[thechat] protests?

Tara Cleveland tara at taracleveland.com
Mon Mar 24 10:43:30 CST 2003


> At 06:08 PM 24-03-03, Kevin Stevens wrote:
>> That kind of implies that once someone is in power you have to wait 4 years
>> until you can officially get rid of them, which should not be the case

Madhu Menon wrote:
> A valid point, and I agree. However, I think that's one of the trade-offs I
> spoke of. It's an interesting exercise, isn't it? What kind of system
> should we have that allows for a democratic government, but at the same
> time, allow that government's removal from power if they no longer
> represent the people's views. I'll get back to this in a bit.

The other point, that I think hasn't really been said, is that governments
make some policy decisions *while* they are in power and they certainly
implement lots of policies while in power.

There is a huge business lobby that spends millions, not only on election
donations, but on lobbying while the government is in power. And they get
results - they can change policy decisions.

But what can you and I do to affect government decisions if we don't agree
with that business lobby and we don't have the $$ to buy policy that we
like? Well, we don't have the $$ to change the government position - all we
have is votes. That's where our power is.

So we go out on the streets and protest and show our elected representatives
that we won't vote for them if they do x, y or z. Hopefully, we get enough
people out that it affects the decisions being made by government.

Protests should also be to educate the rest of the voting population. It's
sort of a "hey there's this issue that we think is important - and we feel
very strongly about it for these reasons", hoping that the viewers (this is
why the media is so important - 'cause it can reach *way* more people than
those who get tied up in the traffic snarls) will learn something about the
issue, and agree with us.

Regards,
Tara



More information about the thechat mailing list