Democracy is Dying
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I hope to fill your requirements for the later.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't wish to push any political agenda or shame a certain way of thinking in this discussion. I just wish to explain my thoughts
With all of that out of the way, I'll put my ideas on the table.
First, to know if a thing is dying, you must identify it. What is a democracy? The simple answer is a government in which the people have some hand in deciding the path their nation goes down. The innate problem with such a government is that not everyone is born to rule. Some are born stupid, others arrogant, greedy, hard headed, hostile, the list goes on. You can counter this with public education, but that can only go so far. A government by the people is not inherently best for the people because the people do not inherently know what is best for themselves. Democracy does however defend the rights of the weak, encourage individualism and learning, and let the common man decide their own destiny. Freedom is the most basic desire of man, and democracy safeguards it.
With all of that said, we can now identify how many democracies exist on our planet. The number is very close to zero. Most governments on earth are either oligarchies or republics that wish to be seen as democracies. The democracy has been talked about for hundreds of years like it is the cure for the human condition, and yet there hasn't been a true direct democracy for almost as long. So, to clarify, from now on, I am not discussing any actual democracy, I am discussing the idea of a democracy, and its reputation as the gold standard of government.
While there are no governments on earth that adhere strictly to the definition of democracy, there are very many that have democratic elements. We can use these as examples. Let's use the most obvious, the United States.
(If you know a lot about the american revolutionary war, you can skip this next paragraph)
The mid 1700's were an interesting time for the world. Vast empires fought for claims on foreign lands, ships brought people and goods to almost every continent. The world, for the first time, was interconnected. A man of great wealth from a fortunate country could have visited every continent except Antarctica. Naturally, men grew anxious, land was needed to feed the growing populations of Europe, and war broke out. The first "world war" per say was the Seven Years war, or if you live in the Americas, the French and Indian war. France and England fought on every discovered continent for dominance. War on this scale had never been waged before, and both sides were dirt poor in the aftermath. As most Americans know from elementary school, the English taxed the Americans, and the Americans rebelled. Tea was spilled, pamphlets printed, bullets heard around the world, and after seven bloody years, the revolutionary war was over. For the first time in the americas, a colony has rebelled against its motherland, and succeeded. While this would have a profound impact on the world at large, we are more interested in America right now.
America is a republic with semi-democratic elections. It always has been. part of this is due to technological limitations of the day, but also partially by design. The founders of America were raised on the latin classics. They had grown up surrounded by stories of heroic romans, ambitious generals, and divided senates. It is only natural that they would be ecstatic to make their own government and control their own destiny. Many of the founding fathers saw this as their chance to emulate their idols.
(If you know a lot about Roman history, you can skip this paragraph)
Rome became independent in a similar way to the USA. the Etruscans were the great power of Italy before Rome rebelled and conquered southern Italy. From this, the Senate and Peoples of Rome was born. (or SPQR in their abbreviation, but we can still simply call them Romans.) Rome would go on to rule the mediterranean world and beyond. However, we can skip most of its rise to power as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Our next major events happen in the 150's BC. Rome has defeated Carthage, taken northern Italy from the Gauls, and Greece from Macedonia. All is not well domestically however, as while the citizen soldiers were gone, the rich were buying their family farms and staffing them with the slaves that those very soldiers conquered. The middle class had been betrayed and impoverished. I wont get into the details, but tensions grew between the rich and poor to the point of no return. Populist strongmen strived to gain the support of the people to be elected, the conservatives of the senate attempted to veto all efforts to help the poor, (before this time, the veto was only used sparingly. Tradition and reputation were the only things really stopping Roman politicians from abusing their power, but I'll get back to that) and riots regularly filled the streets. The senate was too reliant on the bribes they received from the rich to help the poor. Rome was in crisis.
American "democracy' is heavily inspired by Roman "democracy", which is to say that it is heavily flawed and relies heavily on the moral fiber of the elected to maintain itself. Greed however, is stronger than reason for some, and politicians take bribes and make deals under the table. It almost definitely started small. Doing a favor for a little extra money isn't bad if you use that money for good, right? Slowly, government became "just business". Looking at both modern day America and the last days of the Roman Republic, the similarities are eerie to say the least. The two sides, one claiming to represent the interests of the poor, the other defending the wealth of the rich.The frequent riots. The political corruption. All while putting on a smile and claiming to be fine. The extremists on both sides clearly think that the democratic process only gets in their way. All America needs now is for someone to finally start the transition. We may not know who this will be until it is too late. The ignorance of the people to what is unfolding before them will be what ultimately steals what little power they have left.
Well, that was depressing. Why don't we talk about the good side of democracy?
Democracy encourages the arts, scientific research, economic growth, and individualism. Let's break these down and discuss why they are encouraged.
The arts are encouraged because they help introduce new ideas to people in entertaining ways. Books can be about civil rights, but still tell a good story. Movies can take place in far off realms, but be about the duality of man. Democracies thrive on new ideas because the advantage of a democracy is its ability to change to a new situation.
Scientific research is encouraged because it helps educate the voter, and contributes to the quality of life enjoyed by the common man.
Economic growth is encouraged because taxes and trade policies are dictated by the people, so they can be changed at any time.
Individualism is encouraged in a democracy simply because everyone gets their own choice.
With all of the above stated, I guess we can come to a conclusion. Democracy is good, but we are not mature enough as a species to take advantage of it. Sin will hold us back until we get rid of it entirely.
The human condition has held us back for too long. We must begin the most important endeavour of all human history, and that is curing our sickness. Only then can we live in peace and prosperity. How is not for me to say. I just know where the problem is, and that is a start I suppose.
So give me your thoughts on the above. If I got any of my history wrong or if you disagree, please let me know. If this isn't as important as I think it is, or if I am wrong, I need to know so I don't waste my time pondering the solutions to these problems. All I know, is that according to everything I know, the future of humanity is at risk, and I am more loyal to the human race than I am to any nation or party.
Let me preface this by saying that I don't wish to push any political agenda or shame a certain way of thinking in this discussion. I just wish to explain my thoughts
With all of that out of the way, I'll put my ideas on the table.
First, to know if a thing is dying, you must identify it. What is a democracy? The simple answer is a government in which the people have some hand in deciding the path their nation goes down. The innate problem with such a government is that not everyone is born to rule. Some are born stupid, others arrogant, greedy, hard headed, hostile, the list goes on. You can counter this with public education, but that can only go so far. A government by the people is not inherently best for the people because the people do not inherently know what is best for themselves. Democracy does however defend the rights of the weak, encourage individualism and learning, and let the common man decide their own destiny. Freedom is the most basic desire of man, and democracy safeguards it.
With all of that said, we can now identify how many democracies exist on our planet. The number is very close to zero. Most governments on earth are either oligarchies or republics that wish to be seen as democracies. The democracy has been talked about for hundreds of years like it is the cure for the human condition, and yet there hasn't been a true direct democracy for almost as long. So, to clarify, from now on, I am not discussing any actual democracy, I am discussing the idea of a democracy, and its reputation as the gold standard of government.
While there are no governments on earth that adhere strictly to the definition of democracy, there are very many that have democratic elements. We can use these as examples. Let's use the most obvious, the United States.
(If you know a lot about the american revolutionary war, you can skip this next paragraph)
The mid 1700's were an interesting time for the world. Vast empires fought for claims on foreign lands, ships brought people and goods to almost every continent. The world, for the first time, was interconnected. A man of great wealth from a fortunate country could have visited every continent except Antarctica. Naturally, men grew anxious, land was needed to feed the growing populations of Europe, and war broke out. The first "world war" per say was the Seven Years war, or if you live in the Americas, the French and Indian war. France and England fought on every discovered continent for dominance. War on this scale had never been waged before, and both sides were dirt poor in the aftermath. As most Americans know from elementary school, the English taxed the Americans, and the Americans rebelled. Tea was spilled, pamphlets printed, bullets heard around the world, and after seven bloody years, the revolutionary war was over. For the first time in the americas, a colony has rebelled against its motherland, and succeeded. While this would have a profound impact on the world at large, we are more interested in America right now.
America is a republic with semi-democratic elections. It always has been. part of this is due to technological limitations of the day, but also partially by design. The founders of America were raised on the latin classics. They had grown up surrounded by stories of heroic romans, ambitious generals, and divided senates. It is only natural that they would be ecstatic to make their own government and control their own destiny. Many of the founding fathers saw this as their chance to emulate their idols.
(If you know a lot about Roman history, you can skip this paragraph)
Rome became independent in a similar way to the USA. the Etruscans were the great power of Italy before Rome rebelled and conquered southern Italy. From this, the Senate and Peoples of Rome was born. (or SPQR in their abbreviation, but we can still simply call them Romans.) Rome would go on to rule the mediterranean world and beyond. However, we can skip most of its rise to power as it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Our next major events happen in the 150's BC. Rome has defeated Carthage, taken northern Italy from the Gauls, and Greece from Macedonia. All is not well domestically however, as while the citizen soldiers were gone, the rich were buying their family farms and staffing them with the slaves that those very soldiers conquered. The middle class had been betrayed and impoverished. I wont get into the details, but tensions grew between the rich and poor to the point of no return. Populist strongmen strived to gain the support of the people to be elected, the conservatives of the senate attempted to veto all efforts to help the poor, (before this time, the veto was only used sparingly. Tradition and reputation were the only things really stopping Roman politicians from abusing their power, but I'll get back to that) and riots regularly filled the streets. The senate was too reliant on the bribes they received from the rich to help the poor. Rome was in crisis.
American "democracy' is heavily inspired by Roman "democracy", which is to say that it is heavily flawed and relies heavily on the moral fiber of the elected to maintain itself. Greed however, is stronger than reason for some, and politicians take bribes and make deals under the table. It almost definitely started small. Doing a favor for a little extra money isn't bad if you use that money for good, right? Slowly, government became "just business". Looking at both modern day America and the last days of the Roman Republic, the similarities are eerie to say the least. The two sides, one claiming to represent the interests of the poor, the other defending the wealth of the rich.The frequent riots. The political corruption. All while putting on a smile and claiming to be fine. The extremists on both sides clearly think that the democratic process only gets in their way. All America needs now is for someone to finally start the transition. We may not know who this will be until it is too late. The ignorance of the people to what is unfolding before them will be what ultimately steals what little power they have left.
Well, that was depressing. Why don't we talk about the good side of democracy?
Democracy encourages the arts, scientific research, economic growth, and individualism. Let's break these down and discuss why they are encouraged.
The arts are encouraged because they help introduce new ideas to people in entertaining ways. Books can be about civil rights, but still tell a good story. Movies can take place in far off realms, but be about the duality of man. Democracies thrive on new ideas because the advantage of a democracy is its ability to change to a new situation.
Scientific research is encouraged because it helps educate the voter, and contributes to the quality of life enjoyed by the common man.
Economic growth is encouraged because taxes and trade policies are dictated by the people, so they can be changed at any time.
Individualism is encouraged in a democracy simply because everyone gets their own choice.
With all of the above stated, I guess we can come to a conclusion. Democracy is good, but we are not mature enough as a species to take advantage of it. Sin will hold us back until we get rid of it entirely.
The human condition has held us back for too long. We must begin the most important endeavour of all human history, and that is curing our sickness. Only then can we live in peace and prosperity. How is not for me to say. I just know where the problem is, and that is a start I suppose.
So give me your thoughts on the above. If I got any of my history wrong or if you disagree, please let me know. If this isn't as important as I think it is, or if I am wrong, I need to know so I don't waste my time pondering the solutions to these problems. All I know, is that according to everything I know, the future of humanity is at risk, and I am more loyal to the human race than I am to any nation or party.
Comments (79)
I also think that the distinction between a democracy and a republic as mutually exclusive systems rather than different possible overlapping features of regimes is a very US-centric view; I don't hear that distinction in any other country's discourse. What's the difference, in your opinion?
