Is democracy dying?

[The_One]

Democracy. That system of government we've all come to love. But, is it on its way out?

 

It occured to me in the wake of events over the last year or so, that democracy may be dying, or even dead. Indeed, when you start to contemplate the idea further, there is little democracy left - and it's surprisingly easy to argue a case supporting the claim that the ethos is dead.

 

Literally, by Greek definition democracy means "people power". To be fair, only the Greeks ever implemented a system of democracy that came right out of that definition. A system of direct democracy has never been seen in any liberal democracy of modern times. Which leads me on to my next pondering...

 

We all (well, most of the members here) live in representative democracies - whereby you elect politicians into office to represent your views in a legislature, and take decisions on your behalf. But, ask yourself this: if those decisions contradict what the mass of the electorate think, is that at all democratic? Should that be the nature of representative democracy? I think not. This has been exemplified over the last year more than ever - in particular the UK, with a government using its mandate to justify the implementation of highly controversial policies, opposed by large numbers of people.

 

Then, you need only look a little deeper into the UK's political system to find massive problems with the electoral system, which elects governments not supported by a majority of the electorate - well, no way near. On top of that, there are millions of wasted votes, with many people not represented at all, just because they happen to live in a "safe" area. Then, turn towards the other big "democratic model", the USA, and you'll find that the man who won the 2000 election is not actually the President. Bummer. And then, you have States constantly gerrymandering constituencies to work to their own political advantage. When you take a look at the turnout for elections around the Western, liberal world you'll find they are very low. Is this not a reflection on the fact that there is little the voters can do to change anything?

 

There are far more examples you can find that illustrate the death of democracy as we know it, but that leads me on to a very interesting question...

 

Did democracy ever exist, truthfully, in the first place?

 

I don't think it did. I see it in (and bear with me here) a similar light to Communism - with regard to the fact it has been tried, but never implemented successfully. It just so happened that millions of people died, for no reason, in the name of Communism, and therefore Communism was seen as a "bad thing". I see democracy as having been just as unsuccessful, and what we have now is bearly democratic. It's only now, after Iraq, that many people have died (for what many people see as no good reason) in the name of democracy, and "freedom". Now, "democracy" is getting a bad name, and people are just beginning to wake up to that fact.

 

What are your opinions on this?

[lukeiamyourdad]

First of, I have to correct you about the Greeks. Only pure greek citizens were allowed to vote. If you lived in ancient greece and weren't greek, you didn't get to vote. You also have to understand that there was a lot less people in that time so much less votes to count and it was basically easier.

 

Democracy isn't dying. Democracy is...evolving. For the better or for the worse, that we'll see. Pure democracy is impossible to achieve.

Here in Canada, we have the same type of representative government as in the UK.

I kinda know what you mean when you're talking about our representatives not doing exactly what we would want them to do but when you voted for him and got him elected, you've given him/her your voice among your peers. He is supposed to represent you.

Of course, unless you're strangely lucky, your views on every subject won't be the same as him/her's.

 

The government disagreeing with the people is common in every democracy.

 

This bring us on the people voting for the laws themselves. How is this supposed to be done? It's totally impossible. People don't have the time to go vote for laws all the time. People will simply not care about it and let the crazy extremists vote for their laws.

 

Now saying that because the US went to war for "freedom" and "democracy" kills democracy is false. It destroys diplomacy but not democracy.

 

Believe me you don't want to live in a totalitarian country. Democracy is way better. Unless you're asian...(bad sarcasm, I'm asian myself don,t call me a racist).

[wassup]

Likewise, I agree with you that democracy never really lived. I think it is impossible for humans to form a truly democratic government/country as long as humans do not change some core aspects of themselves. (ie. greed, desire to be better than others). I also realize that human beings have evolved to become this way (don't start a evolution/creation dispute on this one please, they are just my thoughts ), but until we evolve to rid ourselves of certain feelings/traits, I don't think we can form a true democracy.

 

Now, I can't comment on UK matters because I don't really know about them too well. But for here in the USA, I think that democracy goes through shifts, its ups and its downs. Sometimes there is more democracy (as in the recall of Governor Gray Davis in CA), and sometimes there is less (too many to list here). Some presidental/congressional terms bring more democracy to the respective people, some less, but the point is that there is never true democracy. It may get closer, but never reaches it, and has never reached it. Something like a limit (in math).

