NationStates Jolt Archive

While many people are more than willing and able to defend their democratic party of choice, what is the defence of Democracy in general.

remember that social rights and economics are based on the policy of the leading government.

What I am asking is basically, what is the advantage to having a democratic system as opposed to any other. (dont just cut up anarchy and fascism, I want to hear democracy defend itself)

because, if used correctly, it prevents corruption and allows the democratic society the freedom to choose.

Besides, it's what they want. And the majority rules, right?

majority rule leads to oppression of others-which sucks for you being the minority which at some point everyone is. I'm not ready to say its the best system but I am ready to say its flawed and oppressive. Thank god the USA has protection at least somewhat of those who are not the majority and thank god we are a constitutional republic! As for the exportation of democracy to the middleast and elsewhere I think its foolish and only leading towards one world government-the end of us all! muhahaha

First it's the principle. If you belive people have the right to freedom to chose their own kind of government, they need a system that allows them to chose. Only a democracy can provide that.

Then it's the best practical choice. Anarchism can only work for really small populations that experiences no outside pressure or threats. Idealistic governments like communism fails because they depend on idealistic people. Two things will bring communism down, lazy people and corruption.

Democracy is not idealistic and it's far from perfect. But it handles corruption better than any other government system we know. Combined with capitalism, or free trade, it also is the most productive system we know of. This puts pressure on less productive systems in other nations, over time causing them to collapse.

I can agree on free trade and capitalism. And I am supportive of say american democracy at least mostly so but many lets say liberals want a more direct democracy etc. which I don't agree with

Democracy is like any other system. It starts out fine, but eventually people will find a way to exploit it. I think it’s about time we tried something else for a while before going back to being more democratic. How about being a territorial principality for a few hundred years followed up by becoming a kingdom. Then after that we can go back to being a republic. Then we can try something totally different. If we get into a rhythm it will be easier to manipulate, so lets make it more random.

Democracy - meaning majority rule and a government representing it's populace - seems to me the best way of running a large area or population. Other, more direct ("hands on") approaches, don't scale terribly well and with a clear basic set of rules concerning what a government can and cannot do the minority is also protected.

In this regard I envy the US and it's constitution, better than the mess of laws the UK has.

First it's the principle. If you belive people have the right to freedom to chose their own kind of government, they need a system that allows them to chose. Only a democracy can provide that.

Right, that I would say is a major problem with Democracy. Most people dont have nearly enough understanding of bare politics, let alone economics, military or any other major governmental issue, to make informed descisons about government. The analogy I like to use is, who do you ask for an opinion on brain surgery? Do you go to someone that has had years of training and experience or do you have a vote. I believe the right to vote is a joke.

Democracy is not idealistic and it's far from perfect. But it handles corruption better than any other government system we know. Combined with capitalism, or free trade, it also is the most productive system we know of. This puts pressure on less productive systems in other nations, over time causing them to collapse.

Fascism has much more potential for productivity than Democracy does, anarchy doesnt need to produce for having differant goals from society. All you have basically said is that democracy is the best at being democratic.

I find the right to choose my leaders and law makers rather important: Their actions effect my life in more ways than the simple over-all productivity of my country.

I find the right to choose my leaders and law makers rather important: Their actions effect my life in more ways than the simple over-all productivity of my country.

I'm not saying that people shouldn't be involved in government, just why do we give power to those who have no idea whats going on?

Super right wing fundamentalist christians who's ideals DO NOT work in the real world should not have any influence over government policy. Lets be logical people.

Their influence comes from lobbying hard; they make their voice heard on a particular issue and the government respond. I'm not sure this is the right way around - Governments should be elected to do certain not things, not be elected to say "what do you want done?". There's nothing to stop reasonable people lobbying for a middle of the road approach, they just tend not to out of apathy.

And I was assuming by your comment to Buggard that you were using Fascism as an alternative for comparison, that's what I was responding to.

I agree we should be careful who we give power too, I'd make politics pay the mode/average (most common) and try and remove career politicians with no experience in the real world. But hey, that's what the ballot box is for.

No form of government is worse than democracy, with the possible exception of tyranny (which usually results from democracy).

Right, that I would say is a major problem with Democracy. Most people dont have nearly enough understanding of bare politics, let alone economics, military or any other major governmental issue, to make informed descisons about government. The analogy I like to use is, who do you ask for an opinion on brain surgery? Do you go to someone that has had years of training and experience or do you have a vote. I believe the right to vote is a joke.
I'm not saying that people shouldn't be involved in government, just why do we give power to those who have no idea whats going on?

Super right wing fundamentalist christians who's ideals DO NOT work in the real world should not have any influence over government policy. Lets be logical people.
Careful, you are beginning to sound like a Technocrat. ;)

No form of government is worse than democracy, with the possible exception of tyranny (which usually results from democracy).
Would you care to substantiate this?

Or define 'worse' in any case.

