Dear Editor:
 
From time to time we see published an item concerning our democratic process.
Certainly we should applaud those who take an interest in the way our elected persons administer our public affairs.
Having once read an item which proposed that “anyone who would define democracy should give up the attempt,” I do think that some definition should be available to assist in the debate.
In looking at various countries systems and applying the word democracy, the way I have it is that there are actually three elemental but general definitions
First there is direct democracy. That is when a group adopts policies and priorities where the costs and benefits are pertain to that group only.
The second is electoral democracy.
That is when the people elect a person or persons who will make the laws and also administer their application.
The third is representative democracy.
In a representative democracy, the people elect persons who will represent and advocate for the consensus of the majority.
In Canada we presently have an electoral democracy.
To obtain a representative democracy would require an organizational structure which would strive for the consensus and the elected person would be guided by that consensus when making laws.
It should be obvious that when the people participate in the making of laws, the likelihood of obeying then is multiplied.
When laws are imposed, without the people having the opportunity to contest them, then the mantra becomes “don’t get caught.”
As Sir Winston Churchill said, “In democracy, the law flows from the people.”
Our current crop of elected persons, is not representative, since they do not have the organizational structure to obtain the consensus of the people.
This is a major cause of the present discontent and the reason so many ignore the call to participate.

Ed Goertzen