Posted by Wulf on August 16, 19100 at 17:16:49:
In Reply to: You're either staying up late or getting up early! posted by Wendy on August 16, 19100 at 01:12:01:
As I indicated below, I don't think simple majority rule alone is enough. You alluded to the problems of majority rule vs. individual rights; this is a deep and abiding problem, and one which highlights the importance of political debate as the attempt to solve problems through reason and consensus rather than sheer force of numbers. The real role of majority-rule, I think, is as an administrative tool to settle (relatively) minor disputes in matters where there is otherwise widespread consensus. Almost all political decisions taken in the West today do occur against such a background of shared agreement e.g we alter the tax laws without debating whether tax is necessary. There's something worrying about it being a tie-breaker between utterly incompatible views about absolutely basic issues. A society that is seriously divided on utterly fundamental issues, to my mind, is either not talking amongst itself or is about three seconds away from total collapse.
I agree with the notion of conscience votes (that's arguably one of the best features of american politics- the ability to vote against your party. Try that here and you generally get expelled from your party, the one exception being the Australian Democrats). The thing is, an MP who casts a vote is exercising her share of the power wielded by the parliament, and for that reason she needs a good justification for voting one way or another. As you say, religious legislators usually come up with other, secular reasons for their decisions; a decision based entirely on personal religious beliefs doesn't seem to be a particularly good basis upon which to exercise power.
And that applies to us as voters as well. When we cast a vote we aren't just expressing our personal preferences. We are exercising political power, and effectively power over others, and therefore we have to do it in a way we can, if we had to, justify to others. "God says so" isn't a particularly widely acceptable basis upon which to exercise political power.
You mention Ireland's stand on abortion, and this strikes me as an excellent example of the sort of thing I'm talking about. The Republic has always legislated according to Catholic morality because section two of its constitution, due largely to De Valera's personal attitudes, recognises the "special place" of the Catholic Church in the polity of Ireland. He also added a clause in which the Republic claims the six counties of Northern Ireland as part of its territory.
Hence we have the situation where a political constitution wants to be binding for the entire island but contains explicit religious affiliations which are anathema to the (now slim) majority in the North (1). Now, how can you hope to set up a working political unity when you have a constitution and attendant legislation which completely alienates the majority population of the Six Counties? The old Unionist chant that "Home Rule is Rome Rule" sounds all too plausible in that instance.
Clearly if you were to unite the Republic and the Northern Statelet, you would need to set up a new, non-sectarian constitution whereby the State did not side with any religious position. To my mind that is an excellent ogy for the position of any modern state which has to maintain a healthy modus vivendi between people of vastly different religious, moral and political persuasions. If all of these people are to be truly represented by the political constitution the State needs to transcend these differences in its legislative action.
Of course Ireland is nowhere near as religious as it was, and the hatreds of the past, although still very much with us, are losing some of their edge. So these decisions will probably be eased by the page of time alone. That said, it's easily the most depressing, terrifying, frustrating, heartbreaking place I've ever been. I was unaware of both just how bad conditions on the ground are and the extent of collusion between the security forces and the protestent paramilitaries. The one ray of hope was the messages foreign visitors have scrawled on the "peace walls" that divide the communities in Belfast. A Canadian had written "all this for a myth"; an American wrote simply "tear down this wall and live in peace". It was the ONLY thing written on a wall anywhere in Northern Ireland that struck me as hopeful.
Note how easily I slid off-topic then?
Wulf
1. In 1996, the first reliable census on the North was carried out. The conclusions were startling: while the Catholic birthrate was, despite popular belief, the same as the Protestant rate (due to widespread contraception), the Protestant emigration rate was such that the Protestant community will be in the minority in a few short years. The younger demographic groups are predominantly Catholic, while the bulk of the Protestant community is in the older age bracket. The much spoken of "One Million Protestants" is now below 900,000 and falling. Even old-style gerrymandering would not help Unionists keep control of the city councils. The implications for northern politics are enormous. For more on this see the excellent Tim Pat Coogan The Troubles.