How very generous of Mr. Klein – he’s inclined to let us have our voices now that the decisions have been made. Responding on NY 1 to the inconvenient citizenry that would prefer to stop his half-baked scheme, Joel Klein responded:
"People should be able to make their views known...People who object and dissent, that's what this democracy is all about."
Actually, no, Mr. Klein. Making one’s views known before the closed door of a palace is not quite democracy.
In fact, when voice is merely tolerated, then there is very little difference between the tyrant who beheads dissent, and government appointee who simply shrugs his shoulders, plugs his ears.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Personally, I think a system where we elect leaders who make decisions and are then held accountable for those decisions by the voters is a pretty good democracy. Take the mayor - he asked voters to judge him by his record on education, and he was returned to office by one of the largest margins in the city's history. Just because you disagree with a policy doesn't mean it's anti-democratic. If you think a democracy is a system where your view (or the view of special interests like the ones who organized the rally mentioned in that NY1 story) always prevails, maybe you're the one who needs a civics refresher.
Last I checked, Mr. Klein was not elected.
Last I checked, the purpose of elections was not to abdicate all voice to the elected.
And finally: Always prevail? You've got to be kidding.
Diane Ravitch has addressed the anti-democratic nature of Klein's administration rather well on her blog
"……few people outside New York City really understand what mayoral control means. For that matter, not many people inside NYC do either. Few people realize that it means that there are no public boards, no central board, no local boards, no public voice whatever. The mayor controls everything. Decisions are made behind closed doors by a cadre of lawyers, with no public discussion or public review. Today, there are no educators included among the decision-makers, only lawyers. The discussion comes only after the decision is made and there is no changing the decision. With this crowd, public discussion means telling the public what was already decided."
Ravitch's blog can be found at: http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/Bridging-Differences
Post a Comment