Published 18 July 2020, Last update 5 June 2022

The idea that we humans are at war against virus isn’t so suitable at this moment. In order to lessen the social negatives in society, coexistence is better to be proposed rather than war or fight. We are not sure about how long it will take to end this pandemic and how many waves will come. Stricter confinement imposes too much struggles or burdens on people, the balance of preventive measures and liberties of people need to be shared by society.

Human societies have experienced spreads of plagues in the history. In 21st century, the pandemic of COVID-19 hit literally the globe. The wave first began in Asia, and the epicenter moved to Europe, and then to South America[1]. Historically the population on the earth increased tremendously, while we came to be able to take very little time to travel the globe[2]. The spread of virus from one place to another is most likely to be seen anywhere now. Countries made decisions related to movements of people and ceasing non-essential life activities ordered or requested by authorities. A variety of non-essential commercials had to be closed and authorities started to control citizens’ actions.

At least some parts of Europe and Asia relaxed lockdowns and state of emergency in May. Japan’s state of emergency was lifted in all regions on 25th[3]. UK has different standards of easing lockdown measures depending on nations as national governments in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland decides to what extent they relax lockdown[4]. Although the first wave of the pandemic which Asia and Europe faced now slowed down and governments decided to move to the eased measures; citizens are called on to take social distancing and other preventive measures. The relaxation would be likely to cause the number of the infected to be up again.

What matters is that to what extent we refrain from taking activities, caring about the risks of infecting others and having concern on whether the second wave would happen as referenced with the Spanish Flu which the second wave had “several times higher” “mortality rates”[5] — the Spanish Flu by which 50 million people passed away[6] had three waves: the first from the “spring of 1918” to the “summer or late spring”[7], the second from “the last part of August” “towards the end of the year”, the third “started from “early months of 1919”—, while we take activities as we cannot continue our life being completely isolated.

From early phase of the pandemic, Hiroki Azuma, Japanese critic and philosopher suggested coexistence[8]. Coexistence with virus is different from the confrontation which often is perceived from remarks of politicians.

Emmanuel Macron, French president, said on 16 March, “we are at war”[9] and expressed “all action of the government and the parliament has to be turned, from now on, toward the combat against the epidemic[…]”[10]. The German chancellor Angela Merkel also expressed “fight” in her podcast on 28 March[11]. The New York governor Andrew Quomo said “we are at war”[12] on 30 March. The mindset that we are at war or fighting puts us on the frame of binary opposition: we human beings fight against the virus. However, what matters is to what extent we take and restrict our social activities so that the negative effects are minimized. Even if human beings try to fight against virus or beat it, the end of the fight is difficult to see as virus evolves: viruses mutate[13] which is, needless to say, one of the concerns on COVID-19. And the war against virus has people overwork for fighting against it that is too much burdens to bear for the continuity of their society and life, in fact we are in the state of being not sure about how long the unstable state will continue.

In this circumstance, restricting people’s activities by the central government oppresses citizens’ liberty. Compared with the description of the plague “at the end of seventeenth century”[14] written by Michel Foucault, French philosopher, in terms of technology or more democratized societies, the life is changed from 17th century but the situation of lockdowns in the COVID-19 pandemic can still look like “Everyone locked up in his cage[…]”[15] that people are required to stay at home[16], though there wasn’t need for citizens to answer from window of house to syndic on street who everyday comes to check “the state of each” person. This time, a large number of people have been supporting or at least not (so much) protesting against the governments’ actions that centralizes social system. It has to do with “communovirus”[17] written by Jean-Luc Nancy, French philosopher, that is “the virus which communize us”[18]. Communism and democracy, two different forms of social structure vary in terms of recognition of people. This is related to dignity of each person, and in the COVID-19 pandemic, it got closer to centralized form of social system since people are given orders by authorities and follow them, centralized structure tried efficiently to prevent the spread.

