Government of the people, by the people, for the people
Democracy has become such a sacrosanct concept that even the harshest dictatorships, such as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, call themselves a democracy. But what is democracy?
Was it democracy to give the British people the opportunity to vote about membership of the European Union after providing them with contradictory information about the consequences of leaving? Was it democracy to ask the opinion of the Dutch people about an Association Agreement with Ukraine for improper reasons? (The committee that took the initiative admitted that it did not care at all about Ukraine but wanted to use the referendum to destroy the European Union or drive the Netherlands out of the EU.)
Is it democracy when Dutch ministers shy away from telling the people that the Netherlands is giving up (for very good reasons) part of its sovereignty to the European Union because that would incite people to vote for anti-European parties? (See my column Who dares to be honest?)
Obviously, if politicians believe that voters cannot be trusted with the truth, democracy is seriously at risk. For a democracy to function it is essential that a government respects the people and takes them seriously, not only those that have voted for that government, but all people. Furthermore, in order to exercise their democratic rights properly, people should be informed as fully as possible.
Democracy is a form of conflict management within states, just as diplomacy is a form of conflict management between states. Both therefore usually lead to a compromise between different views and different perceived interests. That is certainly the case when a decision requires both agreement between and within states.
Democracy is a living system of government that can only prosper by being reinvented again and again. It can be strengthened by a referendum if a question can be answered by a simple yes or no. However, democracy is undermined when people are made to believe that a complicated question that involves the interests of different countries can be satisfactorily answered by a referendum in one of these countries. Neither the future of the relation between the EU and Ukraine, nor the future relation between the United Kingdom and the EU can be based on a simplistic yes or no.
亚伯拉罕·林肯 (Abraham Lincoln) 在葛底斯堡 (Gettysburg) 发表了为纪念那些为了“民有、民治、民享的政府不会从地球上灭亡”而牺牲的士兵的话，但这些话也适用于 在接下来的150年里，无数为民主事业牺牲的士兵。
民主已经成为一个神圣不可侵犯的概念，即使是朝鲜民主主义人民共和国等最严酷的独裁国家也自称是民主国家。 但什么是民主？
在向英国人民提供关于脱欧后果的相互矛盾的信息后，让他们有机会投票决定是否加入欧盟，这算民主吗？ 以不正当理由征求荷兰人民对与乌克兰的联合协定的意见是民主吗？ （主动出击的委员会承认，它根本不关心乌克兰，而是想利用公投来摧毁欧盟或将荷兰赶出欧盟。）
当荷兰部长们羞于告诉人民荷兰正在（出于非常充分的理由）放弃其部分主权给欧盟，因为这会煽动人们投票给反欧洲政党时，这就是民主吗？ （看我的专栏谁敢说实话？）
显然，如果政客们认为选民不能相信真相，民主就会面临严重风险。 民主要发挥作用，政府必须尊重人民并认真对待他们，不仅是那些投票支持该政府的人，而且是所有人民。 此外，为了正确行使其民主权利，人们应该尽可能充分地了解情况。
民主是国家内部冲突管理的一种形式，就像外交是国家之间冲突管理的一种形式一样。 因此，两者通常都会导致不同观点和不同感知利益之间的妥协。 当一项决定需要国家之间和国家内部达成一致时，情况肯定如此。
民主是一种活生生的政府制度，只有通过一次又一次的改造才能繁荣昌盛。 如果一个问题可以通过简单的是或否来回答，则可以通过全民投票来加强它。 然而，当人们相信一个涉及不同国家利益的复杂问题可以通过其中一个国家的全民投票得到圆满解决时，民主就会受到损害。 无论是欧盟与乌克兰关系的未来，还是英国与欧盟未来的关系，都不能基于简单的是或否。