To discuss your second point, I would like to make a seperation between our ability to label ideas, and what we actually put into action as people. Words are versatile, but can only refer to specific things and ideas. Saying that a government is a "democracy" is inherently misleading because it is very vague. Is it a democratic republic? a direct democracy? maybe it takes the word to its roots, referring to the drawing of the rulers name out of a hat. Hypothetically, we could make a chart of all ways of governing, from democratic the authoritarian, and plot where every government lands on that chart. The boundaries are very distinct, there is a such thing as just a democracy, or just an oligarchy, or just a dictatorship, but if you choose one system, you get all of the flaws and advantages. You can negate some flaws by being flexible, which is why most nations don't fall strictly into those categories. I don't understand why that is a US centric view, the categorization of ideas to understand them more easily, but it is an interesting perspective, and I truly appreciate your input. If I am misunderstanding your point, I take full responsibility for that my friend.
As for the difference between a republic and democracy, the main difference is in how they make decisions. A republic makes decisions through the majority of only the elected. If there is one thing universal about politics, it is that people lie. If you can tell the people what they want to hear, you are more or less free to vote for anything you want once you have power. A democracy makes decisions based solely on the votes of the people. Propaganda and confusing wording can still have a similar effect to that of the republic, the main threat facing a democracy is the intelligence of its people. I don't know why you haven't heard of these kind of distinctions in other nations, but they are more or less definitions in the US.
Just to put that point in some context, according to the Democracy Index the US is categorized as a "flawed democracy" well down the list of well-functioning democracies.
The Economist Intelligence Unit Democracy Index map for 2017.
Bluer colours represent more democratic countries as reported
American democracy was still born, so it's questionable how alive it ever was.
One might like to blame the flaws in American democracy on our current oligarchy but our flaws were built in during the initial design phase.
Take Prohibition as an example. While it was passed by the requisite number of states, rural areas and small towns areas had a disproportionate representational advantage, while urban areas had a proportional disadvantage.
Protestants, with the exception of Lutherans and Anglicans, tended to be anti-alcohol, and they were numerically dominant in the rural and small town districts. Catholics were proportionately under-represented in urban districts. Prior to the reforms in the middle of the 20th century, the one person/one vote rule was not applicable.
Prior to Prohibition, alcohol taxes provided the bulk of income for government. From a taxation POV, the more drinking the better, and prior to the very strong Temperance Movement, Americans drank prodigiously.
The United States has naturally always had a ruling class. Money = political power (everywhere, pretty much). The ruling class has, rhetoric notwithstanding, never had a very high opinion of those without property (the working class), and was not eager to see them get the power their numbers would merit. Our political system, consequently, always advantaged wealth over labor.
Until quite recently, a minority of white people in the southern US states have had a very exaggerated share of power. Before the Civil War, blacks couldn't vote and after the Civil War they were effectively discouraged from voting. The interests of wealthy whites was, therefore, the single interest that was represented in the south. The south's power base in Congress enabled southern congressmen to impose their values on legislation. For instance, most blacks were initially not qualified to receive Social Security. The Federal Housing Program was structured to prevent blacks from owning good quality housing (and the financial benefits that accrue).
Various forms of disempowerment are very much in practice, though they tend to be subtler than an earlier generations rather crude methods.
The Etruscans were not the great power in Italy, and indeed were never so far as we can tell united into a single "power" as we would understand it. They were a rather loosely organized group of cities in central to northern (not southern) Italy (thus, "Tuscany" in northwestern Italy derives its name from "Etruscan" or "Etruia). To the south were the Greek colonies of Magna Graecia. The Greeks held most of southern Italy and Sicily during the time the Etruscans were significant actors in Italy. Greeks, Carthaginians and Etruscans jockeyed for position in Italy, alternately at peace or at war while they traded and otherwise interacted with each other, in the years before Roman dominance. Even the Gauls had their hands on portions of the peninsula. The final Etruscan king of Rome, Tarquinius Superbus, died about 350 years prior to 150 B.C.E.
The last war of Rome against Carthage began in 149 B.C.E., so it's not really correct to say Carthage was defeated in the 150s. I'm not sure who you mean by "populist strongmen" but the Gracchi brothers didn't begin their efforts at land reform until around 130, and that didn't work out very well, brother Tiberius being beaten to death in 133. The struggle between Marius (a new man, but not I think a populist strongman) and Sulla, and Sulla's dictatorship, probably set the stage for the end of the Republic. Most of the big actors in that end, Caesar, Pompey, Crassus, began their careers as friends or foes of Sulla, that remarkable and very dangerous man. I think Sulla's dictatorship was the trigger, though somewhat oddly as he actually retired from power to live out his days in what we would now call "partying." He showed what someone with unlimited power could do. He led his legions into the city, the firs time any general had done so, seized power and kept it as long as he liked. He was Caesar's precursor, and paved the way for the Principate.
I think we have to be careful in comparing the U.S. to Rome. There's no question the founding fathers admired it and drew inspiration from it, but Republican Rome was significantly different than we are, even now. The Principate was established and sustained by control of the military.
I'd say the most significant anti-democratic laws currently in existence have nothing to do with corporations but are part of the rule making authority delegated to full time government agencies, where bureaucrats pass rules in committees and enforce them on the public.
There is nothing undemocratic about having interested parties sway voters. That is what democracy is. Interfering with a person's right to sway voters is particularly undemocratic.
There's never been a gigantic slave-free Athens of the type Jefferson wanted. Technology might make it more feasible. Education and economic stability for all citizens would be required.
In response to your thoughts on bureaucracy, it has much the same flaws as the elected position. People have a position of power, but don't represent the ideals of those who put them there.
While we have definitely made progress since the Civil War, that does not mean the work is over. Mankind has an obligation to improve itself, for the sake of the individual and the group.
And don't worry about skipping the history my friend, we all have our interests, and no one can have them all. They were more context for those who had none.
One of the biggest problems of Democracy is catering to two different populations with differing mindsets and different expectations. For example say 49% of the population wants a particular result in an election, and 51% wants the opposite, for example voting for candidate A and candidate B in a presidential election. Obviously 49% of the people will be disappointed.
