Although the provocative question of the eligibility of masses to be incorporated in the decision making process is almost as old as the concept of democracy itself, it is the criticism one can hardly encounter these days.
The basic fact that the democracy is the most reliable form of governance we have ever developed has created an environment in which even debating the existential philosophy of relying on herd’s opinion, anywhere but in certain academic circles; highly specialized in politics and philosophy, considered out of the question and totally rubbish. However, I can hardly believe that any thoughtful citizen, at least for once, has not been driven to the point of questioning the whole concept.
Where we impose delicate sets of criteria, for almost every simple task in a society, how is it possible that reaching to a certain age is the only criteria to become eligible to choose the most important and influential decision makers of a country?
Why somebody who does not even know the most fundamental basics of the constitutional mechanism, or has not the slightest clue of what is going on inside the country or in the world, is perfectly qualified to decide what is best for the country and for the world, just because he or she is a citizen and has passed a certain age?
Isn’t it at least controversial that for example in the United States, a teenager who is not considered mature enough to be allowed to order a pint of beer or to have a shot of tequila, is allowed to vote in an election in which the most influential man in the world, at least on the paper, is supposed to be elected?! or in some other countries, someone who can not write or read his name, has an equal saying as the most educated and aware intellectuals and philosophers, in determining the future of the country?
For example, when the world is losing precious time to cap CO2 emission and stop the almost irreversible catastrophe of climate change that could and possibly would endanger the whole existence of human being on this planet, why should politicians are forced to postpone the action and disregard the top scientist’s serious warnings, before every redneck and soccer mom is being fully persuaded that it is time to act?!
Do we even ask ourselves, why people should have the unchallengeable right to impose their opinions on matters about which they have no idea, whatsoever?
Can we at least agree that the fact we even consider those premises normal and unquestionable, is gravely abnormal and questionable?
Let me make this clear that I am not against democracy and I do believe that democracy with all its flaws and defects, is the only practical and sustainable way of governance known to mankind but it doesn’t prevent me to seriously challenge the democratic procedure we, in liberal democracies, do practice. It does not persuade me to believe that what we have in the modern world at the moment, can not be improved to be a more intelligent form of people’s authority.
I am not suggesting that we should exclude people from the process, just because they are not educated enough, or they are not aware of the subtleties of the politics but I do believe that they should be certainly excluded because of their dangerous indifference and their persistence to remain clueless! What I am saying is, instead of emphasizing on the number of participant, the accent is better to be put on their quality. How much do they care about the election? How much do they know about the politicians they are voting for? Do they have any clue about the dilemmas facing the country? Are they willing to put at least half as much effort in choosing the president or the prime minister, as they put to vote for the American or Canadian idol? And if they are not, does the system really should care about what they think about the future of the country?
Here is an idea. Surely not flawless, but take it as a starting point. Imagine every eligible citizen undergoes a constitutional exam and gets a constitutional license, similar to driving license but in this case, mandatory for participating in the elections. This way, at least the system can make sure that the voters know the basics of constitution and have an idea about the amount of responsibilities; their votes are giving to the elected officials.
Well, that is just the beginning. On top of this, imagine before every major election, an independent, non-partisan committee, made of intellectuals, political analysts, professional journalists and all related experts and naturally, representatives from all major political parties gather and issues a pamphlet, addressing the most prominent issues facing the country and the world, accompanied by a concise explanation of each problem, following by a prompt and clear strategy proposed by each major political party regarding how to address the very same issue.
Absolutely nothing complicated or impossible to read, just a pamphlet of couple of pages, expressed in a simple and understandable language, written for a common man, explaining the problems and the suggested solutions by each political party. Let’s even do more and offer the package in more diversified formats, like a five to ten minutes pseudo-commercial between favorite programs. Let’s even make it available as podcast for younger generation. Let’s even go further and send volunteers to remote places to make sure voters understand the content of the document. Let’s devote phone lines to which people can call and clear up their ambiguities, regarding to the issues, addressed in the pamphlet.
Then, when the system makes sure that everybody has access to this document, voters can be asked ( surely, only those with a valid constitutional license) to answer some simple questions that has been written on the ballots, designed by the committee and based on the famous pamphlet.
Finally, if one can answer those simple questions, well, the individual can have his/her say. Otherwise, the vote will be discarded to save the future from the most careless citizen’s ignorance, indifference and lack of perspective. Sounds fair doesn’t it?!
Let’s not forget that even if voting is considered to be a birth right, there should be criteria based on which, this right could be, at least temporarily suspended, due to extreme carelessness, extreme ingonrance or as such, exactly the same way that another more obvious birth-right, freedom, can be revoked in cases of breaking the law.
Every right comes with a responsibility attached to it. Why we forget the second part, when we get to the ballot boxes?
P.S. If you don’t agree with me, please see this painfully hilarious video and remember that these people, stupid as they are, are entitled to make decisions that can eventually affect their and everyone else’s lives. Finally, if you want to fool yourself by confining this epidemic of public ignorance to only Americans, well…be my guest!
By the way, I would really like to know your opinions on this matter. Please to not hesitate to leave comments.
First of all I have to say, only an academy who gives the best picture to How Green was my Valley in the presence of Citizen Kane and considers Rocky better Taxi Driver and two decades later, sacrifices United 93 in the foot of The Departed, just to redeem that ridiculous mistake, could possibly conclude The lives of others realistically has any chance of being better than Pan’s Labyrinth in any possible way! And I would never have forgiven them if they hadn’t given 3 awards to this breath-taking masterpiece and also for being brave enough to choose Annie Hall over Star Wars, years ago. 
