots who actually believe what the papers say.

I do also think that you need people in power for longer periods if you aren't going to have policies swinging back and forth on a weekly basis (even moreso, that is). And with people not really understanding things so basic as "If you want more money for hospitals you have to pay more taxes" I'm not convinced that you'd get anything coherent out of a series of referenda.

From:

so you like Democracy but dont trust "the People". I'd say not trusting "the People" was the flag that highlights the fact that Democracy is not for you :)

I agree you'd need experts who knew what they were talking about to implement the will of the people.

I've said it before but automation is the way to go.

From:

Well, as the experts in this case tend to be the civil servants who actually do all the hard work...

As for automation - vast amounts of thingss _are_ automated nowadays. Which is why we're all now working in the service industry. Automating decision making might be a tad hard, as it depends on morals, which aren't really mechanisable.

From: