Does Democracy work?

[Amara]

Random thread to get things moving in here.

Anyway, what are your thoughts on democracy? Look at the structure of democracies that exist today, are they really democratic in the traditional meaning of the word? For anyone familiar with Francis Fukuyama, did the end of cold war symbolise the triumph of liberal democracy over other forms of government?

Are there positives or negatives in comparison to a what might deemed a dictatorship? Can democracy be legitimately imposed? Think of Iraq, think of the sudden change to democracy in Russia and the effects and future effects. Compare to states such as China or Singapore where economic growth has occurred and according to them, traditional values have not compromised, does this seem to suggest a reason to refuse to democratise or in the case of singapore, rectify the one-party domination?

Anyway, share your thoughts.

 

[Cooper]

no it doesnt work

 

[Illuminattile]

In theory, democracy is, almost inarguably, the fairest system. All men are created equal, everyone deserves an equal say. If you don't buy into that idea, then you might disagree. Does everyone really deserve a say in what happens to the country? Who knows best? You can't turn around and say "the majority is always right", because that's clearly untrue. Would it not be in the best interests of the country as a whole to let those who are experts in their field, 'enlightened' individuals, to dictate what is best,rather than letting the masses make uneducated, ill-advised decisions based on propaganda and paranoia?

 

[Amara]

no it doesnt work

Care to elaborate further...

Thank you Illuminattile, we can always count on you for meaningful insight.

 

[Cooper]

yea, i just need to think about it

 

[Rukas]

Well, they theoretical political system known as democracy and real world democracy are two different things. I think theoretically it works, but I also think the real world application works, just differently.

I think its rather silly and somewhat dangerous to say “it doesn’t work;” its an irrational comment. The real world application of democracy does work, how do we know this? Because it continues to thrive and grow. It exists where other political regimes have fallen, albeit differently from the theoretical sense.

I think instead of saying it doesn’t work, something I find these new age online revolutionary communist types spew forth to seem cool, we should look at HOW it works, and perhaps more importantly, for whom it works, and why.

 

[LL COOL PAC]

All men are created equal QUOTE]

really? Are all men really created equal? Some are born healthy in a nurturing environment, some are born in war-torn conditions without enough food.

I would not call Britain a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word. We do not get a say in key issues such as Iraq. Britain is "get to elect someone every 4 years and let them do anything they want between elections" right now.

 

[Khaled]

Democracy can only work when it protects the right of the minority. I think it was Socrates who said: "Democracy is the predominance of quantity over quality"

theoretically, the best political system is dictatorship if the leader is good or enlightened (Kant actually gives the example of Frederick the great in Prussia)
however, history has shown that most of the time, Dictators become corrupted, and the whole system crashes dramatically
Democracy on the other hand is less effective, but it is fair and less easily corrupted.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

In theory, democracy is, almost inarguably, the fairest system. All men are created equal, everyone deserves an equal fair. If you don't buy into that idea, then you might disagree. Does everyone really deserve a say in what happens to the country? Who knows best? You can't turn around and say "the majority is always right", because that's clearly untrue. Would it not be in the best interests of the country as a whole to let those who are experts in their field, 'enlightened' individuals, to dictate what is best,rather than letting the masses make uneducated, ill-advised decisions based on propaganda and paranoia?

This is applicable to Communism though.

And Amara, I'd ask you to give me an example of the kind of 'democracy' you're talking about. There are different spins on 'democracy' throughout the world, including places where rigged elections are the norm & others where free speech is censored, you know what I'm saying?

 

[Amara]

This is applicable to Communism though.

And Amara, I'd ask you to give me an example of the kind of 'democracy' you're talking about. There are different spins on 'democracy' throughout the world, including places where rigged elections are the norm & others where free speech is censored, you know what I'm saying?

Well, if you take Marxist or Socialist theory (as opposed to the practice of it), there is nothing to suggest it is at odds with democracy.

I'm not really talking about any kind of democracy, I guess part of the discussion I wanted to bring out is that, yeah there are different kinds of democracy. Such as the example I gave in the one-party dominant form in Singapore...is that still a legitimate 'democratic' system? One could also think about the way in which the roles between the executive, beaurocratic and legislative branches of authority, which are the main features in western style democracy are actually blurred in practice...is that legitimate democracy?

Also, I wanted to bring out the themes that Khaled and Illuminattile picked up on, there are arguably some benefits in having a dictatorship, as advancing the interests of an uninformed majority could be more harmful than censorship of political speech (I do not necessarily believe this, but its worth thinking about).

And another thing, can democracy and should it, be imposed on non-democratic regimes... is this the best and only way of alleviating international conflict... It is a renowned fact that democracies rarely fight other democracies... Yet is it more of a case of internal stability and modernisation which prevents conflicts, in which case, the imposition of democracy cannot magically resolve these problems - the best example being Russia. Democracy has not helped the internal, economic problems within Russia. So it will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

I know that they are not at odds but I felt Illuminattile was making out that the equality thing was why democracy is best so I thought I would point it out.

Basically, I don't see any 'democracy' right now as an actual democracy so I can't really comment. And my ideal kind of democracy is heavily influenced by socialism. For now I'll just leave it at, the capitalistic 'demcracies' are from democratic & as such, don't deserve the title.

And I too agree with many of the policies of dictatorial regime.
While I bitch about politicians lying & the media providing 'skewed' views of situations, if a politician tells the truth he/she loses & if the media tells the truth it has the potential to destabilise the country.

