Is democracy overrated?

[NoC_T]

If you go paying attention to leans, genders and claims to military honours you'll be in a state of constant confusion.

I must give people the benefit of the doubt.

That'a a lot of academic verbiage to me. What's an exhortation? To do what? To what end? Are you saying that many, many people, both in ignorance and in knowing cynicism, do not assert that democracy provides some kind of inoculation against corruption and tyranny?

What I'm saying is that, contrary to the author's claim, Democracy presents itself as no panacea for the world's ills. It addresses only the requirements of subsidiarity as a means to true representation. No other form of government makes such a concession.

Slightly crude determinism, maybe, but that's not the important point. A refusal to differentiate between governmental formats on the topic of repression of dissenting opinion is correct, in my view. It is by having a radically different approach to such things that you should be able to tell the difference between democracy and forms or autocracy. If you can't tell the difference then either the autocrats are very clever or the democrats very stupid.

There's all the difference in the world between Autocracy and a ballot box. There's no ambiguity here.

Right Wing ideology traditionally holds that human nature is a thing immutable. This isn't so.

I think the two are running about neck and neck at the moment. Western democracies might not be persecuting their own populations in the way the Assads, Pinochets and Mugabes of this world are, but the fascists tend not to go around invading other countries with the same alacrity that the western 'democracies' seem to believe is their right to do.

Hitler trashed almost all of Europe. Fascism generally champions Nationalism, but it's by no means averse to Expansionism in pursuing it's own objectives. And Democracy isn't an economic model. You'd expect that international Capitalism would do what it does best.

 

[Andalublue]

What I'm saying is that, contrary to the author's claim, Democracy presents itself as no panacea for the world's ills. It addresses only the requirements of subsidiarity as a means to true representation. No other form of government makes such a concession.

Oh, okay. Well, I'd beg to differ. The claims made for the panacea of democracy are frequent and widespread. From the Moslem Brotherhood to the neo-cons come claims that democracy will bring peace, prosperity and respect for human rights. There's a whole democratic peace theory that suggests that liberal democracy by it's very existence ensures that peace will be maintained between 2 countries operating it.

There's all the difference in the world between Autocracy and a ballot box. There's no ambiguity here.

There certainly is. Most autocracies use ballot boxes, bought and rigged elections and the suppression and intimidation of voters and opposition candidates. When those tactics start to be common currency in liberal 'democracies' then 'all the difference in the world' is not very much difference at all.

Right Wing ideology traditionally holds that human nature is a thing immutable. This isn't so.

Agreed.

Hitler trashed almost all of Europe. Fascism generally champions Nationalism, but it's by no means averse to Expansionism in pursuing it's own objectives. And Democracy isn't an economic model. You'd expect that international Capitalism would do what it does best.

With respect, since the end of the Hitler experiment, the balance of aggression has been heavily stacked on the side of 'democracy'. For every Hungary 1956 there's a Chile 1974. For every Afghanistan 1980 there's an Afghanistan 2003. Now where are the massive aggressions of autocratic states to crosscheck with Suez? Iraq? Vietnam? Cambodia? Grenada? Panama? Kosovo?

 

[NoC_T]

Oh, okay. Well, I'd beg to differ. The claims made for the panacea of democracy are frequent and widespread. From the Moslem Brotherhood to the neo-cons come claims that democracy will bring peace, prosperity and respect for human rights. There's a whole democratic peace theory that suggests that liberal democracy by it's very existence ensures that peace will be maintained between 2 countries operating it.

Again, it goes to the spirit of Democracy. That being the difference between oppression and freedom of choice. The transition from one to the other generally entails sweeping reform across the board, in either direction. The likelihood is that two neighbouring states in the process of such a change will share common goals. These including cosier relations. A people newly enfranchised would be expected to embrace egalitarianism, especially in the aftermath of a vanquished tyranny. But sure, the reality could prove an anticlimax.

There certainly is. Most autocracies use ballot boxes, bought and rigged elections and the suppression and intimidation of voters and opposition candidates. When those tactics start to be common currency in liberal 'democracies' then 'all the difference in the world' is not very much difference at all.

Assuming some fundamental redefinition of Democracy to include coercion as a necessity. Failing that, all the difference in the world is the difference between representation and imposition. Because a confession obtained under torture is good for no one's soul.

With respect, since the end of the Hitler experiment, the balance of aggression has been heavily stacked on the side of 'democracy'. For every Hungary 1956 there's a Chile 1974. For every Afghanistan 1980 there's an Afghanistan 2003. Now where are the massive aggressions of autocratic states to crosscheck with Suez? Iraq? Vietnam? Cambodia? Grenada? Panama? Kosovo?

Aggression prompted not by Democracy, but by economic and military advantage. Or how do you suppose a people are rendered somehow warlike for possession of the vote? How many foreign adventures in recent decades were initiated on the strength of public imprimatur? I'd argue that such conflicts might be avoided by more Democracy, not less. As memory serves, there was massive public opposition to the second Iraq war. It was illegal.