Unlike lockdowns, Sweden took a different approach to the epidemic. Their life is not the same as the before-epidemic and they are taking preventive measures including social distancing and working at home, but different from other countries, schools and businesses including restaurants and cafes are open[19]. In the data of Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people from Our World in Data, as of 15 June, the figure in Sweden is 482.61 worse than 103.07 of Denmark, and 44.64 of Norway, lower than 614.24 of UK, 568.04 of Italy, and 580.39 of Spain[20].

Lockdown restricts liberty of persons. We prefer democracy rather than communism has to do with dignity. Central governments strictly regulates peoples’ activities and lock up persons in their homes and permits to go out when necessary gives impression of treating animals. It would not lead to well-being of people. Declaring it is a war, and give extremely top-down decisions ordered into our life makes people extremely struggle and distorts societies. The distortions are accumulated to those who are in vulnerable or disadvantaged positions in the pandemic. Usually what we cannot do by ourselves rely on others outside of our houses, but isolation which is promoted to all in lockdown makes difficult for us to request help outside. Of course, preventive measures including wearing mask and avoiding crowded places would be better to be taken so that we can prevent the spread, yet in the meantime we should not give exceedingly social negatives to our society. We cannot defeat the virus as the number of the infected couldn’t be zero even if we invent vaccine at this moment. We, human beings, have to coexist with virus anyway.

[1] Reuters. South America a new COVID epicenter, Africa reaches 100,000 cases. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-who-regions/south-america-a-new-covid-epicentre-africa-reaches-100000-cases-who-idUSKBN22Y2IV Published 23 May 2020, Accessed 7 July 2020.

[2] Darwin College Lecture Series. Plagues and history, by Chris Dobson and Mary Dobson. Around 7:40-. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVVr096kZtg Published 24 February 2020 Accessed 5 June 2022.

[3] AP. Japan lifts coronavirus emergency in all remaining areas. https://apnews.com/ea1e26e3d06c2c7170cd4e49d0ad1e94 Published 25 May 2020. Accessed 7 July 2020.

[4] BBC. Lockdown update: All you need to know about new measures. https://www.bbc.com/news/explainers-52530518 Published 10 June 2020. Accessed 13 June 2020.

[5] World Economic Forum. What happened in the Spanish Flu Epidemic in 1918. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVePfdimMOo Published 15 May 2020 on YouTube. Accessed 13 June 2020. Around 1:10-.

[6] World Economic Forum. What happened in the Spanish Flu Epidemic in 1918. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVePfdimMOo Published 15 May 2020 on YouTube. Accessed 13 June 2020.

[7] World Economic Forum. What happened in the Spanish Flu Epidemic in 1918. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVePfdimMOo Published 15 May 2020 on YouTube. Accessed 13 June 2020. Around 0:22-.

[8] For example, a tweet by Hiroki Azuma. https://twitter.com/hazuma/status/1255454986202419200 Posted on 29 April 2020. Accessed 4 May 2020.

[9] Emmanuel Macron. Adresse aux Français. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEV6BHQaTnw. Around 9:41-. Broadcasted on 17 March 2020. Accessed 5 May 2020. BBC. Coronavirus: ‘We are at war’ – Macron. https://www.bbc.com/news/av/51917380/coronavirus-we-are-at-war-macron Published 16 March 2020. Accessed 5 May 2020.

[10] Emmanuel Macron. Adresse aux Français. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MEV6BHQaTnw. Around 9:41-. Broadcasted on 17 March 2020. Accessed 5 May 2020. Around 10:01-. L’Élysée. Adresse aux Français, 16 mars 2020. https://www.elysee.fr/emmanuel-macron/2020/03/16/adresse-aux-francais-covid19 Published 16 March 2020. Accessed 6 May 2020.

[11] Transkript Audio-Podcast „Corona“. https://www.bundeskanzlerin.de/resource/blob/822020/1736006/7d89bc115a396ccdefd63dc073f84f92/download-pdf-data.pdf Accessed 6 May 2020. ドイツ連邦共和国大使館・総領事館. 新型コロナウイルス感染症対策に関するメルケル首相のメッセージ（Audio Podcast). https://japan.diplo.de/ja-ja/themen/politik/-/2331266 Published 29 March 2020. Accessed 6 May 2020. A tweet explains the podcast on 28 March 2020 by Andy Eckardt. https://twitter.com/ameckardt/status/1243834404390285315 Posted on 28 March 2020. Accessed 6 May 2020.

[12] CNBC. Cuomo says he doesn’t want to fight with Trump over politics in coronavirus response: ‘I think it’s anti-American’. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/30/coronavirus-cuomo-says-he-doesnt-want-to-fight-with-trump-over-politics.html Published 30 March 2020. Accessed 14 June 2020.

[13] Ian Sample & Nicolas Davis. Will Covid-19 mutate into a more dangerous virus? Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/may/10/will-covid-19-mutate-into-a-more-dangerous-virus. Published 22 May 2020. Accessed 20 June 2020.

[14] European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Coronavirus and philosophers. http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/ Accessed 15 June 2020.

[15] European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Coronavirus and philosophers. http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/ Accessed 15 June 2020.

[16] European Journal of Psychoanalysis. Coronavirus and philosophers. http://www.journal-psychoanalysis.eu/coronavirus-and-philosophers/ Accessed 15 June 2020.

[17] Jean-Luc Nancy. Communovirus. https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2020/03/24/communovirus_1782922 Published 24 March 2020. Accessed 16 June 2020.

[18] Jean-Luc Nancy. Communovirus. https://www.liberation.fr/debats/2020/03/24/communovirus_1782922 Published 24 March 2020. Accessed 16 June 2020.

[19] Channel 4 News. Is Sweden’s controversial approach to coronavirus working? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCOSlfbOfm4 Around 0:30-. Posted on 30 April 2020. Accessed 10 May 2020. Reuters. Sweden’s COVID-19 approach explained. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OMwBw9iwQQw Posted on 30 April 2020. Accessed 17 June 2020.

[20] Our World in Data. Total confirmed COVID-19 deaths per million people. https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/total-covid-deaths-per-million?tab=chart&year=2020-05-10&country=NOR+DNK+SWE+ESP+ITA+GBR Accessed 17 June 2020.

Upload 31 May 2019, Last update 28 June 2020

Social media has large influence on formation of opinion — in detailed way of describing, it isn’t enough to reach the point of opinion but rather I would say impressions towards things spoken on platforms, people are driven more or less (at times largely) by the waves of posts. Social media doesn’t have border basically.

A tweet of US president Donald Trump posted at 1:53pm of 29 May 2020[1] got warned as “This Tweet violated the Twietter Rules about glorifying violence.”, but “accessible” as the platform considers “it may be in the public’s interest”.

In August of 2018, “Apple, Facebook, YouTube, and Spotify” removed publications of Alex Jones[2].

[1] A tweet by Donald Trump at 1:53pm of 29 May 2020. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1266231100780744704 Accessed 31 May 2020.

[2] https://www.politifact.com/article/2018/aug/07/why-infowars-alex-jones-was-banned-apple-facebook-/ Accessed 6 June 2020.

After the spread of coronavirus became increased, countries issued lockdown or state of emergency. In order to prevent spread of the virus, hopefully these have been having keeping infection minimum in society. However, there should be a discussion on whether we have independency and autonomy to overcome this pandemic. Now governments authorized restriction, a lot of people around the world demands that government take measures or give assistance, but we should know that government cannot perfectly meet our demands and prevent the spread. Since a lot of time have passed, we cannot change our past, but for the future we should learn from this incident and at least be aware of the possibility of transformation of our sense of feeling to centralized organizing system.