Careful, you are beginning to sound like a Technocrat. ;)

maybe..........

lol

Their influence comes from lobbying hard; they make their voice heard on a particular issue and the government respond. I'm not sure this is the right way around - Governments should be elected to do certain not things, not be elected to say "what do you want done?". There's nothing to stop reasonable people lobbying for a middle of the road approach, they just tend not to out of apathy.

I would generally agree, and I think democracy would be much more successful if it was in our nature to do this

And I was assuming by your comment to Buggard that you were using Fascism as an alternative for comparison, that's what I was responding to.

very well. Quite honestly I dont know what else there would be. I call myself an anarchist for lack of a better term. As far as I'm concerned there is no correct system yet, so we shouldn't hold our alliances to something that is not right.

I agree we should be careful who we give power too, I'd make politics pay the mode/average (most common) and try and remove career politicians with no experience in the real world. But hey, that's what the ballot box is for.

The ballot Box is useless though if the mass is unaware of what is going on.

majority rule leads to oppression of others
That's a classical example of anti-democratic panic-mongering, but can you give me one historical example of a democracy that oppressed its people more than contemporary dictatorships?

People have ALWAYS been more free under a democracy than a non-democracy. Even the minorities. Especially the minorities. Dictators love to oppress minorities. A minority is always a dictator's scape goat for everything bad that happens in his country.

Majority rule has never lead to oppression of minorities, and it most likely never will. At any rate, non-democracies have a far worse record of oppressing minorities, anyway.

Thank god the USA has protection at least somewhat of those who are not the majority and thank god we are a constitutional republic!
The "rule of law" is the rule of those with the power to MAKE the law. And you'll always need someone with that power, because laws don't write themselves. Personally, I'd rather have the majority in charge of making the laws than a minority.

You see, in the end, someone has to rule. Majority rule may not be perfect, but it's a whole lot better than minority rule.

Majority rule has never lead to oppression of minorities, and it most likely never will. At any rate, non-democracies have a far worse record of oppressing minorities, anyway.
Yugoslavia's a great example of how untrue this statement can be. The majority Serbs used their power and some pretty nasty stuff happened. Also look at various countries in Africa, where elections don't work out quite well because one tribe or ethnic group ends up getting a little to pushy with the other one. Rwanda's a good example...

Idealistic governments like communism fails because they depend on idealistic people.
First of all, define "idealistic". What the hell is an "idealistic" government, anyway? Aren't ALL forms of government "idealistic" before someone successfully implements them?

Second of all, for the millionth time, COMMUNISM IS AN ECONOMIC SYSTEM, NOT A FORM OF GOVERNMENT!

The form of government under communism is democracy.

Two things will bring communism down, lazy people and corruption.
The "laziness" idea is not supported by any historical fact. In practice, no form of socialism, communism or stalinism has ever caused the general population to be more lazy than normal. Stalinism was brought down by corruption - and that resulted from the undemocratic nature of the system.

"Communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen."
- Leon Trotsky

I guess you could say the Soviet Union choked to death.

Democracy is not idealistic and it's far from perfect. But it handles corruption better than any other government system we know.
Exactly - and that is why communism needs democracy like the human body needs oxygen.

Combined with capitalism, or free trade, it also is the most productive system we know of.
False. The economy of the Soviet Union grew faster than that of the United States from the 20's to the late 60's (when it began to get jammed by corruption). The Soviet Union litteraly went from horse & plough to the space age in 40 years. And other similar countries had similar experiences (with a few exceptions, of course). If that's not being productive, I don't know what is.

Besides that, other systems showed themselves to be more productive than capitalism, too. As much as I hate to do this, I must point you to look at Nazi Germany, as well.

Yugoslavia's a great example of how untrue this statement can be. The majority Serbs used their power and some pretty nasty stuff happened.
Except for one thing: Yugoslavia wasn't a democracy.

It wasn't the Serb majority who did anything, but rather the autocratic leaders of the Serb majority who caused havoc to gain more power for themselves.

Also look at various countries in Africa, where elections don't work out quite well because one tribe or ethnic group ends up getting a little to pushy with the other one. Rwanda's a good example...
Same thing there: Those countries aren't democracies - you've said it yourself that they don't hold proper elections.

As for the Rwandan genocide, the killers were trained (and indoctrinated) by the autocratic government.

Except for one thing: Yugoslavia wasn't a democracy.

It wasn't the Serb majority who did anything, but rather the autocratic leaders of the Serb majority who caused havoc to gain more power for themselves.
It was a democracy, Milosovic was elected. You can dispute how clean the elections were, but it was a democracy. Democracy dosen't eliminate nationalism.

As for the Rwandan genocide, the killers were trained (and indoctrinated) by the autocratic government.
The killers were average people with machettes going out and butchering different ethnic groups by in large...

It was a democracy, Milosovic was elected. You can dispute how clean the elections were, but it was a democracy. Democracy dosen't eliminate nationalism.
Umm, Hitler was elected too (as part of a coalition government), but that didn't make Nazi Germany a democracy.

If an elected leader assumes dictatorial powers, he's a dictator.

