Political philosophy concepts and theories

Question 1:

I disagree with 'Wollheim's Paradox' which specifies that there is an inherent paradox in democracy. I believe this because, according to Wollheim, "When the citizen chooses a certain policy or prefers one policy to another, he is expressing not a want but an evaluation" (Wollheim). This is untrue, as a democracy is not made up of democrats, who make choices based on evaluation, but one in which people make their own independent decisions on what is best for them. Democracy is inherent as a form of government in which the choices of others are forced on one who disagrees because he or she accepts the decisions of democracy. This does not mean, however, people make decisions based on the form of government, and I believe this is where Wollheim's paradox lacks accuracy. I agree with aspects of the theory. It is true that a democrat will oblige to a decision made by democratic means as this is in the very nature of being a democrat and agreeing to be governed by a democratic form of government. Thus I agree with belief (i). Furthermore, I agree with (ii) as P, a democract, should vote for A if he or she believes A out to be the case. Democracy in its essence gives people the opportunity to vote for the choice he or she wants. This is where it ends, however, as the majority should have no impact on the voting logic of a democrat A. A democracy does not mean one votes for what other people prefer, but for what he or she prefers. There is no paradox, as abiding by a democratic result is different than voting one in the first place. A democrat should have no problem voting for one side and then abiding by other. This is where I disagree, in case (iii), as B should not be the case for P if P does not believe in B. P does not have to vote for a case the majority supports to be a democrat. Additionally, the will of the majority is not readily measurable or identifiable, and this makes the logic here of little consequence as if the majority could be decided on before voting, there would be no purpose to voting anyway.

Question 2:

In Chapter 15 of The Social Contract, Rousseau comments that English people are not free, but rather free only during elections. Rousseau is right in this instance, as English people who vote for Members of Parliament can no longer control the actions of their representatives once they are voted to office. Thus, their only recourse to altering the political landscape is the elections. In The Social Contract, Rousseau specifies that "The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives," thus reflecting on the fact that Parliament members act on their own behalf and not of the people (Rousseau). This is because the members have control and not the people as soon as they are elected. Election day is the only day which the people can control the outcome, yet all it does is determine who will be in Parliament and still has no actually control over the results of Parliament. Members of Parliament have control over the laws, regardless of what the desires of the people are. It can be argued, on the contrary, that Rousseau is incorrect because Members of Parliament are forced to make decisions based on the will of the people because they are inclined to keep their representative positions. Because they want to be re-voted into office, they will act on the will of people in order to have better results election day. This however, does not change Rousseau's position; however, as any laws made by representative bodies are still not laws ratified by the people. Perhaps Rousseau is a little harsh in his classification of the system as slavery, but still, sovereignty is not in the people but in the Members of Parliament and Rousseau is right. In the end, however, this is of little consequence, and does not matter because there is nothing that can be effectively done to change this fact. The "enslavement" of the people is unavoidable in the instance of representative government. Especially in the times of Rousseau, Members of Parliament could not be controlled once in office. But one day of freedom, Election Day, is preferable to none. In the end, representative government is still a preferred form of government whether or not the people are truly free.