https://goldnroll.wordpress.com/
Merriam-Webster Definition of represent
6
a
(1) : to take the place of in some respect
(2) : to act in the place of or for usually by legal right
(3) : to manage the legal and business affairs of athletes represented by top lawyers and agents
b : to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election
My view is that what is currently perceived to be representation in politics, is not at all servitude. It’s all about several people who pretend to take decisions on the behalf of their constituents at the best, of the entire nation or world at the worst.
I do consider each voting person a mature individual, with its own character, will, desires, aspirations, ideas, beliefs, principles, all these changing more or less in time. Though people find common points with others, rarely two individuals match on almost every aspect, and rarely their agreements last as long as several years. One person sharing the same positions with thousands or even millions other people on each subject, serving them by only acting on their will and doing so for several years, is an absolute utopia.
Most of the people do believe that what’s good for them is good for the nation or for the world. Most of the people are looking for means to somehow impose their “good” on the society and they consider this legitimate.
Part of the people acknowledge that they don’t know what are the right actions to undertake for the “good” to be achieved so they are looking for knowledgeable people sharing their goals but better knowing what to do. They are ready to invest their power in those knowledgeable people, to act in their names.
Part of the people believe they know the actions to undertake for their “good” to happen. Most of them are reactive, they only talk about those actions. Few are pro-active, they step forward and compete for a position that grant them the power to act.
During election, a candidate can receive letters and messages with wish lists from thousands of people expressing their views on what decisions the future “representative” should take once elected and what fields of interest should be prioritized. The requests are diverse, many times different and even contradictory. Candidates receive contradictory advice even from their own staff, both in campaign and once elected.
The candidate in election usually sustains the ideas of the majority of the supporters of its party. It does so to win the election. Once elected, the chances that the “representative” will vote according to the will of the majority of its constituents is even lower. Either the elected person votes according to the party line, or in the case of strong personalities, according to their principles and disregarding both party directions and majority of constituents.
What kind of “representative” an elected person becomes is unknown at least when first elected. Statute and power changes people. A strong, independent candidate can be overwhelmed by its position once elected and align behind its party as well as a humble party player candidate can differentiate once elected, to become its own voice.
During a mandate, an elected person takes dozens of thousands of decisions. Considering a member of a Parliament, the field and the importance of their decisions are immensely varied. From a vote on a treaty to a choice of a secretary for the cabinet, everything has some impact on the life of every person of the nation.
What I think to be a good picture of the reality follows. Very few, pro-active people with a strong desire for statute and power, with a strong conviction that they know better what is to do for the “common good” of the Society and sometimes truly believing that they act in the name of their constituents or of the people, compete for a role in power. Once in power, they take decisions: rules that apply for everyone and change the life of every person in a nation. They act solo or in group, organized in camps called “parties”.
The actions of the elected are watched closely and diffused to the entire world by individuals named “journalists”, or on the whole, “media”. Some un-elected people form so called “civic associations”, “non-governmental organizations”, “syndicates” and “industry associations”, with the intention of influencing the elected towards decisions that they consider to be in their interest or of “common good”. The elected are very careful with their image as presented by the media and interpreted by the electorate. They use their relations and their influence to get positive reviews by the media and to score high in popularity.
The re-active people interested in politics spent 99.93% of their time acting outside of the decision-making scope. They do talk a lot about politics, expressing their frustration about what was or their hope for what could be. Once every several years, they vote to choose representatives. Though they are overwhelmingly disappointed by the elected ending their mandates, and despite their recognition of the fact that the actions of the elected in power are very much different than their promises as candidates and different than the will of the electorate, the people interested in politics will continue to vote and will be very critic with the people that don’t vote. They accuse the non-voting people of being guilty for the election of the opponent of their preferred candidate, that opponent often representing the definition of evil. They also accuse the non-voting people of putting in peril the stability of the social construct, causing chaos.
The non-voting people acknowledge that chatting, commenting or complaining is loss of time and energy. They also acknowledge that acting 00.07% of the time by voting, will only give power to someone who most of the time won’t do what they want anyway. Non-voting people tend to be more apathetic in relation with politics and political behavior. That doesn’t necessarily means that they aren’t pro-active or interested in other non-political fields like business, science, arts or entertainment. Part of them express a genuine interest for social affairs by protesting when necessary: that is when the elected take decisions that severely impact liberty and justice.
To return to the definition of represent, “delegated authority usually resulting from election” is well said. It’s not representation meaning that the elected will act per elector request. It’s more like a wild card for the elected to act as it wishes. Once this is understood, the fear of chaos is overcome and the excessive need for laws and regulations is healed, we can move over politics, delegate less authority, and spent more time and energy acting ourselves inside the decision-making scope.