And of course democracy doesn't eliminate nationalism, but nationalism is not synonymous with mass murder.

The killers were average people with machettes going out and butchering different ethnic groups by in large...
The first killers were trained for the job, then events spiraled out of control.

When they got to the stage you're talking about, it was pure chaos. It wasn't the majority voting (or making any sort of collective decision) to kill people. It was just fighting in the streets - and that can happen under ANY form of government.

a democracy can only truly work if the population is educated to lesat a level equal to grade 10 in most westized nation. Thats why they so often and so quickly fail in so many 3rd and 2rd world nations.

Umm, Hitler was elected too (as part of a coalition government), but that didn't make Nazi Germany a democracy.

If an elected leader assumes dictatorial powers, he's a dictator.

Is he not an example of how democracy can fail, then? Just because he was a dictator by the time he started exterminating Jews dosen't excuse the fact that democracy in both Germany and Italy failed during the interwar period and produced two of the big three Axis dictators.

a democracy can only truly work if the population is educated to lesat a level equal to grade 10 in most westized nation. Thats why they so often and so quickly fail in so many 3rd and 2rd world nations.

so you are basically saying that anyone should be alowed to make IMPORTANT DESCISIONS REGARDING THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY so long as they are as well educated and experienced politically, socially, economically, judicially, ect. as a 15 year old.

WOW

GO DEMOCRACY

no wonder america sucks

Is he not an example of how democracy can fail, then? Just because he was a dictator by the time he started exterminating Jews dosen't excuse the fact that democracy in both Germany and Italy failed during the interwar period and produced two of the big three Axis dictators.
Of course democracy can fail - by turning into a dictatorship.

But if turning into a dictatorship means "failure", then having a dictatorship in the first place would obviously be even worse. So a democracy is still the best way to go.

Saying "democracy is bad because it can turn into a dictatorship" implies that dictatorship is, in fact, worse than democracy (and therefore this is NOT an argument against democracy).

Right, that I would say is a major problem with Democracy. Most people dont have nearly enough understanding of bare politics, let alone economics, military or any other major governmental issue, to make informed descisons about government. The analogy I like to use is, who do you ask for an opinion on brain surgery? Do you go to someone that has had years of training and experience or do you have a vote. I believe the right to vote is a joke.


Fascism/dictatorships can work, the early years of Nazi Germany showed that. It had faster economic growth even before rearmament than the West, who were still suffering under the same recession which hit Germany harder than any of the rest. Its people were by-and-large well enough, and things were looking up. Infrastructure was improving, crime falling, unemployment was almost unknown, there were radios and transport going from just an upper-class thing to the middle-classes too. But it can also fail too. Look at the latter years, where administrative talent was disposed of in exchange for 'party hacks', put into their position purely through loyalty to the leader.

Fascism can lead to kleptocracy, whereas democracy does not usually do this.

Of course democracy can fail - by turning into a dictatorship.

But if turning into a dictatorship means "failure", then having a dictatorship in the first place would obviously be even worse. So a democracy is still the best way to go.

Saying "democracy is bad because it can turn into a dictatorship" implies that dictatorship is, in fact, worse than democracy (and therefore this is NOT an argument against democracy).
Of course it isn't. Saying that Democracy dosen't have mass muders / genocides / ethnic slaughters is wrong though. Because although the form of government under which its perpetrated may not be democratic at the time, it was put there be democratic means.

so you are basically saying that anyone should be alowed to make IMPORTANT DESCISIONS REGARDING THE FATE OF THE COUNTRY so long as they are as well educated and experienced politically, socially, economically, judicially, ect. as a 15 year old.

WOW

GO DEMOCRACY

no wonder america sucks
First of all, America is one of the LEAST democratic nations in the First World.

Second of all, every adult who is part of "the country" should have the power to make important decisions regarding the fate of "the country" - because those decisions affect his own fate!

No one knows what's best for you better than you know yourself. And even if someone did, what makes you think he will take the decisions that are in the interest of the people if you put him in charge of the country? What's to stop him from taking the decisions that are in his own personal interest? Only a democracy can stop a leader from doing that.

First of all, America is one of the LEAST democratic nations in the First World.

That is true

Second of all, every adult who is part of "the country" should have the power to make important decisions regarding the fate of "the country" - because those decisions affect his own fate!

I would generally agree. In my ideal nation however, not every inhabitant would be part of "the country" as you put it. As a responsability of any person who wants to get involved in "The Country"'s politics, they must show to have a reasonable understanding of how it works. A requirement of citizenship is that you must be aware?

(Ya, I dont have all the answers, but im working on it)

No one knows what's best for you better than you know yourself. And even if someone did, what makes you think he will take the decisions that are in the interest of the people if you put him in charge of the country? What's to stop him from taking the decisions that are in his own personal interest? Only a democracy can stop a leader from doing that.

The democracy you are talking is Direct acces Democracy, from old Greek times. I have few problems with that so long as all ideologies have equal access t the voters.