The lockdown is put in place on 17 March in France[1]. People are obliged to have a paper that clarifies the necessity to leave home[2]. On 13 April, Emmanuel Macron announced that the “more strict confinement” is put in place to 11 May[3].

United Kingdom, based on the speech of Prime Minister Boris Johnson on 23 March[4], limits activities to necessary shopping, “one form of exercise a day”, “medical need”, “travelling to and from work” if cannot be managed from home. As Prime Minister said, if people don’t observe these, the police has authority to “enforce them”.

In Japan, Shinzo Abe, the 98th Prime Minister[5], declared state of emergency in 7 regions in the early of April[6] to 6 May[7]. It requests citizens not to go out without “necessity for maintaining life”[8], targeting 70 to 80% of social contact[9].

If the government didn’t declare their request or legal constraint on citizens the mass goes outside as usual isn’t acceptable. Citizens voluntarily should change their behavior by refraining from going to places where people gather together, and taking possible preventive measures to infection. The behavior of the public before should be changed before lockdown or state of emergency by themselves. It’s been seen that influencers’ message that asks to stay home. These inter-citizens movement makes sense in terms of self-governance and democracy as well.

It is not saying that the government don’t need to declare state of emergency. As it changed people’s behavior it would contribute to prevent COVID-19 spread. But if people voluntarily take proper behavior and don’t go out without necessity, governments wouldn’t have to restrict behavior of its citizenry by law and they can declare state of emergency just to alarm throughout the countries.

If people could call on each other not to carelessly goes to city, there’s no need for the government to enforce law that legally oblige limit citizens’ actions. This is, of course, not saying that if people have freedom even in pandemic they can go out as before the spread, rather this has to do with that people choose not to exert their freedom while keeping their freedom in their place. Rather than giving their freedom to the government, having it in their hand is better. Some would say that without their consent government put their law in place, this is true, but if we could make ordinary our sensible action that more people do our best to take preventive measure to infection we can at least expand the circle of resistance to authorized measures of governments.

The present state feels like giving up keeping freedom in our place and being dependent on authority. If we are trusted from government or have enough demonstration that there’s no need to put restricting laws in effect, we might be able to ordinalize that authority’s declaration which doesn’t take freedom away from our hands. Moreover what we should care is that the transition of this epidemic to the recovery of our life will not be so much obvious, centralized system and people’s sense to surveillance will be unnoticeably normalized as those of during this epidemic without recalling what it was like before for a large part of people.

There are countries which have areas with huge traffic forcefully had to take lock-down or close area so that they can cease the spread of virus, in those countries there had to be lockdown or declaration of state of emergency. But there’s still doubt that if citizens stay home and take preventive conduct by themselves carefully it might not be inevitable to put legal restraint in effect. Areas with with huge traffic need the lockdown measure but strict measure that law authorizes people’s behavior in detail is not necessarily needed though it depends people’s self-refraining.

As for the economic assistance from government, this is sensitive to say but it cannot be imagined that so wide range of people can be covered by government in a lot of countries for a long time. The invention of vaccine is estimated to be next year[10]. The assistance from government could not cover enough even those who in the critical phase.

The ending period of epidemic is unclear because even if we could have invented vaccine, find out better medicine, a large part of people became immune, the ending of this pandemic would gradually be united with ordinary life. The transformation of our feeling towards central authority or centralized organizing system could be infiltrated into the world. As of the early or middle of April 2020, it seems that people are dependent on authority without enough autonomy. In democracy, citizens should be autonomous and maintaining independency to possible extent as a primary principle in a sense that we think by ourselves and participate in building our community. As far as looked at, even though this pandemic is critical situation, paying attention to the unclear ending of this pandemic, we have to be conscious of the risk of dependency that could remain even after the world recover ordinary life.

