Lincoln, govern of people, by people, for people

Government of the people, by the people, for the people

01 MAR 2018 - 13:15

https://www.clingendael.org/publication/government-people-people-people

 

The words of Abraham Lincoln to honour the soldiers that sacrificed their lives in order “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth” were spoken at Gettysburg, but these words apply as well to the countless soldiers that died for the cause of democracy in the following 150 years.

Democracy has become such a sacrosanct concept that even the harshest dictatorships, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, call themselves a democracy. But what is democracy?

Was it democracy to give the British people the opportunity to vote about membership of the European Union after providing them with contradictory information about the consequences of leaving? Was it democracy to ask the opinion of the Dutch people about an Association Agreement with Ukraine for improper reasons? (The committee that took the initiative admitted that it did not care at all about Ukraine but wanted to use the referendum to destroy the European Union or drive the Netherlands out of the EU.)

Is it democracy when Dutch ministers shy away from telling the people that the Netherlands is giving up (for very good reasons) part of its sovereignty to the European Union because that would incite people to vote for anti-European parties? (See my column Who dares to be honest?)

Obviously, if politicians believe that voters cannot be trusted with the truth, democracy is seriously at risk. For a democracy to function it is essential that a government respects the people and takes them seriously, not only those that have voted for that government, but all people. Furthermore, in order to exercise their democratic rights properly, people should be informed as fully as possible.

Democracy is a form of conflict management within states, just as diplomacy is a form of conflict management between states. Both therefore usually lead to a compromise between different views and different perceived interests. That is certainly the case when a decision requires both agreement between and within states.

Democracy is a living system of government that can only prosper by being reinvented again and again. It can be strengthened by a referendum if a question can be answered by a simple yes or no. However, democracy is undermined when people are made to believe that a complicated question that involves the interests of different countries can be satisfactorily answered by a referendum in one of these countries. Neither the future of the relation between the EU and Ukraine, nor the future relation between the United Kingdom and the EU can be based on a simplistic yes or no.

亞伯拉罕·林肯 (Abraham Lincoln) 在葛底斯堡 (Gettysburg) 發表了為紀念那些為了“民有、民治、民享的政府不會從地球上滅亡”而犧牲的士兵的話，但這些話也適用於 在接下來的150年裏，無數為民主事業犧牲的士兵。

民主已經成為一個神聖不可侵犯的概念，即使是朝鮮民主主義人民共和國等最嚴酷的獨裁國家也自稱是民主國家。 但什麽是民主？

在向英國人民提供關於脫歐後果的相互矛盾的信息後，讓他們有機會投票決定是否加入歐盟，這算民主嗎？ 以不正當理由征求荷蘭人民對與烏克蘭的聯合協定的意見是民主嗎？ （主動出擊的委員會承認，它根本不關心烏克蘭，而是想利用公投來摧毀歐盟或將荷蘭趕出歐盟。）

當荷蘭部長們羞於告訴人民荷蘭正在（出於非常充分的理由）放棄其部分主權給歐盟，因為這會煽動人們投票給反歐洲政黨時，這就是民主嗎？ （看我的專欄誰敢說實話？）

顯然，如果政客們認為選民不能相信真相，民主就會麵臨嚴重風險。 民主要發揮作用，政府必須尊重人民並認真對待他們，不僅是那些投票支持該政府的人，而且是所有人民。 此外，為了正確行使其民主權利，人們應該盡可能充分地了解情況。

民主是國家內部衝突管理的一種形式，就像外交是國家之間衝突管理的一種形式一樣。 因此，兩者通常都會導致不同觀點和不同感知利益之間的妥協。 當一項決定需要國家之間和國家內部達成一致時，情況肯定如此。

民主是一種活生生的政府製度，隻有通過一次又一次的改造才能繁榮昌盛。 如果一個問題可以通過簡單的是或否來回答，則可以通過全民投票來加強它。 然而，當人們相信一個涉及不同國家利益的複雜問題可以通過其中一個國家的全民投票得到圓滿解決時，民主就會受到損害。 無論是歐盟與烏克蘭關係的未來，還是英國與歐盟未來的關係，都不能基於簡單的是或否。