A Reply

A response and extension of Jarret's point on the general populace:

There is too another problem regarding the general populace. How many individuals constitute the populace? A thousand? No, millions. In a democracy, not even in an ideal democracy but just a rudimentary one, these individuals are lent voice. And sure and fine that may be in securing "freedom" and "change", we have essentially millions of individual tugs on the rein of state, and allowing the chariot to steer where most of the tugs pull. What is the significance of this? If the entire populace is in accord, then there would be no problem in this, but that is certainly not the case. We have essentially then, a few factions of people tugging at their own directions, each pulling against the other (such as different political parties are wont to do.) and the whole direction of state is shifted by subtle nuances and small percentage margins. What horror that a margin of 3% or less could completely halt and reverse a state. I personally liken it to the image presented to us by Virgil in the conclusion of his first Georgic:

" ut cum carceribus sese effudere quadrigae,
addunt in spatia et frustra retinacula tendens
fertur equis auriga neque audit currus habenas."

A chariot, the chariot of state, turning out of control on the racetrack as its charioteer tugs hopelessly on its reins in vain. No person can control the state, only "the populace" can. And so the governance is bound to the people, and possibly crippled at critical times, where only "states of emergency" when democracy is arrested can things be better handled, and stability be established.

Will anybody here defend democracy?

~Bryan