And is it not about results: approval ratings show that 35% of the population still approves of candidate A after the election and after the term ends, that still means that 35% were happy with the results of their vote, and 65% were not. The 35% were happy to live in a country ruled by candidate A whether or not it was a 'good' decision or good for the country or not. The question is then how to get 100% of the vote or better still, a 100% approval rating? Is this possible? Well if millions of people are unhappy with the direction taken purely on ideological terms, what is the use of Democracy in making people happy and serving their needs? They can never be 100% satisfied so what is the point of it all, really?
People are happier in some dictatorships and enjoy a better standard of living as well.
It's great fodder for the moralists among us, who usually are unaware of the fact that the instances of Roman history they refer to as "the fall" or the beginning of the fall of Rome took place centuries before the fall of the Western Empire, traditionally said to have taken place in the late 400s C.E., and more than a thousand years before the fall of the Eastern Empire, traditionally said to have taken place in the 1400s. Even after the fall of the Western Empire, successor states identifying themselves as Roman ruled over portions of the old empire for many years.
One of the things I find interesting about Rome is the longevity of its empire. I believe that longevity was due, in part at least, to what moralists probably find objectionable about ancient Rome; its tolerance for local customs and religions (until it became nominally Christian). Of course, its ruthless suppression of any revolt and the superiority of its military played a part as well.
Yes, this is the paradoxical problem with "too much" freedom and "too much" democracy in terms of @Hanover's point. They tend to lead to their opposites. So, sure, we want to allow people to put their opinions forward in order to convince voters who they should support. But, as we know that with modern marketing methods money can buy opinion and convince people to vote against their own interests, putting more money into the pockets of those who buy the opinions that suit them along with support for the politicians who propagate them creates a self-stroking cycle of concentrating power in fewer and fewer hands, as has been happening, particularly in the US and particularly since the 80s when brand power, both commercial and political, began to really take off.
This also explains why the expected spoils of technological progress that had resulted in significant increases in standards of living for most of the last century are now being lost to the vast majority of the population. So, what's democratic about all this? In fact, isn't calling it democratic just another symptom of the problem and exactly what those who are causing the problem would want us to say? The solution of course isn't to shut down free speech but simply to regulate the influence of wealth and power in politics, something the US is continuously getting worse at (which given the above is obviously no accident). And, so, yes. It may be too late. But apart from the obvious common sense point that giving more and more power and wealth to those who are already powerful and wealthy just gives them more ability to perpetuate that very process, the theoretical point is that modern consumer democracy is a fragile beast and needs to be protected from eating itself.
This is elitist nonsense offered as a justification for silencing those you disagree with. I'd submit that you are no more or less immune from being swayed to vote against your own interest than are the stupid people who you've left nameless. The moron redneck who votes Republican no more votes against his interest when he wants to limit government aid that might assist him than does the genius intellectual vote against his interest when he votes for government assistance programs he'll never use. Both are voting ideologically, supporting their views of self-sufficiency and their views on the legitimate role of government. It wasn't like Rush Limbaugh created his followers. He's just one of the best at preaching to his choir.
But, anyway, I think the left should be forced to shut up. All they do is create liberal sheep. If only they were taught what we all know is right and just we wouldn't have this partisanship.
"Salty". And kind of "non-responsive". The only good bit was the joke at the end.
OK though, what happened to rising living standards? There's more wealth. Where did it go and why? You tell me.
We are all friends here. We are all men of logic here, and if you aren't why are you here? If we ever wish to see the full potential of the human race, our future among the stars, curing disease, becoming even more than we could ever imagine, we have to work together and build a platform upon which our minds can be free. I beg of you, set aside your differences and use the brilliance of man to build us a brighter future.
It was responsive, maybe salty. I have a headache, so it's likely. Your point being that too much free speech allows the liars to run rampant and improperly influence. My point being that you're no better or worse at ferretting out the liars than anyone else, so you and your ilk (again, I have a headache) needn't be placed in a position to protect those less capable than you. This is an argument for unrestrained free speech being a good thing.
Where did the extra wealth go? Everywhere. There are greater disparities now than maybe 100 years ago, but greater wealth overall. Few are so broke they don't can't afford computers to bitch about how broke they are.
Sure, let's set up a Truth Committee and tell them what to believe. I want to chair that committee. Quoting TogetherTurtle
Yes, let's all join hands in unison and sing songs and the world will be hunky dory. Despite all the partisanship, diseases are still being cured. Somehow it's all working, despite our not coming to terms on everything.
The solution to liars is to call them out as liars. They get to lie. I get to call them liars. That's what free speech is. It's a bunch of people screaming at each other. Like here.
To be frank, you should have more pride in yourself and the human race to call freedom of speech "arguing" there is a difference between that and a debate. While "freedom of speech" is of course up to interpretation, we should use that interpretation to its fullest. Everyone should be able to speak what they believe, and for everyone to get a turn, there must be rules. If they lose the debate, then they are wrong. That should be a system you should believe in if you truly believe you are right. Show your confidence to the world, and if what you speak is really true, it will be believed by those who know all the facts.
Quoting Hanover
This is the problem with Democracy we are trying to solve. You can't be on the Truth Committee and no one else can either. We need to find an unbiased way to investigate and prosecute those who wish to bend the system to their own ends. That is the million dollar question, I guess you could say. How do you think we could do it?
Quoting Hanover
Diseases are still being cured yes, but not at the rate they would be if the whole world was working on that together instead of devising plans of invasion and strategies on taxation for welfare programs that we don't need. The sad truth is, cancer would be cured years ago if we didn't have to dedicate funds to military spending. We certainly do have to, but if we didn't, an estimated 1,688,780 people wouldn't have gotten cancer last year, and the lower number would have received treatment and survived. The status quo should not be ok with anyone ever. Improvement is what humanity has been built on since the beginning and that is not stopping now or ever. I guess to sum this point up all I have to say is -
Quoting Hanover
"Democracy"
It's coming through a hole in the air,
from those nights in Tiananmen Square.
It's coming from the feel
that this ain't exactly real,
or it's real, but it ain't exactly there.
From the wars against disorder,
from the sirens night and day,
from the fires of the homeless,
from the ashes of the gay:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming through a crack in the wall;
on a visionary flood of alcohol;
from the staggering account
of the Sermon on the Mount
which I don't pretend to understand at all.
