“A riot police officers tries to extinguish flames from a petrol bomb thrown by protestors outside the Greek parliament, in Athens on Sunday, Feb. 12, 2012. (AP Photo/Thanassis Stavrakis)” From macleans.ca “Week in Pictures”
It is worth contemplating whether a democratic choice is the best choice for Greece, which has been spending profligately on economic and social welfare in the past decades. While austerity may be a practical and useful method to reduce the Greece’s deficit spending, it is opposed by the public, which took to the street after the austerity measures were proposed by the “unelected caretaker government” of Prime Minister Lucas Papademos this week. To make it more undemocratic, Papedemos dismissed members of his government who vetoed the austerity package after the package was passed.
In face of the urgent debt crisis, should the Greek government officials be more resolute in deciding what steps to take, or should they listen to the public before taking any step, given that they are just representatives of the public in a democracy? According to this article, the Greek government should have no hesitation in choosing the latter option. This is because, “there are no wrong answers in a democracy,” meaning that as long as the choice is chosen by the public, it is a right choice.
The article argues for a proper referendum, so the Greek public can decide whether Greece should bailout, default, or implement various levels of austerity measures. While a referendum would be the most democratic choice for Greece, it may not be realized given the opposition by foreign leaders and financiers. In fact, these foreign leaders may be the reason for the resignation of the former Prime Minister George Papandreou, who proposed to hold a referendum in November 2011. Given the tension between the interests of the public and of foreign powers, a question is therefore raised: How to avoid compromising a country’s democratic performance in a neo-liberal world?
Tags: 2 Comments
2 responses so far ↓
I guess this boils down to a debate between the representative and agent views of democracy. Are our elected officials supposed to represent the people, and act as they would act in parliament? Or are our officials supposed to be agents, deciding for us what is the best course of action?
I would say that in this case, the agent definition holds much more water. The fact that Greeks don’t want austerity measures is preposterous. Its like having the same amount of shopping sprees before and after being fired from your job. Greeks should accept that politicians should not act on their behalf, but rather for their benefit. This is definitely true in a case where the popular sentiment is economically foolish. Government officials are elected because they have more knowledge and experience in running the country. Let them use it. This is no less democratic.
Sorry for this more-than-a-month-late-response.
The situation has puzzled me. Although I agree with you that the public in this case is being selfish and is probably not thinking in terms of the common good, I wonder if this problem has always been recognized by democracy, and therefore, would not entitle representatives to act “for their benefit” but not “on their behalf”.
I have never heard anyone define democracy as “the regime which creates the greatest good.” Therefore, although reluctantly, I think it is more appropriate for the Greek government to represent the public view, even if that is unwise.
Thus, the government should hold a referendum, which hopefully would result in an austerity package?