more on this theme | more from this text
Full Idea
There is no such thing as one monolithic 'people' (every society has its diversity), nor is there anything that could be described as a 'national gut feeling'.
Gist of Idea
There are no united monolothic 'peoples', and no 'national gut feelings'
Source
David van Reybrouck (Against Elections [2013], 2 'populism')
Book Ref
Reybrouck,David van: 'Against Elections', ed/tr. Waters,Liz [Bodley Head 2016], p.18
A Reaction
Rousseau yearned for a republic no bigger than Geneva. I don't see why we should give up on the general will in huge modern societies. It is likely, though, to be an anodyne lowest common denominator. No bad thing, perhaps.
| 20086 | Nowadays sovereignty (once the basis of a state) has become relative [Reybrouck] |
| 20085 | Democracy is the best compromise between legitimacy and efficiency [Reybrouck] |
| 20089 | Technocrats may be efficient, but they lose legitimacy as soon as they do unpopular things [Reybrouck] |
| 20090 | Today it seems almost impossible to learn the will of the people [Reybrouck] |
| 20087 | There are no united monolothic 'peoples', and no 'national gut feelings' [Reybrouck] |
| 20088 | Technocrats are expert managers, who replace politicians, and can be long-term and unpopular [Reybrouck] |
| 20093 | In the 18th century democratic lots lost out to elections, that gave us a non-hereditary aristocracy [Reybrouck] |
| 20091 | Representative elections were developed in order to avoid democracy [Reybrouck] |
| 20094 | You don't really govern people if you don't involve them [Reybrouck] |
| 20095 | A referendum result arises largely from ignorance [Reybrouck] |