Not denying the necessity of state of emergency, but it is more related to mindset of people and the future world. It makes sense to give request to government in communicating with them, but in the meantime we should be aware that government cannot meet our all of demand and as a primary principle we should think by ourselves to overcome this difficulty we face not just being dependent on government, questioning whether this centralized system is what we want in the aftermath.

[1] BBC. Coronavirus: Paris bans daytime outdoor exercise. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52202700?intlink_from_url=https://www.bbc.com/news/topics/c302m85qenyt/france&link_location=live-reporting-story Published 7 April 2020 Accessed 12 April 2020.

[2] France 24. France in lockdown as govt says it could nationalise large companies in crisis. https://www.france24.com/en/20200317-france-in-lockdown-as-gov-t-says-it-could-nationalise-large-companies-in-crisis Published 17 March 2020 Accessed 12 April 2020.

[3] Le Monde. Emmanuel Macron annonce une prolongation du confinement jusqu’au 11 mai. Around 0:33-. Published 13 May 2020. Accessed 17 April 2020.

[4] UK government. PM address to the nation on coronavirus: 23 March 2020. https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/pm-address-to-the-nation-on-coronavirus-23-march-2020 Accessed 12 April 2020.

[5] https://www.kantei.go.jp/jp/98_abe/meibo/daijin/abe_shinzo.html Accessed 10 April 2020.

[6] Press conference of Shinzo Abe, Japanese Prime Minister, declaring state of emergency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mhFTbaML8 Around 4:30-. Accessed 12 April 2020.

[7] Press conference of Shinzo Abe, Japanese Prime Minister, declaring state of emergency.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mhFTbaML8 Around 7:43-. Accessed 12 April 2020.

[8] Press conference of Shinzo Abe, Japanese Prime Minister, declaring state of emergency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mhFTbaML8 Around 6:17-. Accessed 12 April 2020.

[9] Press conference of Shinzo Abe, Japanese Prime Minister, declaring state of emergency. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2mhFTbaML8 Around 7:49-. Accessed 12 April 2020.

[10] Channel 4 News. How close are we to a vaccine or cure for coronavirus? https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-how-close-are-we-to-a-vaccine-or-cure-for-coronavirus Published 17 March 2020, Accessed 13 April 2020.

6. Yellow vest movement in France

In this movement, people gathered on street to protest, wearing the yellow vest “as symbol of rallying”[7.3]. As for the vest, Ghislain Coutard called on to use it on 24 October[7.3.1]. A video posted by Jacline Mouraud on Facebook in October “was watched more than 6 million times”[7.3.2]. 

6.1. Citizens’ initiative referendum claimed in France

In the Yellow vest movement in France, the demonstrators claimed the necessity of the citizens’ initiative referendum — le référendum d’initiative citoyenne (RIC) in French which is one of the major demands in the manifestation. In the context of the demand, the referendums, particularly in Switzerland and Italy were referred[7.4]. According to an article on Le Figaro[7.4.0.5], Italy has “three types of referendums: abrogative, constitutional and territorial”[7.4.1]. In the Switzerland’s case, they have “optional referendum”[7.5] and “federal popular initiative”[7.6]. What the optional referendum is that “Any citizen who has the right to vote, including the Swiss abroad, can launch an optional popular referendum”[8] when they are against the “the decision of Parliament”[8.5]. The organizer of a referendum have to assemble “50,000 signatures”[9] in minimum within “100 days”[10]. If the organizer met this baseline and the signatures were recognized as “valid”[11] by “the Federal Chancellery”[12], optional referendum will be conducted. This is for whether to change decision of the parliament and not to introduce or change federal law as legislative initiative is not available in federal level[12.3]. Next, the federal popular initiative which is for amending the constitution[12.5] can be carried out by “anyone who has the right to vote in Switzerland – including Swiss citizens living abroad”[13]. At least, “100,000 signatures”[14] has to be assembled within “18 months”[15]. In this initiative, there are paths to be taken counter-action[16], but what I want to emphasize here is that Switzerland has political structures to enhance the reflection of the opinions of its citizens.