It's coming from the silence
on the dock of the bay,
from the brave, the bold, the battered
heart of Chevrolet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the sorrow in the street,
the holy places where the races meet;
from the homicidal bitchin'
that goes down in every kitchen
to determine who will serve and who will eat.
From the wells of disappointment
where the women kneel to pray
for the grace of God in the desert here
and the desert far away:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on
O mighty Ship of State!
To the Shores of Need
Past the Reefs of Greed
Through the Squalls of Hate
Sail on, sail on, sail on, sail on.
It's coming to America first,
the cradle of the best and of the worst.
It's here they got the range
and the machinery for change
and it's here they got the spiritual thirst.
It's here the family's broken
and it's here the lonely say
that the heart has got to open
in a fundamental way:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
It's coming from the women and the men.
O baby, we'll be making love again.
We'll be going down so deep
the river's going to weep,
and the mountain's going to shout Amen!
It's coming like the tidal flood
beneath the lunar sway,
imperial, mysterious,
in amorous array:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Sail on, sail on ...
I'm sentimental, if you know what I mean
I love the country but I can't stand the scene.
And I'm neither left or right
I'm just staying home tonight,
getting lost in that hopeless little screen.
But I'm stubborn as those garbage bags
that Time cannot decay,
I'm junk but I'm still holding up
this little wild bouquet:
Democracy is coming to the U.S.A.
Leonard Cohen
I'm not altogether sure how much I'd attribute a democratic revolution to the US for a variety of reasons.
I disagree with you that "the boundaries are very distinct, there is such a thing as just a democracy". The short answer is that "democracy" is a contested term, that there are many conceptions of it, and that they have been evolving since before Athenian democracy was on the cards - and I don't think that the US is a strong example of what democracy is or could be. Should we take Australia or New Zealand, for example, there are voting reforms and other institutional changes that have made these countries more democratic. As a contested concept scholars like Schumpeter think that current forms of democracy are relatively adequate, while Dahl and others think that democracies are relatively non-existent. What is common is that democracy is discussed, explored, and generally agreed to be preferable and legitimate, and that improvements and challenges are raised all the time. It is a very active field, and there is a trend for local political institutions to test out more democratic practises and for these to work their way up to larger bodies including countries, so I think there is life in it yet.
On a short time-scale democracy is perhaps being challenged, but on a longer timescale there has been a general movement towards more democratic societies and anything we see in the last ten years is a minor fluctuation. Suggesting that democracy is dying is, I think, quite premature.
Note: What you call a republic is often referred to as a 'representative democracy' outside the US, while 'republic' refers to a system without a monarchical ruler - I mention this just so we are on the same page, not because I have a quibble with it.
After seeing many a video and article about Communism and Capitalism, for example, I have newly found it useful to ask, what would a perfect system look like? The idea borrows from the engineering field where a 'loss-less' 'frictionless' machine is used as a base, and then the efficiency of an existing machine is calculated against this. Also, prototypes of a machine, for example, a jet engine, may not work, or worse still, engage in runaway behaviour and have to be shut down completely? Chilling familiar? So why not work on perfecting the machine, as suggested?
What will a perfect democracy look like, for example in the U.S.A of 2018, or maybe in 2020? I am sure we can all make a few suggestions as to what democracy is not, and remove these elements from out perfect machine.
I believe we lack the mechanical precision with which to discuss democracy.
This seems useful:
So this is the perfect democracy. Can we exclude from this perfect Democracy the following:
Huh, you might want to substantiate that claim. The best countries to live in are clearly the bluer ones on that map, and the waves after waves of immigrations they are receiving from those red countries are, imho, proof enough of that.
Technocracy wont happen in our lifetimes... Some changes are much to radical to introduce at once.
A modern Republic has a similar problem in the sense the people are represented by leaders, who also try to manipulate them, to vote for them, using the same propaganda tactics. The citizen is still just a puppet. For example, under Obama the leaders did not even represent the public on Obama Care, since 60% of the citizens did not what this. The leaders manipulate the voter puppets, ignored the public, and did not represent them. The fix was in.
When the US was young, only men could vote and these men had to own property to show a long term commitment to the community. The founders did it this way since they only wanted the self reliant to vote; individuals and not puppets.
Back then, they did not have all the modern communication and social networking tools and propaganda. Back then, earning a living was time consuming and required resourcefulness. A Republic made more sense, with the leaders elected by men, who had sticks in the fire, and who by default, had to come to their own ideas.
In modern times, things are much different. Now we have all types of market driven ways and means to manipulate public opinion for fun and profit. Also women, children and people with no stake in the community, can vote. While much of this demographics is heavily tied into the day to day world of the fad living and group think; puppets.
Even the men are more feminized where emotional subjectivity and self interests do not suit the needs of a wide scale Democracy or Republic. There is no team affect. They would need to get closer to the middle where collective needs and personal needs balance better. This is where Trump is trying to bring the country.
I would like to see an objectivity test before one can vote. This would be a test, which can be taken as many times as you need, where you show that you understand the main points of views, to prove you are not a voting puppet. The idea is to compete with the propaganda merchants who will try to turn living people into wooden puppets.
But this never explains the block vote. The people who will always vote Republican or always vote Democrat, or perhaps always vote Trump. Propaganda will only apply to swing voters, I would think.
Best countries to live in:
Democracy Index
Switzerland : 9
Germany: 13
UK: 14
Japan: 23
In that sense, civil government is just an extended arm of the military, it's a mirage, an induced perception of peaceful government which is held by the hidden military. Universal suffrage should be used to control military because that is the main source of power. Right now, there is no direct democratic link between the miltary and the people.
Then when you scratch the surface, military is financed by the financiers. Financiers and military are not directly linked to democracy, and that is the problem of our democracy since French revolution. People never really got free.
Are you really going to try and claim that Canada isnt a democracy because of the Queen? Is that what you are saying? Because that is bonkers. Just hilarious. :lol:
Well if you can provide some circumstantial evidence at least then we can accept this. In any case NOT democracy.
