The federal government of the United States is originally a republican government, but is safe to say it has evolved, or perhaps degenerated, into a representative democracy in many ways. It should be obvious the constitutional limits on power, and the separation of such, have not worked. The state is enormous and it has all the "qualities" of being democratic.
So let’s just stick to the fact that the federal government of the United States is as much democratic as the German or French governments. The people in Washington DC are, or so they claim, the representatives of the people and they have only the powers delegated to them by the citizenry. It is the social contract kind of thing, where the government is supposed to protect the people from each other as well as from foreign threats. That contract is the reason the people has originally instituted a government and that’s where the legitimacy of the state, as well as its powers, comes from.
This is also what underlies the basic human right to withdraw that very support if the government does not behave properly: the right to revolt against tyranny. I’m not saying the United States government is tyrannical, that’s not the point of this text. I simply wish to analyze the reasons for assuming legitimacy for the contemporary state.
If these theories were true, and I would say they essentially are, then government is for the people, by the people, and of the people, as Lincoln expressed it, or it is not. If the former, then there is, theoretically, no problem with it; if the latter, then its subjects have not granted it any legitimacy and so it is a violation of our basic right to selves and must go.
So let’s examine this legitimacy and where it comes from. It is impossible to, as the old philosophers did, simply assume this legitimacy is passed on from generation to generation. Also, whatever philosophical starting point you may think of, real legitimacy is either awarded now, at this very moment, or it is not. So either government is legitimate or it is not, it’s as simple as that.
But it is not serious to simply expect legitimacy to "be" there. It has to be expressed, and I’m sure you agree that support for something cannot be implicit or unnoticeable. So anyone supporting government thus has to actively grant it legitimacy. Is there a better way to do this than to take part in that great advance auction sale of stolen goods called elections? Probably not, since these elections make the very core of democratic government; it is so central to the idea of democratic government that politicians themselves claim legitimacy based on the ballots cast.
This means that people who really wish to grant legitimacy to government should take time to vote, while those who do not should not. It also means that government is legitimate only to the extent its subject population actively, through voting, supports it. So let’s look at the numbers.
Of the United States population of approximately 300 million, only 122 million voted in the presidential elections in 2004. President Bush was supported by 50.7% of voters, or 62,040,610 people.
But what does this mean? It means a terrifyingly large part of the population actually takes time to support government. But it also means that only about 40% of the population thinks it proper to grant government legitimacy — 60% didn’t care to vote. Also, it means less than 21% of the population voted for the president. That doesn’t make sense, now does it? 21% of the population, one in every five people, voted for the guy in the White House pretending to be a representative of that 21% and the other 79%.
It also means less than half of the population wanted to spend their precious time actively supporting government. So exactly how is the United States government legitimate?
In a recent poll made for CNN, the numbers above are confirmed: 54% said government was doing too much and that many of the decisions made should be made by businesses and individuals. Only 37% supported government growth.
Compare these 37% with the 40% of the population voting in 2004 to grant the growing government legitimacy. The numbers are almost the same. And 54% say government is doing too much, compared to 60% not voting. The numbers are approximately the same, so it would seem they are just about right. More than half of the United States population in fact does not support the government as it is, and these people do not want it to grow even more.
So the people in Washington DC may be the power elite in a representative democracy, dependent on "the people" granting them legitimacy. But the question we should ask is: who do they represent? It certainly isn’t the people.
