It was used in that context intentionally, or rather, in the pejorative sense as being an indistinct group of people with no distinct identity (as the vote for a representative reduces them to).First, "masses" is a pejorative that connotes little regard for or familiarity with people; its use should be avoided.
Gross generalisation to what I said. Forms of governance are orderly - electing governance leaves goverance to those that are selected. They become the gatekeepers of governance; if not for this, there would be no point in electing them.Second, how are citizens prevented from making choices if they ordain their colleagues to carry out certain public responsibilities?
It does not prohibit active participation, which again is why I suggest doing it by oneself rather than at a distance.
Statist is also a pejorative, as is your association of it to corruption.In a statist or otherwise corrupt environment, yes, individuals will be both distanced and circumscribed.
Strong central states do not limit participation. Course, extending the same logic and using corruption and such, the US wouldn't be the role model for democracies or republics, which I suppose it isn't if you rate it by corruption and so forth. Those that are - most of Scandinavia, some of Europe, Australia... even Canada - and despite major differences between them (direct voting, forced voting, multi party, strong federal, strong state...), all are more 'statist'... and many have much stronger forced service requirements to governance, never mind a social expectation.
The main problems are having few watchguards (NGOs) that watch the government and the two major cornerstones of law (seperate from state and strong rule of law)... well, that and the social effects, like an uneducated (about politics) population, poverty and so forth. Course, there is an interactive effect here - law and education, public support for NGOs.
Where democracy promotes the use of an open government it is good. However, again, it is not democracy that causes these, but rather active participation in the government. The end result is that people can create democracy as one more way of opening up government. It doesn't matter who you vote for if, for example, they are part of a old boys network, or if the law isn't a threat, or if law is turned on the people... It doesn't matter if polarisation through representation happens either... just to use examples from more recent history.
Again, the point here is not that democracies are bad - quite far from that. Only that it is statistically a waste of time for any single individual to vote while it is not insignificant to inflect change in one's local environment. The participation comes before democracy, not as a result. Those that vote but do not participate are non-contributors; IMO, they are actively working against "democracy" but diffusing those that do contribute.
Interesting, I suppose, but has nothing to do with what I said. In fact, I said this is what makes one's contribution to governance and not the vote. FWIW, this is true no matter where you go and what level of government is meant.But in a liberal environment, there are many more decisions being made outside of the government -- activities by neighborhoods, associations, businesses, charities and so on.
All governance is accountable to the power structure that keeps it in power. Democracy is not the sole method in which the people can self-organise, nor is democracy any different in the way it creates power structures that limit the ability of individuals to self organise.Third, you have the value of voting inverted. Civil service in an unaccountable government is worthless.
The more diffused the power structure is, as it is in a national vote or most cases of representative democracies, the less pressure there is for those elected to be responsible to the overall wishes of the electees.
This is why local governance is so critical - smaller groups in democracies allow less diffusion and more direct accountability. That's when direct participation through voting is most effective because your voice can carry through the individual's vote.
There are many concessions; that is certainly not the greatest.However, amenability to majority rule is the greatest concession any official can make;
Well, yes. Well, ignoring the reality of politics.without electoral approval, he has no legal power.