Technically it is not a Democracy, but Canada is a mild instance of this. There are other Constitutional Monarchies where there is greater influence from the top of the hierarchy.
But what I read surprised me as well. The Queen is the Head of State, Official swear an oath to the Queen and Her Majesty appoints the Governor General.
That's quite something.
As for the UK, the Queen has been said to influence the government, you can see this info:. A book was also written.
In a Psychosocial sense it would be pretty important as an unifying force to have a monarch head the state. It would not feel like a democracy I would think, but a sort of managed democracy.
That graph appears to rate the US quite highly. Have I not read it correctly? The sky-blue range of 8-9? Isn't that 2nd from best?
It's all relative. It comes just outside the top 20 in overall score, which puts it in the "flawed democracies" list. But the important point is to notice the backward trend since 2006 (if you follow the link). It's not just about the U.S. If you credit the index as being accurate, it's got to be worrying that we've been, as a world, getting less not more democratic over the last decade.
Maybe, then, it could start to rise. Trump 2020, if he can drain that swamp.
If the 2006 thing is accurate then what does that say about the Obama years?
I am interested to know, if you are suggesting that "technically" Canada is not a democracy, what definition of 'democracy' are you using? Because as far as my studies in political theory and political science treat it, constitutional monarchies are absolutely capable of being democracies, and Canada, Australia, New Zealand, the Netherlands, Norway, Denmark and many other places are considered well-functioning democracies. Democracies are more than just checking if the person at the top is elected - technically Kim Jong-Un is voted in.
This.
Well yes, Canada is a democracy if you measure it according to accepted norms. However, I would feel it was different, on a personal level for example, taking my pledge of allegiance to a Queen of another country, and having that same monarch appointing government officials - well at least one.
Also, there have been times when the monarch has intervened, made appeals etc in a political crisis. which carries some weight, as much weigh as maybe the swing voter population
- The country has to be also justice state. Corruption cannot be a huge problem.
- The country cannot be very poor. Extreme povetry creates problems. A poor state simply doesn't have the ability to create a functioning justice state and likely has problems even to fulfill the basic services that a government has to provide.
- The country has to have social cohesion. If a country is very divided by ethnic, racial or class lines (or by some other divide), it's likely that even if the democratic institutions do work, the outcome can be very ugly. A functioning democracy needs the political actors to be able to cooperate and find a consensus from time to time.
I don't think that Western democracy is dying. It's perilous moment was in the 30's, but not now.
You say
But I was curious as to what definition or concept of democracy you were using, and you still haven't said. I have no way of knowing what you think accepted norms are, or why you might strongly disagree with them.
Just so you know, Canada has a Queen known as the Queen of Canada. She is also the Queen of another country (for example, Australia!) but that doesn't mean she isn't the Queen of Canada. It is a separate political institution from Queen of England.
It might be more informative to talk about what is democratic and how much of a role these factors play. Being able to vote, stand for office, have robust and fair electoral systems that are responsive to voter input and reflect voter preferences, communicate freely with office-holders, publish and discuss differing opinions, be educated in political matters, place constraints on unilateral power, encourage multi-faceted engagement and have some level of ownership and satisfaction without political decisions are democratic factors that countries such as Canada enact relatively well - moreso than, say, North Korea. I suggest that this makes Canada fairly democratic, and the existence of a hereditary monarch who rarely, if ever, intervenes, and especially not so in a particularly partisan way, does not negate these factors. Nor might it place Canada in a less democratic position than various US states such as Kansas where some of these norms are being challenged, such as who and how electoral districts are drawn and how office-holders are voted in, even though these states do not have monarchs.
I agree with those conditions are very important for what I consider as democracy, and what is generally considered to be essential for modern democracy. I am not sure how social cohesion and lack of poverty can be engineered, unless some other force, maybe a dictatorship or authoritarian rule establish these in the first place. Of course reduction of poverty under authoritarian rule has been accomplished in China, but social cohesion - maybe it should be peaceful relationships among the various groups - can that be forced?
I am curious to know what external factors feature in a democracy, for example, in an extreme case, where a smaller less powerful country is being sanctioned by a powerful neighbour. If the country was non democratic, the argument could be made that this will force it into a democracy, but threatening a small neighbour democratic country I would think is extremely harmful to the democracy of the nation under pressure. In any case it cannot be anything other than democratic.
"ssu"s points are good starting points, I would also add freedom from foreign interference.
Quoting angslan
I broadly agree with these rights or should I say benefits are important if not essential for democracy, and yes, Canada does embody the principles of democracy fairly comprehensively.
What I am not so sure of is if we are agreed on all the factors that undermine democracy, because all factors have to be listed in order to know what we can agree on is harmful. Having a monarchy is not such a huge impediment, but there are others that I shall attempt to list:
1. An electoral system not based on the popular vote.
2. Government agencies monitoring citizens without judicial approval
3. Large monopolies controlling major sectors of business
4. Unlimited campaign funding for electoral candidates
5. Media blackouts on carefully chosen events, demonstrations and organizations
6. Debating / attacking skills as the only qualification for presidency
7. An economic system that is unable to serve benefits to the vast majority of the population
Interesting to know how this is really democracy if it needs an external party to prop it up:
These undermining elements are really interesting! Thanks for the list.
I'm uncertain how to respond to this one - various concepts of deliberative democracy, which I am quite sympathetic to, will agree or disagree with various electoral systems depending on how representative they are. Sometimes this will disagree with the idea of a 'popular' vote, but I guess that this depends upon what a popular vote really is. Do Germany or the Netherlands have a popular vote?
I'm broadly in agreement with this.
[quote"FreeEmotion"]3. Large monopolies controlling major sectors of business[/quote]
This is more difficult. Personally I think that this is an issue that democracy should be solving, but not necessarily an issue with democracy. However, campaign finance and lobby groups are problematic, as you note, and I think this is the overlap that strikes me the most.
Well, I live somewhere without a presidency, and where these skills are not so emphasised. I think Canada, which we were talking about earlier, doesn't rate this as highly as the US either.
