The function of a government, even though it may be warped by self-interest, is to manage resources, propose legislation, and generally oversee the way the country is run. The relationship between government and citizen is that between a juggler and his balls, though who is the juggler and who the balls is sometimes open to dispute.
Jewels that is a fascinating perspective on the function of government...I listen to your interesting observations and comments, you have given thought in many areas... but here I still see it more like Didge, and even more optimistically, maybe...
Because a government can step in and interrupt a kind of mob rule that gets going locally, example here being the segregation in the Deep South that gave approval even to lynchings to maintain the local status quo of Jim Crow...even here, it REALLY took the government a long time.
Back about 1960 when I was still a Christian I attended a service at Sydney's Central Baptist Church. The speaker was a black American named Gardner Taylor. From the pulpit he thanked us for "allowing" him to speak and followed it with, "In my country I wouldn't even be allowed to worship in your church."
Talking to voters are never a bad idea, but to form a policy based on inputs by individuals seldom will lead to bigger results. Politicians should have visions and ideologies and not go by polls. However, in modern politics this is almost all what they do, including the one placed in DC telling us he's not a politicians. He does act like a modern one though. Ideologies in forms of a Bernie Sanders was repressed by the system. Shame. He should have run as independent. He would have taken votes from both DJT as HRC. Enough? Doubtfully as the two parties have stronger organizations behind their candidates. Hmm.
I agree, Sapph! Politicians in a democracy are supposed to represent the public, both those who did and didn't vote for them, to some extent, but there is a point where that becomes a sort of moral cowardice, and they need to have some form of vision and set of values of their own. On some points, they are just required to show leadership. Both Cameron here and Obama in the USA demonstrated a lack of that, in my opinion. On the other hand, Trump never laid out any kind of direction or policies. He ranted about a lot of things, and contradicted most of what he said from one day to the next. But he never gave a direction or policy. He just had a lot of superlatives. "It's gonna be great," or "it's gonna be amazing."
Honestly, I think it's a long while since I've seen one leader acting any other way. Unfortunately. Maybe a reason why so many are tired by politicians, as they feel they have no back bone and will say whatever it takes to get your vote. Count our fingers after shaking hands with any of them. Meh.
A friend of mine once told me that someone she knew voted Conservative because her favourite colour was blue! I doubt if Churchill was being completely serious, Didge. If we didn't have democracy, the only way to get rid of a bad government would be armed revolution, and I don't think any of us want that. Are there any Australian politicians you have a similar regard for?
Churchill didn't want to replace Democracy with anything else. It was more a comment of cynicism, or maybe despair. In Oz we've had our share of good politicians, as you have in the States, but they tend to lie thin on the ground. Like politicians everywhere the vast majority are self-serving
Not Sure 