 

[Goshin]

There's a key element many of you are missing, or forgotten... it is not democracy, or direct democracy, or representative democracy, or republic... the key element is


Limited Government.


Government must be limited in power or it WILL be abused severely whatever its legislative structure.

How do you limit a government's powers? Well starting off with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is a good beginning... now you need a well educated citizenry who jealously guards their rights...

 

[spud_meister]

There's a key element many of you are missing, or forgotten... it is not democracy, or direct democracy, or representative democracy, or republic... the key element is


Limited Government.


Government must be limited in power or it WILL be abused severely whatever its legislative structure.

How do you limit a government's powers? Well starting off with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is a good beginning... now you need a well educated citizenry who jealously guards their rights...

Name me a 'limited government' at any point in history that wasn't oppressive.

 

[Goshin]

Name me a 'limited government' at any point in history that wasn't oppressive.

Name any government anywhere that isn't/hasn't been in some way oppressive to someone at some point.


The US government has the distinction, at least, that (fracked up as it is today) we actually got BETTER over a long period of time, REDUCING oppression of "non-ruling-class" groups over the course of our first couple centuries.

Even if it is looking like things have started downhill in recent decades... that second component, an educated citizenry that jealously guards their rights, is necessary and its fading fast.

 

[Andalublue]

There's a key element many of you are missing, or forgotten... it is not democracy, or direct democracy, or representative democracy, or republic... the key element is


Limited Government.

I think that's one of the purposes of the article in the OP, to point out that it is the institutions of the state rather than the system of selecting governments that really has the greatest effect on whether a state is pluralist, free and shows respect for the rights of its citizens.

How do you limit a government's powers? Well starting off with a Constitution and a Bill of Rights is a good beginning... now you need a well educated citizenry who jealously guards their rights...

Well, this topic seems relevant now because despite all these advanced western democracies that have those things, government is growing in an unlimited fashion. Clearly these things are not enough otherwise this wouldn't be such a hot topic.

 

[Goshin]

I think that's one of the purposes of the article in the OP, to point out that it is the institutions of the state rather than the system of selecting governments that really has the greatest effect on whether a state is pluralist, free and shows respect for the rights of its citizens.

Well, this topic seems relevant now because despite all these advanced western democracies that have those things, government is growing in an unlimited fashion. Clearly these things are not enough otherwise this wouldn't be such a hot topic.

A lot of Western "Democracies" are not strictly speaking limited by anything other than politics... that is, whatever the people and the political opposition will bear. Many lack hard-wired limitations of government, or solid checks and balances against excess.

We have those things in America... but things have STILL gotten out of hand... mainly because our limiting documents (Con and BoR) are being ignored half the time and most of the "checks and balances" have been corrupted by the same crowd that took over the legislature... and The People have failed in their duty to rein in their government, collectively.


IMO it is axiomatic that all human institutions are subject to corruption, and need a good housecleaning from time to time. Our Founders tried to take this into account and did pretty well, but after 220-odd years corruption has finally begun winning that fight it seems...


However if your primary message is that "democratic" is NOT synonymous with "fair and just and suitably restrained"... then I certainly agree. It isn't.

 

[Andalublue]

A lot of Western "Democracies" are not strictly speaking limited by anything other than politics... that is, whatever the people and the political opposition will bear. Many lack hard-wired limitations of government, or solid checks and balances against excess.

We have those things in America... but things have STILL gotten out of hand... mainly because our limiting documents (Con and BoR) are being ignored half the time and most of the "checks and balances" have been corrupted by the same crowd that took over the legislature... and The People have failed in their duty to rein in their government, collectively.


IMO it is axiomatic that all human institutions are subject to corruption, and need a good housecleaning from time to time. Our Founders tried to take this into account and did pretty well, but after 220-odd years corruption has finally begun winning that fight it seems...

One of my criticisms of the article is that it paints a too-rosy picture of western democracies. He cites all these institutions that western nations mostly have to protect against the kind of abuses he says he witnessed in the Soviet bloc, but then he doesn't really offer any explanation for how the existence of those institutions hasn't prevented rampant corruption, government creep, over-centralisation and alienation from the political process of the majority. Perhaps he thinks that these things aren't a problem in comparison with the easily identifiable aspects of classically autocratic regimes.

However if your primary message is that "democratic" is NOT synonymous with "fair and just and suitably restrained"... then I certainly agree. It isn't.

It was certainly one of them.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

That seems like an eminently sensible starting point for you Americans. Devolve back to the states all those powers that the federal government has abrogated, but don't stop there. Why should you assume that the state is the ideal level of governance? Devolve from the state to the county and municipality and community. Devolving down as far as possible (subsidiarity) places decision-making closer to the people ensuring buy-in, complicity, legitimacy and diversity. It also makes interference by outside vested interests prohibitively complicated and expensive.

I'd like to see the same process implemented seriously in the EU. The idea of subsidiarity is meant to be in the EU's very DNA, but when traditional politicians get to run it grand ideas get caught up in the SNAFU of daily politics.

