Politically Correct

The Myth of Representation — Part 1: The Ideal*

So where does Fogy start with this one?

Let’s call it Part 1, shall we?

This is where Fogy reflects on what political systems should perhaps be.

So here goes.

The people elected are supposed to represent the interests of the people, should put into place all that is beneficial, all that helps protect them—a distribution of resources while stewarding the contributions each one pays towards these ends.

Elections and ideologies are simply differing methods of representation, where each representative or their group understands a set of priorities they have learned that will guarantee public order, growth, health, security, and satisfaction.

And there, the shit hits the fan—too many so-called politicians have begun to understand that political acumen is also the path to great wealth and influence.

But let’s focus on what a politically correct system should ideally be.

---

Let’s talk Democracy.

Democracy, hopefully, is supposed to be—rule of the people, by the people—where everybody has a voice and can collectively determine the political future of their region. If the aforementioned money- or power-hungry are kept at bay, then the elected principal participants will organize themselves into roles and responsibilities in keeping with their skills and level of representation.

Actually, the game of politics is much more complex than this and involves in-house fighting, alliances, and matchmaking at elevated proportions.

The terms of representation are, of course, determined by each region’s legislation or constitution—suffice it to say, terms are limited, or should be limited for the following reason:

A good government is only as good as its opposition. If both fill their roles to the fullest, then prosperity and progress are almost guaranteed—for everyone, from the top to the bottom.

Ideally, where a term is four years, there is often sufficient time for minor projects to be put into place and completed, while organizational structures build maturity and consistency. Larger-scale projects can be more difficult to implement, especially if the question of continuity arises.

A good opposition party must assume the responsibility of holding the ruling party accountable for all that is decided and implemented. Their actions must be representative and fair, just as the ruling party's actions must be too.

If four years becomes eight years, then that would appear to be the ideal limit for balanced representation. Responsible voters must understand the need to bring balance to the administration that defines their future—and act to support the system accordingly.

A round-robin of one party and then another often defines the equilibrium necessary for progress, producing a positive effect on the system as a whole—and could even be understood as essential.

A responsible, democratically run nation must adhere to these basic principles:

• A balanced term in office: four to eight years should be enough—more than enough.

• An efficient and well-organized opposition.

• Policies that are understood and balanced—even if one term favors a particular group, the next must serve the others.

• Full accountability: no misstep should be exempt from scrutiny. No party member is above the law.

• And finally, respect must always be given to those who chose them—the people.

---

Next Thursday, Fogy begins peeling back the curtain on alternative systems—how the promises of order and equality often conceal the machinery of control. Until then, ask yourself: are your representatives representing you? Or just playing the game?

👁️ Views (0)