There is debate regarding whether this is a core part of democracy or not - conceiving of democracy as a liberal democracy versus a social democracy (as frameworks, not policies) will lead you to different answers here. If this is the measure that you are using, then democracy has again had remarkable improvements over a longer-term timeframe and some challenges more recently.
I mean, it doesn't need this to prop it up - it's just an academic justification for the system. I only pointed this out because of the comment about loyalty to a foreign monarch and wanted to note the technicality that Canada's monarch is the Queen of Canada, who just happens to be the Queen of England, who just happens to be the Queen of Australia.
Easy one first: OK, but in my mind any support or bias or influence I would say on a democratic country is not really good for a democracy, in my opinion.And its against the idea, a sort of tainted (with no offence intended to Her Majesty) democracy.
The other points - well your response is one of the reasons I am on this forum: mind - expanding ideas that I would not have thought of myself.
1. Popular vote: former governor Jesse Ventura makes the point that all state elections are decided on a popular vote basis, but the presidency is not. You have two elections with the candidate winning the popular vote but not the election, forever changing the fate of millions of people around this world for the better, some would argue, maybe it 50/50.
. Quoting angslan
Agreed.
7. An economic system that is unable to serve benefits to the vast majority of the population
Put simply, I thought 99% of all people want this.
Well that's a different view. I would think that everyone would want to be at most 1/3 as poor as the richest, but I see another point: maybe some people would not mind a society with the top 'one percent" provided they have a change to make it into that group. I am not a gambling man, so I pass on that one, however I see that there are alternatives to socialism that even the disadvantaged might support.
Tell me, what do you think of sanctions? Don't they upset the delicate balance of democracy in a country? I guess what I am getting at is freedom - which democratic countries are truly free? I would think Germany and the UK are good examples.
It makes it clearer to ask what sort of system one would like to live under. I would prefer a system that delivers basic necessities and security to the 99% including financial security, and I am not interested in dissent so I fear no crack down on dissent.
Yeah, the Electoral College is peculiar - but this is one of the reasons that I don't put the US up as an exemplary democracy. I think if we look to the US we're going to be less confident about democracy in general, but I think that what it suggests is that the US system needs an update, just as the Australian, German, New Zealand, UK, Swedish, Dutch and other systems have had through the years, and continue to consider.
Regarding the economic system, the question is whether a certain system should be 'baked in' to democracy, or whether it should be democratically chosen. The former is more static, while the latter can be responsive to various changes in society and so forth. If people want a certain type of economic system for their own benefit, then they can democratically choose that - nothing is stopping them, theoretically.
(By the way, I'm not convinced that 99% of people all want a similar economic system to each other - what constitutes responsibility, fairness, obligation, charity and other moral values inform people differently on this measure.)
Well yes. The other countries that you mention seem to have a working system that is respected worldwide and within the country. All these countries have a heavy social services sector, free health care, free education and so on, which, in a strange way, makes it unlikely that a non-socialist government will be elected, or at least one that will change policies overnight. The systems work, anyway, and people seem to be content.
Quoting angslan
This is somewhat debatable, because a democracy could choose a government that is capitalist, socialist, or maybe even communist. In fact it is possible to vote to remove your right to vote, which unlikely, is a strange possibility, or to vote to reduce your rights. Voting for a capitalist system has in history concentrated power in the hands of a few, sometimes. So the question is what is the point.
Quoting angslan
This, I believe is the key: think of this: what will a democracy in a prison look like, if the criminals in there (and the innocents) overthrew their guards and established a democratic system of government?
What would a democracy among saints look like, among people who only seek the highest good for the other?
Can democracy be separated from morality? One answer may be a robust constitution and a means to enforce is strictly, but then a democracy can vote to change the constitution. The problem with democracy lies elsewhere: it is the problem of the good citizen.
https://www.uscis.gov/citizenship/learners/citizenship-rights-and-responsibilities
https://mic.com/articles/40101/5-duties-of-a-u-s-citizen-few-americans-are-aware-of#.LPgyIAe7X
Prior to any election, there should be a media blitz on this . Maybe then we could get candidates to respond : we can only vote for people who fulfil the duties of citizens.
Personally, I don't think so. Politics discusses moral issues, and how to discuss and resolve those issues - a type of meta-ethics, maybe - is where conceptions of democracy live.
A great difficulty in determining how to answer moral questions is if there is anything that is mandatory (e.g. inclusiveness? what about inclusiveness of terrible ideas?) and anything that needs to be excluded outright (or, for e.g. if there are certain rights that need to be protected). But people already disagree on these framework issues.
This is an interesting line of thought, then. So democracy takes place in the moral climate of the country it is implemented in. This explains many things, such as segregation. So apart from seeing democracy as right or wrong, it is simply a vehicle to mirror the common view.
Is it dying? Well I don't mind as long as its purposes are fulfilled - better living standards for all, at least, we all at least will vote against starvation including our own starvation. The curtailing of human rights, especially free expression through banning facebook and spying on citizens does seem to make it look that way. Also, populations are sharply and bitterly divided in some democracies: I do not think you can have an effective democracy unless people keep the discussion civil and respectful. This is what we all want.
The Oxford English Dictionary defines Democracy as follows:
Well yes, what if the population is nationalist or poor or starving, or racist, or ethno-centric? So democracy is the product of the whole population, educate the population and make them good people and this system will work much better.
Well, this isn't quite what I was saying. Democracy is a framework about how to have a debate. Sometimes people suggest this framework must contain certain necessary principles (for example, freedom of speech),and some of these conceptions would say that segregation is undemocratic. So, again, we would have different people raising different ideas about what is democratic. Some of these conceptions would certainly allow for segregation. But I think less and less conceptions allow for this - political equality is often a cornerstone of democratic participation, and segregation violates this.
I tell my students not to use the dictionary. Dahl, Estlund, Habermas - there are better places to review comprehensive conceptions of democracy.
Of course but then that framework cannot come about as a result of democracy in the first place. There has to be a cataclysmic event, or a revolution.
The names you mentioned - good sources to look up. Will do.