What is the important point of this type of referendum is that it is obliged to reflect the public opinion after enough votes are calculated — related law for set up the system need to be enforced in advance. In conventional petitions, organizers submit the lists of names to authorities, but since authorities are not forced to take action even if volume of signatures are huge, they can ignore them. However, in this instance, it’s not just assembling the signatures, if they go through proper procedure, it is going to be taken into effect in authorized framework.

7. Voting

In voting for representative or referendum, the system has unequalness. 

7.1. Gerrymandering in US

For example, US has a problem of gerrymandering. As Lawrence Lessig explains that the name comes from “Massachusetts governor (and the fifth vice president of the United States) Elbridge Gerry, gerrymandering describes a technique for drawing electoral districts. More Pejoratively, it is a way for politicians to pick the voters rather than the voters picking politicians”[18.9]. 

8. Deliberation in politics

Deliberation is regarded as important in democracy. To have debate in national scale creates opportunities from politicians and experts to citizens to discuss their ideas. In 2018, France conducted the national grand debate (le grand débat national in French)[19] which had “four themes”: “The ecological transition”, “The taxation and the public expenditure”, “The democracy and the citizenship”, “The organization of the state and the public services”[19.2]. It started on 15 January and its whole schedule ended on “10 April” of “Debate in Senate” during which period “the local meetings” continued to be held to “15 March”[19.5]. This is also a matter of institution we need to build carefully.

9. On structure

If we focus excessively on decision of those in power or the expertise among pundits, it would lead to ignoring citizens. If we move to complete direct democracy, at least at this moment I think it would not work. In order to build society which doesn’t exclude  member in the society, there’s necessity to come up with institution which reflects the public as well as the experts who are great at each domain. Thinking about the combination of those two, the better idea than the present is the general will 2.0. In my understanding, Hiroki Azuma proposed the general will 2.0[20] which is the interface of deliberation among pundits and database (subconsciousness of mass)[20.5]. 

In his argument, he focused on people’s subconsciousness accumulated online as he said that the general will 2.0 “should be perceivable”[22] in contrast to his description that the general will by Jean-Jacque Rousseau “cannot be perceived”[23]. His idea was that the visualized subconsciousness based on data online and deliberation complement each other — “deliberation and database complement each other”[24]. What’s remarkable is that collected and “statistically processed”[24.5] “reaction of audience”[24.6] to deliberation among pundits broadcasted online[25] work in a sense that experts “cannot be so much far from it, and cannot completely ignore”[26]it. The subconsciousness of citizens directs deliberation among experts while expertise of pundits is reflected. This type of structure that is transparent and not closed within limited people might be a way to prevent deliberation from leaning extremely in certain type of opinion. Cass R. Sunstein explains the law of group polarization which “means that members of a deliberating group predictably move toward a more extreme point in the direction indicated by the members’ predeliberation tendencies”[17].

9.1. Politics divided into inside parliament and outside

In my understanding of general will 2.0, it doesn’t divide politics into inside parliament and outside. Emily Maitlis talked with Jeremy Hunt in BBC Newsnight, she mentioned in a part they touched on parliamentary democracy and protesters outside parliament that “if you look at where the action is coming from, […] the actions from people who’ve given up on believing that what happens in parliament will solve or change anything, this is the action of people who think the streets are more helpful than the democracy goes on inside”[27]. Political participation should be diverse than limited. Not just voting in election and referendum, demonstration, and lobbying, with the capability to ventilate inside and outside parliament, diverse political actions would be better to be implemented in society not to separate politics inside from outside parliament.

[7.3] Translated by myself from “comme symbole de ralliement”. Around 0:08- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rCtJugNkfI Accessed 8 January 2020.

[7.3.1] Ibid. Around 0:07-.