As for Russia & the idea of transporting American (not to hate, but it tends to be the US pushing for these things) 'democracy' onto foreign soil, I find the whole thing ridiculous. How on earth could anybody have thought that such major changes would not send every aspect of a country into dissaray?

The dumbest thing is, America (again, not to hate but they are prominent in my thinking) clearly tried to export their political beliefs in South Vietnam &, unable to comprehend the effect of cultural differences, failed miserably.

Then, not so long later, Gorbachev was looking for a more liberal Russia &, with America failing to see how this would destabilise Russia (or maybe they did see this but didn't see the full effects) & the world (they must've missed this, although I don't see how), he made changes apparently without interference. America had always wanted to destroy the "Evil Empire" (Ronald Reagan at his diplomatic best) & Communism.....they just couldn't see how their beloved 'democracy' could cause so many problems.

 

[Sebastian]

In theory, democracy is, almost inarguably, the fairest system. All men are created equal, everyone deserves an equal fair. If you don't buy into that idea, then you might disagree. Does everyone really deserve a say in what happens to the country? Who knows best? You can't turn around and say "the majority is always right", because that's clearly untrue

right.

Would it not be in the best interests of the country as a whole to let those who are experts in their field, 'enlightened' individuals, to dictate what is best,rather than letting the masses make uneducated, ill-advised decisions based on propaganda and paranoia?

hmm, do you have an example? an event where the masses vote and might be manipulated by propaganda? and then your solution, who should rather make the decision than the masses...

And another thing, can democracy and should it, be imposed on non-democratic regimes... is this the best and only way of alleviating international conflict... It is a renowned fact that democracies rarely fight other democracies... Yet is it more of a case of internal stability and modernisation which prevents conflicts, in which case, the imposition of democracy cannot magically resolve these problems - the best example being Russia. Democracy has not helped the internal, economic problems within Russia. So it will be interesting to see what happens in Iraq.

hmm, i know what u mean but i doubt Russia is really a democracy. theoretically yes, but Putin doesnt seem to be the guy who always follows the law etc..

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

^
Amara was referring to how the switch from communism to 'democracy' messed up the country. We aren't talking about whether or not it is a fully-fledged democracy.

 

[AnarchistFunk]

I'd love to answer your question.

But I've never experianced a true democracy, only dictatorship's disguised as democracy's....

Sorry I've never been asked by the government my opinion on anything, only been told what is happening and forced to accept it.

Well, they theoretical political system known as democracy and real world democracy are two different things.

:thumb:

 

[Sebastian]

^
Amara was referring to how the switch from communism to 'democracy' messed up the country. We aren't talking about whether or not it is a fully-fledged democracy.

yeah, and i doubt it switched to democracy

and i dont know much about it but was Russias situation when they still had communism (at the end of it) better than today?

 

[Zero Cool]

Democracy works better than any other form of government so far. Rule by the majority, while it has it's inherent faults, is surely better than rule by anything else.

 

[CalcuoCuchicheo]

^
I do agree with this I guess. Our most 'civilised' & functional societies have occured under 'democratic' leadership, although I still use the term loosely.

 

[Illuminattile]

All men are created equal QUOTE]

really? Are all men really created equal? Some are born healthy in a nurturing environment, some are born in war-torn conditions without enough food.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- U.S. Constitution

It doesn't mean "everyone is the same" in terms of background, ability, opportunity etcetera. It's about rights, "unalienable Rights". Thus, everyone has a right to have a say, an equal say, in the way the country is run.

I would not call Britain a "democracy" in the truest sense of the word. We do not get a say in key issues such as Iraq. Britain is "get to elect someone every 4 years and let them do anything they want between elections" right now.

That's similar to what Talmon called a "totalitarian democracy". We elect officials, but then we don't have much (if any) control over what they do.

Marcuse said "Free election of masters does not abolish the masters or the slaves."

hmm, do you have an example? an event where the masses vote and might be manipulated by propaganda? and then your solution, who should rather make the decision than the masses...

All elections are manipulated by propaganda, however small. Propaganda is any message which aims to persuade (or dissuade) rather than to inform. A lot of people base their decisions on the way the parties present the issues, rather than how independent bodies present them. It's all spin.

And I don't know of a feasible political system which is better than democracy. I'm not as pessimistic about democracy and I might seem from that above post, I was just putting forward a POV.

 

[groobz]

"Democracy is the worst for of government. Apart from all the others." - Winston Churchill

 

[Jokerman]

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." -- U.S. Constitution

No, Declaration of Independence. We'll overlook that since you're not American.

It's about rights, "unalienable Rights". Thus, everyone has a right to have a say, an equal say, in the way the country is run.

No, that's not what was meant by unalienable rights. Read the line again. "...endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights." Obviously, the Creator (or Nature) didn't give people the right to have a say in the way the country is run. Only a government can give them that, which, I'm sure is what you meant. That a democratic form of government gives one the right to an equal say.

Unalienable rights refers to something all people are born with. The truth of the proposition that all human beings are by nature equal is confined to the one respect in which that equality can be truly affirmed; namely, their all being equally human. So being by nature human, they are all endowed with certain unalienable rights, unalienable because they are inherently in man's specific nature, not merely bestowed upon man by legal enactment. Legal enactment may be necessary to secure these rights, but it does not constitute their unalienability. Natural rights can be secured or violated by the state, but they do not come into existence through being granted by the state.

So what are our natural, unalienable rights? Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness seems a bit too vague; hence, the confusion.

Maybe I'll start a thread about this.