You brought up China. I think the one big flaw that democracy has in continuing as an ideology is the threat countries like China bring. Democracy makes change very difficult to actuate. China doesn't have this issue. They just chug along, not having to deal with the competing sides, while continuing to grow and increase standards for their people. And so far it has worked very well. They took the ideas of capitalism and integrated it into their authoritative structure. Perhaps the homogeneity of the Chinese has made this possible, but I'm afraid it is quickly showing that China's system is the way to go. Perhaps it is true that the best form of government is "the benevolent dictator".
Choose your criteria with care.
You know what the CPC does with "competing sides", right?
This is a sad post on so many levels.
Quoting Banno
Certainly. It would be the positive sides of one person rule with the exception being of course that the leader looks out for his citizens! Everyone's happy! :smile:
Quoting Maw
They disappear magically? haha Anyways, my point was that their system might win it comes to state building, causing more countries to have to emulate it to keep pace. Whatever they do to dissidents is part of the system, but if it leads to economic/military success it would be a template for many countries.
Quoting Posty McPostface
I was just trying to say that democracies are slow to change (also a good thing in many ways), and China's mix of authoritarian rule combined with capitalistic economy might allow them to progress more without the democracy (people) getting in their way. Some of the negative sides of China's authoritarianism is mitigated by leaving capitalism to its own accord. In the meantime, we can just enjoy our gridlock, as more and more money slips into our "representative democracy".
Look at that. Another democracy left in the dust. : /
Quoting Baden
Apologizes in advance for pulling you into this @Baden. Just thought it was relevant and you were the only one to mention something like that in this thread.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/4359/the-decay-western-democracy-and-the-erosion-of-civic-virtues
Feel free to reply to my thoughts here or on that thread
I have asked the same question: the answer I think is education, people learn through example, and from their leaders. There are immumerable opportunities then to influence people in schools and in the public arena. This is where we come in, write books, novels, maybe and rely on the butterfly effect.
I also see the need for realism, that is, what can be done easily and with a high probability of success? Enough idealism and reaching for the sky.
Actually, that chart shows precisely when China started it's economic reforms, which happened in 1978. Then it started (and succeeded) to throw away the socialist economic model and well, basically turned to market oriented fascism.
India btw believed in the socialist extremely regulated economy until 1991 called the Licence Raj. The reforms had been started in the 1980's, but after 1991 the reforms were substantial. It adopted also the free market system, ended monopolies and open up various sectors for foreign investment. You can see this from the graph above too.
What do we learn from this? Planned economy sucks. Central planning itself isn't a disaster, only if everything is regulated and nothing is left to be decided by the market mechanism.
What would happen to Christianity if it stopped teaching its mythology and began preparing the young to be products for industry, in a high tech society with unknown values?
Education is like a genii in a bottle. The defined purpose is the wish and the students are the genii. Until 1958 the US had education for citizenship and good moral judgment. In 1958 that wish was changed and education is no longer controlled by those who understand what it has to do with democracy. Education is now controlled by the military and high tech business interest. Our democracy is no longer protected in the classroom, so why would this be different from Christianity no longer preparing the young to be Christians?
Just any education does not serve democracy and education for technology always was for slaves. Liberal education was for free people.
We are having a housing crisis and it is property rights that are protected not human rights. We are experiencing an end to land and resources free for the taking, and the beginning of overpopulation where people are no longer needed and are pushed to the margins of society where they are likely to have a short lifespan. We are totally unprepared to meet this crisis with a focus on human rights. We are no longer protecting human dignity as we did when Social Security was implemented but made it illegal for people to sleep in undesignated areas and deny them access to water and restrooms. People die because of the conditions of homelessness and we are ignoring this reality. And medically we have put profit above human lives. What we have done to education and students loans is a horror making the bankers rich at the expense of the young or caring parents who go into debt for their children's educations. When the bottom line is money and the thinking of what that means is very narrow, democracy collapses.
Well I am sure glad somebody told me that Democracy is dying because it seems alive and well, doing better than last year in my neck of the woods.
If Democracy is dying then I can go back to bed and someone else will take care of things?
Because, frankly, I have been working my ass off for the last 40 of my 48 year life, trying to stay vigilant in knowing that our Democracy is alive, living and therefore needs tending too just like a garden or raising a child.
No, Tiff, you cannot just go back to bed, reality and the future have NOT been cancelled and we need everyone's participation to make our Democracy work. It doesn't happen all on it's own. The garden does not weed itself, water itself and keep the food safe, we do. The children of ours' do not raise themselves, we do. If "democracy is dying" then it is up to us to get her healthy again. It is what we do, it is what makes the American democracy (which is the one I participate in) what it is, stepping up instead of stepping out is who we are, it is the very spirit in which our democracy operates on.
Are you sure it's dying? :brow:
"in fact Plato argued extensively that democracy is the second worst regime claiming that democratic societies are doomed to sink in anarchy and corruption."
Socrates, Plato's teacher, fought against the Spartans and Athens lost that war. No one should read Plato without also reading Pericles funeral speech explaining why those who fought for Athens did not die in vain. Socrates died for freedom of speech and for democracy. He obeyed the law, giving up his life for democracy. His actions go with an understanding of social/political responsibility and liberty.
Socrates saw fault in the ignorance of the masses and devoted himself to changing that. Plato was his student and Plato was Aristotle's teacher. Now can anyone name a Spartan who equals Socrates, Plato or Aristotle? There is a cultural reason why these men rose in Athens not Sparta and we seriously need to understand the cultural difference that made that life-changing difference that brought us to democracy.
Germany was the Sparta of the modern world and the US was the Athens of the modern world. Now the US is the Sparta of the modern world. Sparta won the war with Athens and ruled over it and Aristotle favored the authoritarianism of Sparta and he was picked up by the church during the age of Scholasticism and this supported the authority of the church until the backlash against Aristotle and then Protestantism. However, it was the US that won the war with Germany, and it immediately sucked up all the of German's experts, and the US adopted German bureaucracy and education for technology. And we are what we fought against in two world wars. Some of the post here give us a good look at that education/cultural problem.
You never even got to supporting your thesis that democracy is dying. You started off fine, giving a definition of democracy, but then you got sidetracked by your history of a couple particular democracies and your list of some of the benefits of democracy. You never really argued that democracy is dying.