Does Democracy work?

[Amara]

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.

I guess it depends on what basis you measure the effectiveness of a government. For arguments sake, are we to base it upon the preservation of freedom of speech... as someone already suggested, to vote every 4 years but not have a say on whether, for example, a state should go to war... is that really a 'working' democracy? Also consider the way in which the 'seperation of powers' which is very important to the notion of democracy is often not adhered to by democratic governments, particularly not the US.

Is the role of a government to protect liberty and promote economic growth? The militarisation of a state or the production of, for example, nuclear weapons in North Korea, has been done for the purposes of protecting both citizens and the government from perceived hostilities...so they are arguably fulfilling a very important function of a government, the protection of liberty, although non-democratic.

Similarly, China has experienced economic growth, and stabilised reasonably well after the asian economic collapse in the 90s. So in that sense, it is also maintaining an important role of government - economic resilience although it is also non-democratic.

So what really is 'effective.' We tend to think democracy because that is what we are taught to believe... yet reality may or may not paint a very different picture about democracy in practice.....

(Note: I'm not trying to delegitimise democracy, I'm just trying to critically analyse....)

 

[MRDevious]

Democracy is a temporary solution, I think that eventually the exploitation of the lower class by the rich upper class will lead to a revolution and a reformation of the 'democracy' as we know it into something more suitable like socialism or communism.

Hugo Chavez is doing amazing shit in Venezuela and it I think that unless the U.S. kills him off, it will start a chain of events that will change 'democracy' as we know it in the western hemisphere.

 

[Illuminattile]

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.

Well if you don't believe that the human race was created by the U.S. Government, then I guess 'the machine' has done its job.

Anyway, one could argue that without a right to say how the country is governed, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, for some people, is jeopardised. As such, the right to vote in a democratic election is a way of protecting and enforcing your unalienable rights.

 

[Salar]

In theory democracy works, but in theory communism works

I lived in singapore for a few months and that i do not classify as a democracy. A semi-democratic country is not a democratic country at all. The way politics works in singapore is so effed up that they only took on the name as democratic and any new party (which costs heaps of money to initiate and so far all have failed) that comes out in singapore is only a waste of money because of the major parties unlimited funding at what not.

Australia i feel is the most democratic country of all though i haven't visited all countries in the world to make a proper judgement. But so far i feel australia has it better than most "democratic" countries.

Democracy will only work when corruptions in government is abolished. The reason i think the US is not so democratic is simply because of it's corruptiion and the shit that happens under the tables. I don't believe that there's a major conspiracy and blah blah, i just think there's alot of corruption in governemtn.

Anyway if this does not make sense, it's because i'm a little tipsy at the moment, so my apologies. I will elaborate at a more sober time.

 

[Khaled]

I guess democracy is better since it is a fact that all countries in the world are moving towards it, so whether theoretically it works or not, practically we have not found better

 

[Cooper]

The UK is not democratic

How can a party which recieves less votes than another party win? (Not this electon but has happened previously)

 

[MX Red]

Amara - Marxists are at great odds with parlimentary democracy, democracy should only be in the hands of the workers - the owners of the means of production would not have a vote from the transition of capitalism to socialism. Socialist democracy is most commonly refered to as the system of the soviets, whereby the workers organise themselves into divisions of workers (lets say 50,000 workers in every division for argument sake) whom then vote for one representative in that division to represent them in the main organ of government decision making. The Soviet Union called each division a 'Soviet' hence the name the Soviet Union. Parlimentary democracy represents the ideas of the ruling class and thus satisfies its needs: -

The ideas of the ruling class are in every epoch the ruling ideas, i.e., the class which is the ruling material force of society, is at the same time its ruling intellectual force. - Marx

Marx considers any form of capitalist government, democracy or dictatorship: -

The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie. - Marx, Communist Manifesto

Marxists arnt opposed to democracy, but are 100% opposed to the kind of democracy that is in place today and would view it as only another tool in class oppression.

Personally although I see the logic in Marx thinking, I value the democracy I live in and would be hypocritical of me to slate it on Marxists grounds. Although i do agree that the government is largely controlled by the needs of bussiness, with democracy we at least have voice and a vice for change when the time is needed.

Anyway my view on democracy: -

It seems to me that it isnt the social system a country has in place that determines the worth of a society it is rather the wealth of masses. There are many dictatorships in the middle east and elsewhere whos authority goes largelly unchallenged, like Dubai, largelly because there people are wealthy (have a strong middle class). There are plenty of unhealthy, corrupt democracies around the world all of which have a poor population and thus a unhealthy society, it seems that the wealth of the population and thus the living standered they recive is what makes a society healthy...not the social system. (does that make sense?)

Although I do value my democracy, and think every nation should have democracy - but i think it is dangerous to promote democracy as the peoples saviour, and promote the idea that democracy brings freedom which then brings prosperity - i would argue that it is more like this: prosperity brings democracy which then brings freedom*. Democracy has its limits, the current US doctorin of democracy is simply untrue.

*How one defines the 'freedom' experienced in Western Democracy is up to them.

-MX

 

[Morris]

I think it's only fair to note that there has never been a true democracy on this planet. There are "democratic" principles of government, and countries like the United States are more democratic than countries like Pakistan.

A true democracy, where everyone votes on everything and is completely equal, is nothing but majority rules. While that might be the most fair, it's not the most efficient. This is mirrored most closely by parliamentary governments, but even then Members of Parliament are mostly their own autonomies once in government.

The United States is a Republic operating within a federalist system. I think it's clear that the United States has been the most efficient and effective government the world has ever seen in terms of upholding Democratic principles. It's very Democratic while protecting the power of the minority and checking the power of each branch of government. It is the only government on the planet that has always changed hands without a drop of blood shed over it, etc.

 

[Cooper]

^surely ours is equally democratic (not true democracy obviously, but in principle).

 

[MX Red]

The United States is a Republic operating within a federalist system. I think it's clear that the United States has been the most efficient and effective government the world has ever seen in terms of upholding Democratic principles. It's very Democratic while protecting the power of the minority and checking the power of each branch of government. It is the only government on the planet that has always changed hands without a drop of blood shed over it, etc.

U are taking the piss right? the only reason this stands true is due to your very short history...if u look at the wider blood shed e.g. wars, you are pretty high on the killing bill considering your pretty short history!

Plus what about your civil war? did that not produce a change in government or government structure? (That is a question not an statement)

Plus your democracy is laughable, it is considered one of the most unhealthy democracies in the western world...it is plauged not with ideas and compassion but rather money and popularism. Although this is becoming a world trend...American democracy has long been like this.

Plus what about the Swiss, their upholding of democratic principles makes yours look like a dictatorship.

America think they are the gaurdians and upholders of democracy the world over. The British have one of the least corrupt democracies in the world, while the swiss prob have the most democractic in terms of 'true' democracy (Ancient Greek)....Im not sure what America offers democracy and its principles, but it sure isnt "the most efficient and effective government the world has ever seen in terms of upholding Democratic principles" - thats just crazy talk, pure crazy talk!

-MX

 

[Hankaveli]

Someone at work made the comment that "Comunism only works on paper", and it got me thinking how it can "Work" just aswell if not better in many respects as a Free Market "Democracy"

I also have been thinking how many Americans don't realise we live in a Republic not a Democracy.("I pledge alegance to the REPUBLIC for wich it standsm....")

I put alot of thought into what would be the most ideal Economic/Political structure,
lately been bounceing back and forth between a mixed Regime of a Socialist/Direct Democracy government with laws very localy based. or more of a Anarchy just tear it down and let men get rid of the trapings of the 20th century.

P.S.

I would like to note I believe America is a Plutocracy(Government ruled by wealth) and esentually the whole world is. our choices are illusions.

 

[Amara]

Marxists arnt opposed to democracy, but are 100% opposed to the kind of democracy that is in place today and would view it as only another tool in class oppression.

I tried to reply earlier, but was logged out while typing and lost everything. D'oh. So here we go again, lol.

For starters, great post. Secondly, your point about Marxism was essentially what I was saying. For me, it is a matter of taking the notions of democracy and Marxism purely from a theoretical standpoint, aside from what we have come to expect from them in practice, there is nothing to suggest we cannot have a functioning democratic Socialist state. In fact, I am inclined to think democracy would be best served in a socialist environment, as it would seek to direct affairs as they are relevant to society (I dont like the term masses), not political elite as is the trap we often fall into.

Mainly though, I wanted to emphasise the fact that states who outrightly oppose democracy in the interests of regime stability, such as China or North Korea, seem to me, to misunderstand its uses. By all means, ensuring the success of their communist parties is an important one, but I do not think I would ever wish to maintain an authoritative position without the satisfaction of knowing I have the support of my citizens rather than simply, and often in the case of China, militarily reinforcing compliance. And as for Burma, well.... what can you say, why allow an election only to violently reject the outcome. What makes a government a legitimate government, imo, goes part and parcel with accountability and the trust to and from citizens.

In any case, whether democratic or not, there is much more that states need to do in order that the needs and desires of their citizens are met.

 

[Baukem]

like churchil said: democracy is the least bad system from them all

 

[AnarchistFunk]

No Democracy does not work, tonight May 21st 2005 here in Montreal we tried to use our "democratic rights" by protesting against SNC Lavelin one of the main manufacture of bullets, 300-500 million bullets are produced annualy by this company and are used in the middle east, haiti, and plenty other places which are UNJUSTLY occupied at the moment?

What happened?

In the middle of using our "democractic rights" we were once again surrounded and bully'd by the police...

Dictatorships disguised as democracys do not work and never will..

FIGHT THE RICH AND FEED THE POOR!!!

 

[Amara]

Dictatorships disguised as democracys do not work and never will.

See that's just it, isnt it. We have systems functioning under the guise of democracy - yet aspects of which are not democratic. So we perhaps cannot say that democracy, or likewise Communism, do not work when the reality may be that they just cant ever be fully implemented... as a result of what... the folly of men, I dunno, lol.

 

[AnarchistFunk]

See that's just it, isnt it. We have systems functioning under the guise of democracy - yet aspects of which are not democratic. So we perhaps cannot say that democracy, or likewise Communism, do not work when the reality may be that they just cant ever be fully implemented... as a result of what... the folly of men, I dunno, lol.

thats why no system will work except anarchy, and TRUE anarchy, not the bullshit tyranny on tv that they try to pass for anarchy

as long as there is people on top and people on bottom, there will always be class wars, food wars, religious wars, etc...

capitilism and dictatorships dont help anybody but the people on top

 

[Morris]

lately been bounceing back and forth between a mixed Regime of a Socialist/Direct Democracy government with laws very localy based.

Those are two diametrically opposed political ideologies. I have no idea how you came up with it, but it's not realistic.

We can't even get 60% of the country to vote for a President: imagine trying to get everyone to vote on all legislation. And let's face it, 90% of the people wouldn't even know what they were voting on.

Our country has been steadily moving toward more socialist governing, especially in the wake of the New Deal and the Great Society. But a socialist government requires something other than direct Democracy. A Republic, and our federalist system functions as well as should be expected regarding socialist governing.