I suppose that my short and terse reply could have easily been interpreted in such a fashion, my apologies.
It is difficult to balance the tendency of a faceless mass of committee to become so invested in process and procedure that it ceases to innovate or to reform at a fast enough pace for the community against the motivation of a reformist individual to push the state forward so quickly and in a direction that may not suit the citizenry, which could be either beneficial or detrimental. There are several cases of both in recent history: The civil rights movement comes to mind as one; Lindon Johnson (or was it Nixon) could not have got that legislation past a referendum, but in retrospect it seems that it was the right thing to do, and most folks today are glad of it.
I don't know how society can be successful in championing the reforms that are beneficial and those that are not. The reformers are often a small group of individuals pushing an agenda that is quite unpopular with a significant portion of the citizenry, though the reform is historically judged as a positive thing. This goes against the ilk of democracy in some ways, and is an interesting demonstration of how something that is a bit undemocratic can be quite positive.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2010-07-19 01:20 pm (UTC)It is difficult to balance the tendency of a faceless mass of committee to become so invested in process and procedure that it ceases to innovate or to reform at a fast enough pace for the community against the motivation of a reformist individual to push the state forward so quickly and in a direction that may not suit the citizenry, which could be either beneficial or detrimental. There are several cases of both in recent history: The civil rights movement comes to mind as one; Lindon Johnson (or was it Nixon) could not have got that legislation past a referendum, but in retrospect it seems that it was the right thing to do, and most folks today are glad of it.
I don't know how society can be successful in championing the reforms that are beneficial and those that are not. The reformers are often a small group of individuals pushing an agenda that is quite unpopular with a significant portion of the citizenry, though the reform is historically judged as a positive thing. This goes against the ilk of democracy in some ways, and is an interesting demonstration of how something that is a bit undemocratic can be quite positive.