[7.3.2] Translated by myself from “a été vue plus de 6 millions de fois”. In the original phrase in the video, “6 millions de fois” is put emphasis. Around 0:06-. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2XDXfwbfViI Accessed 8 January 2020.

[7.4] For example, an article on Le Figaro refers to Switzerland and Italy.  https://www.lefigaro.fr/vox/politique/2018/12/12/31001-20181212ARTFIG00250–en-italie-le-referendum-d-initiative-populaire-retablit-l-equilibre-des-pouvoirs.php  Published and last updated on 13 December 2018. Accessed 7 January 2020.

[7.4.0.5] Ibid.

[7.4.1] Ibid. Translated by myself from “trois types de référendums: abrogatif, constitutionnel et territorial”.

[7.5]  https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/how-to-launch-an-optional-referendum-at-federal-level/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[7.6] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/popular-initiative/how-to-launch-a-federal-popular-initiative/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[8]  https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/how-to-launch-an-optional-referendum-at-federal-level/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[8.5] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/mandatory-referendums-and-optional-referendums-in-switzerlan/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[9] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/referendum/how-to-launch-an-optional-referendum-at-federal-level/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[10] Ibid.

[11] Ibid.

[12] Ibid.

[12.3] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/popular-initiative/what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[12.5] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/popular-initiative/what-is-a-federal-popular-initiative/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[13] https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/popular-initiative/how-to-launch-a-federal-popular-initiative/ Accessed 27 November 2019.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] There are two ways to take counter-action for the initiative: the direct counter-proposal and the indirect counter-proposal are explained in the following website.  https://www.ch.ch/en/demokratie/political-rights/popular-initiative/what-is-a-direct-counter-proposal-or-an-indirect-counter-pro Accessed 27 November 2019.

[17] Sunstein, C. R. (2019). How change happens. The MIT Press. p.19.

[18] Ibid. p.22. Other examples are shown as well on p.21-22.

[18.9] Lessig, L. (2019). They Don’t Represent Us: Reclaiming Our Democracy. DEY ST. p.20.

[19] The website of the grand national debate at https://granddebat.fr/ Accessed 28 November 2019.

[19.2] “Les quatre thèmes du Grand Débat National” available at https://granddebat.fr/ Accessed 8 January 2020.[19.5] “Agenda” available at https://granddebat.fr/ Accessed 8 January 2020.

[20] Azuma, H. (2015). 一般意志2.0—ルソー、フロイト、グーグル. 講談社文庫.

[20.5] Azuma, H. (2017). Genron 0: A philosophy of the Tourist. pp.253-254.

[22] Ibid. p.101, translated by myself from “知覚することができるはずだ”.

[23] Ibid. p.101.

[24] Ibid. at least p.195.

[24.5] Ibid. p197.

[24.6] Ibid.

[25] Ibid. p.196-197. 

[26] Ibid. p175.

[27] BBC Newsnight. UK election: ‘It is essential we implement the referendum result’ – BBC Newsnight. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8bOv2QRCA2Y The remark of Emily Maitlis cited begins around 6:31-. Posted on 19 November 2019. Accessed 11 January 2020.

 4. Complexity in election

5. Elements other than policies

4. Complexity in election

Complexity in election needs to be taken into account. Although people choose representatives in representative democracy, it doesn’t mean that they completely agree with all of the opinions which the representatives they chose have. For example, hypothetically in terms of social care, a person vote a representative which has clear manifesto in that domain, but the voter doesn’t agree with the representative’s economic policies. However, in the current representative democracy, citizens have to choose representatives as if they agree with all policies the ones they chose propose, and when elected the politicians try to proceed their policies. 

