Karl: “J'ai eu de nombreuses fois ce débat avec mon entourage et notamment sur celui du « devoir d'aller voter » comme élément fondamental du respect de la démocratie et surtout du reproche fondamental que si on ne se rendait pas aux urnes la démocratie était en danger. Combien ai-je vu ces personnes oublier leurs « devoirs citoyens » pour le reste de l'année. En effet, voter n'est pas l'ultime outil de la démocratie, il est un des moyens mais qui n'est pas suffisant et loin de là. La déresponsabilisation des individus face à leur environnement est généralisée et plus personne ne veut prendre part au débat social (social pris dans le sens relatif à un groupe d'individus). De nombreuses personnes diront : « C'est inutile » , « C'est inefficace » . Il est vrai que cela semble difficile, mais encore une fois avec cet abandon du terrain social, les personnes ont oublié la nature de l'engagement et de l'effort de cet engagement.”
Karl's article could well be read in conjunction with Jay McCarthy's article on democracy and natural rights. He defines democracy as “A regular [say] in the government that you are citizen of.” The difficulty with that definition is that people are not citizens of a government, but rather citizens of a country (or possibly more than one country, since some countries' governments think it's possible to be loyal to more than one country). Those of voting age—but even those who are not, since many non-voters also pay taxes, and many voters don't, legally and otherwise, meaning by definition, voters usually outnumber taxpayers—comprise the government. In democracies, they generally elect representatives to serve in the legislature on their behalf, since they, the people, have better things to do than argue the merits of the amendment to paragraph 3 subparagraph c. Also, in democracies, the courts and the executive—sometimes, like in the United States, elected, often not—are usually independent of each other. This is especially true of the United States, but not so much Canada since the executive (the head of state) is an appointed figurehead and the judiciary is de facto appointed by the prime minister.
Getting back to Jay's argument, he says that voting is not a natural right, and I actually think he's absolutely correct. Voting is a learned and socialized behaviour, and while some—like those who say the market should decide, or that a "benign" dictatorship should—think that this learned and socialized behaviour is bad, there are others—the majority, it turns out—that think otherwise. Karl argues that democracy is more than just voting: it's participating in social life and, however small the impact, participating in the decision making process.
Their articles touch different aspects, Jay focussing on rights (especially those of minorities and how they can be reconciled with those of majorities or other minorities) where Karl focuses on the market and its troubled relationship with democracy.