[manoman81]

Is democracy dying? Well...no, I don't think it is dying. When mass groups of people want different things, democracy is the only way to keep a general sanity over the group. Do some of the democratic national governments around the world need to be tweaked at the least or completely revamped? Yes, even the US could use some slapping. I think it was Rush Limbaugh (yeah, I know I know) that said a few years back that the US might be getting too big for a central government to run it. Could this hold any truth?

 

But, I think a big problem lies with the people that have the right to use the system, but don't. Example: I live in Ohio. Ohio is very boring and though many of the cities here have a lot of crime, the state lives in realitive peace. Tomorrow, Governor Taft will be signing a bill legalizing the right to carry concealed weapons. Now, since this got reported people have been up in arms (no pun intended) about this saying that it isn't needed blah blah blah... Point is that these same people knew that the state government was and has been talking about this issue for some time. Did those people write their senators or represenatives saying that this was a bad idea? Some did, I'm sure. But most didn't.

 

I think what it comes down too is the education of the people who can vote. I think that statistics for the US say that maybe some 30% of the people that can vote do so on a regular basis. That means only 1/3 of the people pick our leaders. I think that if even 50% of the people in the country voted, we might see some vast differences. Voting should be an issue pushed in the schools every where. Otherwise, democracy will die out from lack of use.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Agreed. Education about politics and the right to vote are a must. Barely 60% here vote to elect the leaders. The rest of the 40% complains all the time about how this government sucks...hell go vote, THEN complain.

 

Here, I've only had one teacher who talked to me about how important it is to vote. The school system doesn't help it neither. They prefer to talk to you about math and other stuff that won't necessarily affect your life and avoid the important subjects.

[rccar328]

I must agree...education is the key to a sucessful democracy. This can especially be evidenced by the current political specrum in the United States. I have heard time and time again people crying out against President Bush in a kind of ignorant passion that bewilders me. After the recall of Gray Davis (I live in CA), I had a very short debate with a classmate over who "should" have been voted in as governor - A conservative, I voted for Tom McClintock, the conservative candidate. He voted for Cruz Bustamante. When I pressed him for a reason for his vote, I got little more than "Bustamante's better."

 

The same goes for the current presidential race. Time and time again I hear candidates running on the platform of, "I'm better than everybody else" and "Bush is evil, miserable failure, gang leader, etc," but I have yet to hear any candidate offer a positive vision for the United States...and yet people follow them.

 

And now to restrain myself in order to stay on topic...

 

The reason that so many candidates go against the views of the people who vote for them is because the people either do not vote, or they vote through ignorant passion. A democratic system depends on a sense of civic duty - for America, we have a duty to serve for jury duty, register for the draft, and to be educated on candidates and issues before voting. Civic duty is what maintains any democratic system. Democracy is "power to the people," but when the people do not maintain their government properly, it is the people's fault when the government falls apart.

[Homuncul]

I don't agree here somewhere. I believe that there are few politicians-democrats who really think about people they represent or at least state it first priority. I mean that they think more about their salaries and their carrier, and it's a normal situation cause it happend to be the essence of democracy: selfishness.

 

Monarchy is understandable for their were no successful monarchies without some democratic implementations in it

 

Communism is about sharing everything you've got with others, your cloth, you wife perhaps and even freedom of will.

 

For me democracy is about freedom, individuality and that everything has to be payed for (you want it - you pay for it). As long as these things are maintaned, democracy won't die.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well freedom, individuality and pay-for-what-you-want can all be possible in a monarchy.

 

Communism, at its roots, is not such a bad idea for us poor guys. It turned out to be such a huge flop because the leaders are not noble in any way.

 

I have to remember people that democracy has once elected bad people too. Hitler was democratically elected. He just used the people's anger and hate to get elected. This kind of tampering with people's feelings can happen again in any democracy.

It's already starting in the US...

 

Democracy's core isn't selfishness..ok maybe it is a bit. Nevertheless, it does encourage people to cover themselves from others, living alone like hermits.

[toms]

i'm about 1/2 way through reading Stupid White Men and i have to say i'm thoroughly depressed about the whole thing. I'm not sure that democrasy is dying, i'm begining to think it is almost as much of an illusion as communism turned out to be. Whatever system you have in place it still ends up as a lot of people with power and influence protecting their power and influence and very little changing for anyone else.

 

i think i might just move to a tropical island somewhere...

[rccar328]

i'm about 1/2 way through reading Stupid White Men and i have to say i'm thoroughly depressed about the whole thing. I'm not sure that democrasy is dying, i'm begining to think it is almost as much of an illusion as communism turned out to be. Whatever system you have in place it still ends up as a lot of people with power and influence protecting their power and influence and very little changing for anyone else.