Merriam-Webster Definition of represent
6
a
(1) : to take the place of in some respect
(2) : to act in the place of or for usually by legal right
(3) : to manage the legal and business affairs of athletes represented by top lawyers and agents
b : to serve especially in a legislative body by delegated authority usually resulting from election
My view is that what is currently perceived to be representation in politics, is not at all servitude. It’s all about several people who pretend to take decisions on the behalf of their constituents at the best, of the entire nation or world at the worst.
I do consider each voting person a mature individual, with its own character, will, desires, aspirations, ideas, beliefs, principles, all these changing more or less in time. Though people find common points with others, rarely two individuals match on almost every aspect, and rarely their agreements last as long as several years. One person sharing the same positions with thousands or even millions other people on each subject, serving them by only acting on their will and doing so for several years, is an absolute utopia.
Most of the people do believe that what’s good for them is good for the nation or for the world. Most of the people are looking for means to somehow impose their “good” on the society and they consider this legitimate.
Part of the people acknowledge that they don’t know what are the right actions to undertake for the “good” to be achieved so they are looking for knowledgeable people sharing their goals but better knowing what to do. They are ready to invest their power in those knowledgeable people, to act in their names.
Part of the people believe they know the actions to undertake for their “good” to happen. Most of them are reactive, they only talk about those actions. Few are pro-active, they step forward and compete for a position that grant them the power to act.
During election, a candidate can receive letters and messages with wish lists from thousands of people expressing their views on what decisions the future “representative” should take once elected and what fields of interest should be prioritized. The requests are diverse, many times different and even contradictory. Candidates receive contradictory advice even from their own staff, both in campaign and once elected.
The candidate in election usually sustains the ideas of the majority of the supporters of its party. It does so to win the election. Once elected, the chances that the “representative” will vote according to the will of the majority of its constituents is even lower. Either the elected person votes according to the party line, or in the case of strong personalities, according to their principles and disregarding both party directions and majority of constituents.
What kind of “representative” an elected person becomes is unknown at least when first elected. Statute and power changes people. A strong, independent candidate can be overwhelmed by its position once elected and align behind its party as well as a humble party player candidate can differentiate once elected, to become its own voice.
During a mandate, an elected person takes dozens of thousands of decisions. Considering a member of a Parliament, the field and the importance of their decisions are immensely varied. From a vote on a treaty to a choice of a secretary for the cabinet, everything has some impact on the life of every person of the nation.
What I think to be a good picture of the reality follows. Very few, pro-active people with a strong desire for statute and power, with a strong conviction that they know better what is to do for the “common good” of the Society and sometimes truly believing that they act in the name of their constituents or of the people, compete for a role in power. Once in power, they take decisions: rules that apply for everyone and change the life of every person in a nation. They act solo or in group, organized in camps called “parties”.
The actions of the elected are watched closely and diffused to the entire world by individuals named “journalists”, or on the whole, “media”. Some un-elected people form so called “civic associations”, “non-governmental organizations”, “syndicates” and “industry associations”, with the intention of influencing the elected towards decisions that they consider to be in their interest or of “common good”. The elected are very careful with their image as presented by the media and interpreted by the electorate. They use their relations and their influence to get positive reviews by the media and to score high in popularity.
The re-active people interested in politics spent 99.93% of their time acting outside of the decision-making scope. They do talk a lot about politics, expressing their frustration about what was or their hope for what could be. Once every several years, they vote to choose representatives. Though they are overwhelmingly disappointed by the elected ending their mandates, and despite their recognition of the fact that the actions of the elected in power are very much different than their promises as candidates and different than the will of the electorate, the people interested in politics will continue to vote and will be very critic with the people that don’t vote. They accuse the non-voting people of being guilty for the election of the opponent of their preferred candidate, that opponent often representing the definition of evil. They also accuse the non-voting people of putting in peril the stability of the social construct, causing chaos.
The non-voting people acknowledge that chatting, commenting or complaining is loss of time and energy. They also acknowledge that acting 00.07% of the time by voting, will only give power to someone who most of the time won’t do what they want anyway. Non-voting people tend to be more apathetic in relation with politics and political behavior. That doesn’t necessarily means that they aren’t pro-active or interested in other non-political fields like business, science, arts or entertainment. Part of them express a genuine interest for social affairs by protesting when necessary: that is when the elected take decisions that severely impact liberty and justice.
To return to the definition of represent, “delegated authority usually resulting from election” is well said. It’s not representation meaning that the elected will act per elector request. It’s more like a wild card for the elected to act as it wishes. Once this is understood, the fear of chaos is overcome and the excessive need for laws and regulations is healed, we can move over politics, delegate less authority, and spent more time and energy acting ourselves inside the decision-making scope.
Last edited:
