DOWN WITH THE PEOPLE

The will of the people is often claimed as a political consideration. The meaning of this will of the people expression requires a closer look to see of it makes sense on its face. And the same can be said about a government by the people or for the people. I don't believe these notions exist in the sense we are expected to believe they do; it is not reasonable to imagine any group having a will, a wish or a desire, excepting quite rare circumstances. In what follows I hope to give am understanding as to how attributions of such notions to the "people" are misleading..

It has become a widespread practice to use nonsensical statements such as butchered aphorisms and incorrect words to express underlying ideas only partly or incorrectly understood by the writer or (more usually) the speaker. A common example of this is when one needs to say "Time will tell," and they actually say "The proof is in the pudding." This latter piece of nonsense is clearly a misstatement of the old remark " The proof of the pudding is in the eating." Sometimes a feeble defense is made that we are simply dealing here with a contraction of the correct statement. I don't think so. Anyway, the ubiquitous use of "people" in political discourse could be said to fall into this general category of misuse. But the consequences of such sloppy thinking in the arena of politics are much more serious than in our everyday life.

Let us start with two clear thinking and independent citizens picked at random in my city or yours and consider this small collection as the people. Now, as these two look out upon the vast range of those possible changes to their life and its enjoyment which lie within the power of the state to effect, just what are their shared wills? Note that as they each become more particular, at some point it is almost certain they will not share wills; but if their will is general enough, they are quite likely to share it. Though I dislike slowing matters down here with too many obvious examples, let's consider this. In the former instance above, each could wish a different type of park in their shared neighborhood. In the latter instance, each could wish for a park. Beginning to see the picture?

We do have the experience of things like mass hysteria, mass hypnotism, and phenomena bordering on these. Think of crowds at sporting events and prayer meetings. But we can come back to these at the end and see how they fit in.

Now, even in the provision of a quite general public good, our two citizens may go their separate ways as the options for details of its delivery are brought to light, But perhaps they won't. So let us say that here with just two persons we could have an unlikely example of a people sharing a will. But now let us begin to add citizens at random to our band. Look at a group of three, four, and on and on. Is the likelihood of a common will getting greater? Clearly not. Experience tells us that as the numbers grow, differences spring up. As we reach a decent sized citizenry the only chance we seem to be left with is for some such thing as a common will to live - and we know that even that is not universal. You name it: liberty, wealth, health, or whatever. Not everyone of a decent sized population wills it, so there is no will of the people in the sense of unanimity Hence, such sentiments are a very poor foundation upon which to lay a theory of governance. Of course, an immediate objection is to assert that it is not unanimity but overwhelming majority that is being referred to. But what is overwhelming? Exactly. An issue which can not be resolved with any certainty.

Some say democracy as majority rule is a bully boy system. And by talking a lot about we the people and government by the people and for the people the bullies can pull the wool over our eyes. Those rule who have the money, the power, the chicanery, or whatever it takes at the time. Do they make the dissenters suffer as much as they could? Not usually. But only because they don't welcome a fight to the death. They might lose. Anyway, that is one view.

Another more temperate view is that it is a harmless game where we all agree with the rule that a majority of some sort rules. We make our play, and if we come up short in the voting, we pull ourselves together until the next election and act as good citizens because "the people" have spoken. This is justified as a tit for tat system. The outs suffer along for a time and then they become the ins. This system more or less defines the political process as being run by two less than zealous groups, swinging back and forth over a number of years between basically moderate candidates.

In neither of the above two views can it be said the people are represented because, as was shown above our experience tells us there no such thing as a single will of the people. But there is a further sense in which the notion of people does mischief.

In practice the people are always the British, the Cubans, the American people. There are boundaries. But many problems are global and so a government by the people and for the people can be conceived coherently only as government by all existing human beings in the long term interests of the human race and the world that it dominates. A clearly out of reach goal.

So, as sad as it might make us, we must find a way to leave this mode of thought, a mode which tempts us to set our reason aside and give credence to those in politics who speak of such things as the people. Let us leave such expressions to those who characterize mobs and others in mass frenzies.

endnote: A closely related problem is the loose way in which people of cities and nations are said to have one character or another.