Chart 1 is a chart of a representative’s policies. There are areas named Economy, Diplomacy, Social care, Immigration, and Others and the size of each area depends on how much emphasized, for example as it can be seen, the candidate focuses more on social care than economy. They are policies explained by the politician. Since those who are elected are voted by huge number of voters, even if some voters choose a candidate because they support only the politician’s economic policy and social care in chart 1, other voters choose the same politician because of immigration and diplomatic policies, this is very simply saying. The domains some prefer are not supported by others although they both voted for the same politician, in this case given votes concentrate in the elected, even if there are policies the voters don’t agree with, some people might say the representative democracy works as it is conducted right now. 

In the same sense, voters who support the same candidate possibly may agree with different domain of policy means that in the policies of the candidate, there can be areas some voters support which are not supported by others who voted for the same politician. After gaining influence by winning election, the representative would move forward the policies promised during election campaign, but hypothetically it is likely to happen that some of the policies are achieved, but others are not. If  there are huge supporters who chose the representative because of non-achieved policies, I think there should be other ways to reflect their opinions — one idea I can think of is having sort of direct-democracy.

Chart 2 hypothetically assume the situation that a group of people voted the person  because of the social care and immigration policies, another group agreed with the economic and immigration policies, and there is third group in favor of diplomatic and social care policies. As it shows that social care overlapped by the first and third group of voters and immigration policy supported by the first and second groups are more supported than diplomacy and economy. From this chart, there is a opinion gap (or policy gap) among them, what can be seen are between those who support social care and people of economic policy. Those people supporting social care don’t agree with economic policy, among them there are certain people of not supporting diplomatic policies (who are people of first group) and people from third group not in support of immigration and economic policies, if elected the representative will basically try to move all these policies forward.

5. Elements other than policies

People choose representatives not just because of their policies. People are influenced by candidates’ personalities or other factors such as leadership — those factors are placed within the category Others in the case above in order to simplify, however I rather think that it might be more proper to build a chart that the those elements including leadership, popularity, and other elements cover the chart entirely as people first come to know candidates by their influence and then may dive into their specific policies, in this case the chart could be drawn as a sphere whose surface corresponds to elements other than policies and the cross-section is divided into specific political domains a candidate present. In the elements, factors such as impression, leadership, negotiation skill, powerfulness of each candidate are included. Impression — not just the first one, but also continuous impression which can suddenly plummet by a scandal or misphrased remark or can be augmented by positive remark — and momentum — which has to do with collectivity of impression as well — of candidate have impact on flow of voters. These elements have more impact on the electorate than the actual policies.

If we move to direct democracy in the future — as of right now, I don’t think it’s possible to function well —, leadership and negotiation are more important factors among representatives than now — assuming that the choices of citizenry are more reflected, though it depends on to what extent the society moves to direct democracy, the authority to choose the direction the state will take is assigned more to its citizens. Even if decision-making becomes what citizens can more participate in meaning that the number of congresspersons is minimized. In order to move things forward domestically and internationally by the leadership and negotiation skill of representatives, we need  representatives. Additionally, I think it’s not so realistic for citizens to play most of roles in policy and decision makings.

Assuming that vast number of citizens have the same opinion on a direction of a state it is not necessarily a right choice as decision by those in power is also not necessarily right — apart from rightness I think there are at least many decisions which are not just due to majority rule that becomes law or other establishments, if think about justice John Rawls wrote in A theory of justice: “justice denies that the loss of freedom for some is made right by a greater good shared by others. It does not allow that the sacrifices imposed on a few are outweighed by the larger sum of advantages enjoyed by many”[7.2]. Rightness and justice are key to be considered, but at least for the direct democracy comes top of the current indirect democracy, I suppose here that there would be possibility of bringing about right choices (or aspects) as the wrong would arise, to reflect the public opinion  given the current politics in more democratic countries might not work — I think having a system to do it has benefits in a sense that if the system is made to deal with the cases such as abuse of power of representatives or the very decision which would determine the future of a nation. And from the point that the majority rule and justice, it would be better to have other option than indirect democracy for the citizenry to participate in politics.

[7.2] Rawls, J. (1999). A theory of justice. Revised edition. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. p.3.