 

 

That's what you get for reading Michael Moore.

 

The continuation of democracy depends on the outlook and response of its people. The reason communism does not work is that it allows corrupt and power-hungry people to gain power without giving the people the chance to react and remove them from power.

 

In a democratic system, however, the people can, through their vote, change the system. How the system changes depends on the education and motives of the voters. If the voters are educated enough to recognize a candidate that is only running due to a lust for power, they will not vote that person into power. If a candidate does not show his true colors until after elected, the people can either vote to remove him from power, or not re-elect him.

 

The continuation of a democratic system also depends on the vision of the voters. Michael Moore and people like him are all about tearing down the establishment - he spends all of his time tearing down and rarely, if ever, builds people up. If this negative vision of the world is spread throughout the voting public, the people will see voting as useless, leaving the system to the vocal minority, who will vote into power whomever will give them the resources or legislation they want - the power-hungry individuals who will serve the special interest for votes.

 

On the other hand, if the people have a positive vision of how they can improve their nation and society, they will be motivated to enact that vision through their vote, thus moving the nation forward toward the proverbial Shining City on the Hill.

 

In short, don't read Michael Moore - there are so many better resources out there.

[lukeiamyourdad]

It isn't Micheal Moore's fault or anything, he just expresses what we, educated individuals, sometimes feel about democracy.

 

The problem here is like said above, education. Even if people were aware of what they can do, they can still be easily manipulated by power hungry individuals who "are trying to improve things".

 

Sadly, democracy is a bit more difficult to manipulate but still doable.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Hey, I have a question for all of ya.

First of all, technically, isn't the United States of America a mix of both worlds, democracy AND republic? In school, my teacher said that this was partially true, because we don't leave EVERYTHING up to the people. The government does a lot of work, too. So, WHAT IS IT exactly? I'm not saying this is true, I'm just asking.

[taoistimmortal]

Originally posted by rccar328

 

The continuation of democracy depends on the outlook and response of its people.

 

you are absolutly correct. the will of the people mataphorically can be conceived as the will of a single individual. if someone wants to achieve a thing they turn their will to it with a determination that wont cease until the goal is accomplished. democracy is not dying it is only becoming lethargic complacent weak willed it is losing its acuity and so on ad nauseum. alright here's the image of ideal. we are not a well educated populace on the whole for proof i turn to the recreational preoccupation that seems the be so proliferate these days that nietzches proclamation of the death of man seems to be coming to pass in that our collective perceptions of what is important are diminishing. the mad artist is even more of a ghoul today than he was 50 years ago. the desire for art and artists is being supplanted by more tangible pursuits like television and sports and other diverting distractions. and all of this ties into the topic being discussed here for if you do not know who you are by means of enhancing your own individuality how can you possibly know what will be good for the herd or er i mean the people. i'm sorry i was sidetracked and never did state the ideal which is so foriegn to this world that i am not sure i can express it adequetly, but it is a world in which every one truly wishes to live and contains the potency of something great, and is capable of expressing it through word form sound or image. a democracy in such a world would be volatile but it would lack 90% of the problems this one suffers.(i cant explain this here) if any of you are truly interested in this topic, and im sure most of you are you should look up a man named Leo Strauss. he is the name sake of the political movement that is called straussian and a key mentor of karl rove(a white house advisor and some other top official in the administration. sorry i cant think of his name right now) but one of the major tenants of straussian political science is that there are only a small majority within a democracy that are capable of ruling. have you ever heard of the P.N.A.C(PROJECT FOR THE NEW AMERICAN CENTURY) well the straussians are behind that as well. and for those of you that believe that democracy is dying this could be the stream that is bringing the poison to the lake so to speak

[rccar328]

First of all, technically, isn't the United States of America a mix of both worlds, democracy AND republic? In school, my teacher said that this was partially true, because we don't leave EVERYTHING up to the people. The government does a lot of work, too. So, WHAT IS IT exactly?

 

America is a democratic republic - we democratically elect representatives to run our government. If we were a pure democracy, every citizen would have to vote on every issue - it would be a logistical nightmare, to say the least.

[MennoniteHobbit]

Originally posted by rccar328

If we were a pure democracy, every citizen would have to vote on every issue - it would be a logistical nightmare, to say the least.

 

I agree... democracy is fine... but the ACLU is messing it up... oh, doh! wrong thread... or not?

[Thrackan Solo]

Originally posted by MennoniteHobbit

Hey, I have a question for all of ya.

First of all, technically, isn't the United States of America a mix of both worlds, democracy AND republic? In school, my teacher said that this was partially true, because we don't leave EVERYTHING up to the people. The government does a lot of work, too. So, WHAT IS IT exactly? I'm not saying this is true, I'm just asking.

 

The US of A is a capitalist government. Every decision is made based on money.I dont mean that "big businesses control the government, ITS A BIG CONSPIRACY!" kind of talk, but it indirectly affects the way the government makes decisions. If that makes sense.

[lukeiamyourdad]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

The US of A is a capitalist government. Every decision is made based on money.I dont mean that "big businesses control the government, ITS A BIG CONSPIRACY!" kind of talk, but it indirectly affects the way the government makes decisions. If that makes sense.

 

You can't really argue with this. Still, if a government is making too many "money based" decisions, they tend to fall quite quickly.

[rccar328]

Originally posted by Thrackan Solo

The US of A is a capitalist government. Every decision is made based on money.I dont mean that "big businesses control the government, ITS A BIG CONSPIRACY!" kind of talk, but it indirectly affects the way the government makes decisions. If that makes sense.

 

The US economic system is capitalism, but capitalism isn't a form of government (unless the corporations take control of our government). The corportations that trade under our capitalist economic system are still subject to the laws of our republic.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by rccar328

The US economic system is capitalism, but capitalism isn't a form of government (unless the corporations take control of our government). The corportations that trade under our capitalist economic system are still subject to the laws of our republic.

 

Woah, that makes it twice we've agreed....I'm honestly a little weirded out......

[rccar328]

yeah...this is getting kinda scarry

[SkinWalker]

Hmmm... I agree as well.

 

I would add that Capitalism is one of the most influential forces on government and the corruption of Communism by capitalist ideals (particularly desires for status, power, rank, etc.) among the leaders was instrumental in the failure of Communism.

 

Ideally communism can only work in small governments of band size. For stratified societies in modern times, capitalism is the necessary driving force.

[ET Warrior]

Originally posted by SkinWalker

Hmmm... I agree as well.

 

Well, there you have it, the Trifecta!

 

 

Communism is a beautiful form of government on paper. It just doesn't pan out well when human desires and instincts get ahold of it. There's always going to be at least ONE rotten tomato who decides to take advantage and rise to power...

[toms]

Originally posted by rccar328

The US economic system is capitalism, but capitalism isn't a form of government (unless the corporations take control of our government). The corportations that trade under our capitalist economic system are still subject to the laws of our republic.

 

Agreed, but i think you would find that the corporations do wield an amazing influence over those in power. A lot of people would find it hard to distinguish between capitalism and government.

I think you may find that less than half of the ten biggest companies in america pay any tax... that doesn't sound like they are subject to the same laws to me.

 

Originally posted by ET Warrior

Communism is a beautiful form of government on paper. It just doesn't pan out well when human desires and instincts get ahold of it. There's always going to be at least ONE rotten tomato who decides to take advantage and rise to power...

 

Agreed again, but I think people seem to miss the fact that the exact same thing occurs in democracy, it is just less overt. There is no way that you would think someone who got poor exam results would get into harvard, or that someone with a string of failed buisnesses would become the leader of the most powerful nation in the world.

But there has basically become a "ruling elite" in democracy in the same way that there was in communism, and they spend a lot of their time and effort protecting their position in the same way that they did in communism.

[rccar328]

Agreed, but i think you would find that the corporations do wield an amazing influence over those in power. A lot of people would find it hard to distinguish between capitalism and government.

 

I'm not saying that a lot of corporations try to influence those in power, and by no means am I saying that a lot of corporations do what they can to get out of paying taxes.

What I'm saying is that capitalism is an economic system, not a governmental system. They are separate entities, although interaction between them does occur.

 

Communism, on the other hand, is both an economic and governmental system - the two are tied together. This is what (if I understand it right) makes the system in China a sort of pseudo-communism - they have kept the governmental portion (to a certain extent), but have adopted a largely capitalist economy in order to avoid a Soviet Union-style collapse.

 

(I could be totally wrong on my analysis of China, as I have not studied modern China much at all.)

[lukeiamyourdad]

Well they've opened their borders to capitalist countries so they would be able to make more money. They're interior economic system isn't capitalist at all.