Serikali ya Marekani ni serikali ya awali ya jamhuri, lakini ni salama kusema imebadilika, au labda imeharibika, kuwa demokrasia ya uwakilishi kwa njia nyingi. Ni lazima iwe wazi mipaka ya kikatiba juu ya nguvu, na kutenganishwa kwa vile, haijafanya kazi. Serikali ni kubwa sana na ina "sifa" zote za kuwa ya kidemokrasia. Kwa hiyo hebu tu kushikamana na ukweli kwamba serikali ya shirikisho la Marekani ni kama wengi kidemokrasia kama Ujerumani au Ufaransa serikali. Watu wa Washington DC ni, au wanadai hivyo, wawakilishi wa watu na wana mamlaka tu iliyopewa na wananchi. Ni mkataba wa kijamii ambapo serikali inapaswa kulinda watu kutoka kwa kila mmoja na pia kutoka kwa vitisho vya kigeni. Mkataba huo ndio sababu watu awali walianzisha serikali na hapo ndipo uhalali wa serikali, pamoja na nguvu zake, zinatoka. Hii pia ni nini msingi haki ya msingi ya binadamu ya kuondoa kwamba msaada sana kama serikali haina kujiendesha vizuri: haki ya kuasi dhidi ya udhalimu. Mimi si kusema serikali ya Marekani ni ya kimabavu, kwamba si uhakika wa maandishi haya. Nataka tu kuchambua sababu za kudhani uhalali kwa serikali ya kisasa. "Ikiwa nadharia hizi ni za kweli, na ningesema ni kweli, basi serikali ni kwa ajili ya watu, na kwa watu, na kwa watu, kama Lincoln alivyosema, au sio.""" Ikiwa ya kwanza, basi hakuna tatizo, kwa nadharia, na ikiwa ya pili, basi raia wake hawajaipa uhalali wowote, na kwa hivyo ni ukiukaji wa haki yetu ya msingi ya kujitegemea na lazima iondolewe. Kwa hiyo hebu tuchunguze uhalali huu na ambapo unatokana. Ni vigumu, kama vile wanafalsafa wa zamani walivyofanya, kudhani tu kwamba uhalali huu unapitishwa kutoka kizazi hadi kizazi. Pia, hata uwe na maoni gani ya kifalsafa, uhalali halisi au hutolewa sasa, wakati huu, au hautoi. Kwa hiyo ama serikali ni halali au si halali, ni rahisi kama hiyo. Lakini si jambo la uzito kutarajia tu kwamba uhalali "utakuwa" hapo. Ni lazima kuelezwa, na nina hakika unakubali kwamba msaada kwa kitu hauwezi kuwa wazi au unnoticeable. Kwa hiyo mtu yeyote anayeunga mkono serikali kwa hivyo lazima aidhinishe kwa bidii. Je, kuna njia bora ya kufanya hivyo kuliko kushiriki katika mnada huo mkubwa wa bidhaa zilizoibwa unaoitwa uchaguzi? "Hakuna shaka, kwa kuwa uchaguzi huu ni msingi wa serikali ya kidemokrasia, ni muhimu sana kwa wazo la serikali ya kidemokrasia kwamba wanasiasa wenyewe wanadai uhalali kulingana na kura zilizotolewa. """ Hii inamaanisha kwamba watu ambao wanataka kutoa uhalali kwa serikali wanapaswa kuchukua muda wa kupiga kura, wakati wale ambao hawataki haipaswi. Pia inamaanisha kwamba serikali ni halali tu kwa kiwango ambacho idadi ya watu wake wanaoshikiliwa kwa bidii, kupitia kupiga kura, huunga mkono. Kwa hiyo hebu tuangalie namba. Kwa mujibu wa takriban idadi ya watu milioni 300 nchini Marekani, ni watu milioni 122 tu waliochagua kupiga kura katika uchaguzi wa urais mwaka 2004. Bush alipata kura ya 50.7% ya wapiga kura, yaani watu 62,040,610. Lakini hilo lamaanisha nini? Hii inamaanisha kwamba sehemu kubwa ya watu huchukua muda kuunga mkono serikali. Lakini pia inamaanisha kuwa ni asilimia 40 tu ya watu wanaofikiri ni sahihi kutoa serikali uhalali - asilimia 60 hawakujali kupiga kura. Pia, ni chini ya asilimia 21 ya watu waliopiga kura kwa rais. Hiyo haina maana, sasa si hivyo? "Watu 21% walipiga kura kwa mtu aliyeingia katika Ikulu akijifanya kuwa mwakilishi wa asilimia hiyo 21 na wengine 79.""" Pia inamaanisha kuwa chini ya nusu ya watu wanataka kutumia wakati wao wa thamani kuunga mkono serikali. Kwa hiyo serikali ya Marekani ina haki gani? Uchunguzi wa hivi karibuni uliofanywa kwa CNN, idadi zilizo hapo juu zinathibitishwa: 54% walisema serikali ilikuwa ikifanya mengi sana na kwamba maamuzi mengi yaliopatikana yanapaswa kufanywa na wafanyabiashara na watu binafsi. Ni asilimia 37 tu ya watu waliopendelea maendeleo ya serikali. Kwa mfano, asilimia 37 ya watu waliopiga kura mwaka 2004 waliunga mkono serikali hiyo. Idadi hiyo ni karibu sawa. 54% wanasema serikali inafanya mengi, ikilinganishwa na 60% ambao hawapigi kura. Idadi hizo ni sawa, kwa hiyo yaonekana kwamba zinafanana. Zaidi ya nusu ya wananchi wa Marekani hawaungi mkono serikali kama ilivyo, na hawa hawataki ikue zaidi. Kwa hivyo watu wa Washington DC wanaweza kuwa wasomi wa nguvu katika demokrasia ya uwakilishi, wakitegemea "watu" kuwapa uhalali. Lakini swali tunalopaswa kuuliza ni: wanawakilisha nani? Kwa hakika si watu.