While I might generally agree with you in enjoying that idea, I think there are other considerations. It would be nice, at least in theory, as individuals to make all our own decisions, but there comes a point when we must somehow weave ourselves more solidly into a larger community... or else we basically end up with chaos. I cannot myself imagine what the perfect size might be, all societies being vastly different. Our founders/drafters of our Constitution, here in the u.s. of A, did a pretty fair job of convincing me [Federalist Papers ] as to why states should voluntarily come together for common benefit, one reason being less strife among the various political entities themselves, another would be to deter others who might consider attacking a lesser sized grouping, etc...

With the addition of our Bill of Rights, I think the states and the individuals within each of the states were considered to have the upper hand in most common, everyday situations/decision making. The powers of the national government, under this voluntarily agreed to social contract, were enumerated, specified, spelled out as to the national government's limits. Since the American Civil War, these two units, the state's power and those of the individual, have been in decline and would, I hazard to say, be considered currently under attack by those desiring more and more centralization of power of my county under the Federal Government.

This, to my way of thinking, is a very sad state of affairs for us to be involved. While the 9th and 10th Amendments to our Bill of Rights have never been particularly uttilized, they also have not been amended so, without doubt, should still be adhered to as remaining in effect. But through non-use and an established tradition of neglect, with other portions of the Constitution misused and thereby establishing a precedent, they now seem only an ephemeral ideal never to be reached, no longer allowed. I hope this not to be true, but fear it set in stone and no longer really having any real purchase with our Supreme Court as presently construed.

That, however, does not annul this creator given right of the states or, moreover, the rights of the people...as we, in the end, are the government. Our representatives are only intended to be our servants, not our masters.

 

[YoungConserv]

Because that is supposed to be above the government. Our bill of rights is violated daily by the current government. How would that be worse when the people are in charge?

Because the people are more easily bought off.

 

[Andalublue]

That, however, does not annul this creator given right of the states or, moreover, the rights of the people...as we, in the end, are the government. Our representatives are only intended to be our servants, not our masters.

The trouble is, and I'm really not making this specific to the USA, we may like to think we are the government, but how long has it been since the political class has acknowledged their role as servants rather than reveled in their role as masters?

 

[Andalublue]

Because the people are more easily bought off.

More easily bought off than the current crew in Congress, the Cortés, the House of Commons? The people en masse may have many, many faults, but being bought is the preserve and magnum opus of the political class. The people are much less easily bought off because inorder to buy them off you have to spend an awful lot more.

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

The trouble is, and I'm really not making this specific to the USA, we may like to think we are the government, but how long has it been since the political class has acknowledged their role as servants rather than reveled in their role as masters?

Amen to that brother... its time to reassert. But, to quote Churchill and to remain within the OP, "It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried." I think the founders/framers here did not find perfection, but if followed a potentially workable path much more closely. With constant "corrections" to get us back and keep us on track, with the states and the local governments making most of the decisions and the national government kept in check...well, then I would have some hope.

 

[YoungConserv]

More easily bought off than the current crew in Congress, the Cortés, the House of Commons? The people en masse may have many, many faults, but being bought is the preserve and magnum opus of the political class. The people are much less easily bought off because inorder to buy them off you have to spend an awful lot more.

You can't give congressmen money directly you can give directly to the people.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Because the people are more easily bought off.

LOL, so you're saying it would be easier for 300 million people to be bought off to violate to the constitution than it is for 100 people to be bought off to violate the constitution? That doesn't make a lick of sense.

Well, I guess you must really enjoy our current system where the politicians do absolutely whatever the hell they want and we the citizenry just shut up and take it.

 

[Andalublue]

You can't give congressmen money directly

Of course you can. They just have to set up a PAC. That's direct enough.

 

[YoungConserv]

Of course you can. They just have to set up a PAC. That's direct enough.

No I'm talking in their pocket you can't do that with a politician you can with the people though.

 

[Andalublue]

No I'm talking in their pocket you can't do that with a politician you can with the people though.

Politicians have absolutely no problem monetising their position. Hell, that's what the majority are in for in the first place.

 

[YoungConserv]

Politicians have absolutely no problem monetising their position. Hell, that's what the majority are in for in the first place.

There's a difference between them monotizing their position and being given money to promote a agenda and that's clearly what things like tax cuts and mortgage right offs do

 

[Org]

I think representative democracy is overrated, because it's not democracy at all. We still have a plutocratic class ruling our lives, and refusing to bend to the public majority, they just hide under the cheap veil that we "picked" them. In reality, they bought their positions with cash, favors, and most importantly lies about what they plan on doing.

We need an egalitarian direct democracy where the voice of the people is the most important deciding factor.

Hmm. I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that. But I'd also position that the line between state and demos needs to be blurred. So, instead of our current model of gross accountability, decisions of government ought to also be commonplace decisions of everyday people.

 

[clownboy]

Is democracy overrated? I'd have to see an example of it somewhere to know. :mrgreen: