NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been doing some reading lately on history of Western Civilization, and I've been thinking about the origins of democracy. It makes me wonder why modern democracy has sprung up and survived only in Europe and it's former colonies. And even some of those former colonies are teatering on the brink of scuttling the whole idea.

Anyway, the major conclusion that I've come to is that democracy will only develop and sustain itself where there is a religious/philosophical system which at the same time distrusts and honors people. What I mean is that people are distrusted, so that power is spread out. People are honored, so civil and political rights are held sacrosanct.

What this makes me wonder is how long democracy will last in its heartland, namely Europe and the US. For about a century now, there has been a philosophical/biological viewpoint spreading where people are no more than animals, and hence are no longer honored. At the same time, people are increasingly being viewed as essentially good, and are no longer distrusted.

The only question for me is whether we (Western Civilization) will turn to anarchy or totalitarianism. Or perhaps the long slide down will be halted by a change in our world-view. Time will tell.

So what are your thoughts on the matter?

The reason why US Democracy works, is because it was designed to be as CLUNKY, and INEFFICIENT as possible. that way no ONE person could take control. To run the Government, you need everyone to help out.

The reason why US Democracy works, is because it was designed to be as CLUNKY, and INEFFICIENT as possible. that way no ONE person could take control. To run the Government, you need everyone to help out.
And the democracy here in the US seems to be getting even clunkier and more inefficient as time goes on :D

Oh, and all your [democracy's] base are belong to us

Democracy can only exist where there is sufficient wealth and resource distribution to supply an autonomous population. Religion, by it's very nature, is authoritarian and is at odds with democracy, so the strength of religion in a nation is of an inverse relationship with the strength of the democracy.

As for the second part, I think you are completely wrong about people being viewed as animals and being essentially good. Where do you get that idea with the level of cynicism in the US and Europe?

Democracy can only exist where there is sufficient wealth and resource distribution to supply an autonomous population. Religion, by it's very nature, is authoritarian and is at odds with democracy, so the strength of religion in a nation is of an inverse relationship with the strength of the democracy.

As for the second part, I think you are completely wrong about people being viewed as animals and being essentially good. Where do you get that idea with the level of cynicism in the US and Europe?

I think that wealth has very little to do with it. After all, it first develped in Northern Europe, not known for it's wealth at the time. That distinction would belong more to Southern Europe, with it's massive trading companies, both with the New World and the Far East.

As for religion, it depends on the religion. With Islam, it is apparent that the religion involved definately stamps down on democracy. But democracy was born shortly after the Reformation in Northern Europe, where religion was very strong. Again, it depends on the philosophical base, which the Reformation provided.

As for the last part, maybe I was wrong in stating people are being viewed as animals. Perhaps I would be better in saying that people ar beginning to be viewed as machines. With all of the determanistic thought going around, whether it is biological or psychological, humans are losing their humanity. And nearly everywhere I turn, the general concensus seems to state that humans are essentially good, but some have been corrupted. It doesn't matter what by; various people have their own pet theories (money, corporations, religion, politics, etc). So my orginal statements still stand.

Democracy's Base should be Boulder Hill. Just like in M.A.S.K.

Oh, and all your [democracy's] base are belong to us

What he said! ;)

I think that wealth has very little to do with it. After all, it first develped in Northern Europe, not known for it's wealth at the time. That distinction would belong more to Southern Europe, with it's massive trading companies, both with the New World and the Far East.

You are misunderstanding what my point was. I stated that a wealth and resource distribution was necessary. In Northern Europe there was a great deal of resources and a large farming infrastructure in place that created an empowered populous. If anything, the massive trading companies were detrimental to the wealth distribution of Southern Europe and impeded democratic development.

As for religion, it depends on the religion. With Islam, it is apparent that the religion involved definately stamps down on democracy. But democracy was born shortly after the Reformation in Northern Europe, where religion was very strong. Again, it depends on the philosophical base, which the Reformation provided.

One of the key advancements of the Reformation in Northern Europe was the growth of the Protestant Church and the lessening of power of the Roman Catholic church. What this did is provide a religious autonomy as protestantism provided a pathway to God that didn't go through Rome and provided a religiously powered populous. Once again, the stranglehold the church had on Southern Europe and the Middle East hindered the growth of democracy.

As for the last part, maybe I was wrong in stating people are being viewed as animals. Perhaps I would be better in saying that people ar beginning to be viewed as machines. With all of the determanistic thought going around, whether it is biological or psychological, humans are losing their humanity. And nearly everywhere I turn, the general concensus seems to state that humans are essentially good, but some have been corrupted. It doesn't matter what by; various people have their own pet theories (money, corporations, religion, politics, etc). So my orginal statements still stand.

You are correct about the deterministic view of human life. But I do not believe that will lead to totalitarianism. Philosophical views are shifting concentration towards the experience and the conciousness of life, not the biology of life. With that said, there is more of a emphasis on the individual than on the whole, unlike in the past.

The reason why US Democracy works, is because it was designed to be as CLUNKY, and INEFFICIENT as possible. that way no ONE person could take control. To run the Government, you need everyone to help out.
And this is why it's obviously not working (if you need proof that the US Democracy isn't working... well... Bush is in office)

C'mon Rob, I was enjoying this discussion.

I'd say the success of Democracy relies more upon the administrative systems that support it than the culture. Only in a precious few nations has the infrastructure to support democracy flourished. And these nations are not all culturally the same. For example, Europe has a very distinct class system, whilst in the US it's only visible amongst the super-rich and the super poor. And of course, the scion of Asian demcracy, Japan is just so totally different from western culture that it's not even funny, but Japan inherited a very robust beureaucratic infrastructure from the American occupiers after WWII.

Former British colonies tend to be far more stable and democratic than those of France or Belgium. The reason is the British had an excellent system of colonial administration, and the tools of this passed down, often peacefully, when the British left the colony. This can rarely be said about many other nations.

And this is why it's obviously not working (if you need proof that the US Democracy isn't working... well... Bush is in office)
Democracy is also highly subjective, while it may appear to be irreparably broke to one guy, another guy may see it as nearly perfect.

I think that democracy has not succeded in Africa and the middle east because they are poor. Also, in the case of the latter, dictatorships are supported by the powers of the west anyway. (Don't mention Saddam, I'm thinking Saudi Arabia, Egypt, etc.)

When Germany was poor in the 1920s and 30s, a dictatorship arose there. You'll find that most democratic countries are also somewhat wealthy.

And this is why it's obviously not working (if you need proof that the US Democracy isn't working... well... Bush is in office)
I think that's more a matter of voter foolishness than a flawed system. ;)

You'll find that most democratic countries are also somewhat wealthy.

Whether that's a cause or an effect is debatable...

You are misunderstanding what my point was. I stated that a wealth and resource distribution was necessary. In Northern Europe there was a great deal of resources and a large farming infrastructure in place that created an empowered populous. If anything, the massive trading companies were detrimental to the wealth distribution of Southern Europe and impeded democratic development.

Whether that's a cause or an effect is debatable...

This was also mentioned by my professor when I took Political Economy in college. It is true that democracy and wealth tend to go together, but there is considerable debate as too which causes which.

One of the key advancements of the Reformation in Northern Europe was the growth of the Protestant Church and the lessening of power of the Roman Catholic church. What this did is provide a religious autonomy as protestantism provided a pathway to God that didn't go through Rome and provided a religiously powered populous. Once again, the stranglehold the church had on Southern Europe and the Middle East hindered the growth of democracy.

This was precisely my point. It was the religious base. The Reformation was also noted for it's emphasis on personal responsibility. This is absolutely necessary for democracy to work. I might note that I forgot this point in my first post. Democracy only works when the people have something to keep them breaking the laws besides the threat of the state. Whether this is pride in the state, God, etc. does not matter, so long as something is there. The democratic state i admittedly weak in enforcement power. It can handle a few lawbreakers, but the state would break down if there were any systemic problems. It would degenerate into totalitarianism to combat the crime. This is another reason why democracy could florish in the Reformation countries. The base for personal responsibility was there to keep people in check.

You are correct about the deterministic view of human life. But I do not believe that will lead to totalitarianism. Philosophical views are shifting concentration towards the experience and the conciousness of life, not the biology of life. With that said, there is more of a emphasis on the individual than on the whole, unlike in the past.

If anything, the determainistic veiw of life will turn teh state towards anarchy. After all, if someone was not in control of what they did, how can we hold them responsible and punishment for it? So law enforcement breaks down, and so does the state.

When Germany was poor in the 1920s and 30s, a dictatorship arose there. You'll find that most democratic countries are also somewhat wealthy.

Actually, Hitler rose to power democratically. He simply had the people vote him his power as they went along. The Depression gave him his opportunity, as the people were ready for change, but that happened in most of the world at that time. Even in the US, the almost complete monopoly on government by the Republican Party, which they had held since the Civil War, was broken by FRD and the New Deal Democrats because people wanted a change. It might also be noted that Europe in general and Germany in particular were ahead of the US in philosophical circles at the time, and was losing the base for democracy.

And this is why it's obviously not working (if you need proof that the US Democracy isn't working... well... Bush is in office)no, that's because no one could not get a better choice.

This was also mentioned by my professor when I took Political Economy in college. It is true that democracy and wealth tend to go together, but there is considerable debate as too which causes which.

I have no doubt that democracy is very conducive to wealth, at least when combined with a free market capitalism.

I still believe that the citizenry of the nation must remain empowered and autonomous for a democracy to be maintained. For that to happen there must be an adequate distribution of wealth.

This was precisely my point. It was the religious base. The Reformation was also noted for it's emphasis on personal responsibility. This is absolutely necessary for democracy to work. I might note that I forgot this point in my first post. Democracy only works when the people have something to keep them breaking the laws besides the threat of the state. Whether this is pride in the state, God, etc. does not matter, so long as something is there. The democratic state i admittedly weak in enforcement power. It can handle a few lawbreakers, but the state would break down if there were any systemic problems. It would degenerate into totalitarianism to combat the crime. This is another reason why democracy could florish in the Reformation countries. The base for personal responsibility was there to keep people in check.

I would like to say that people who are less likely to break laws are more likely to be religious, not the other way around.

But your point on the need for an adherance to the laws of society being necessary for democracy is correct. That also relates to my belief that autonomy in the populous is necessary as well. A distribution of wealth would provide a limited safeguard against crime. As everybody knows, money is power, so a large amount of moderately wealthy citizenry would have the power to maintain order.

If anything, the determainistic veiw of life will turn teh state towards anarchy. After all, if someone was not in control of what they did, how can we hold them responsible and punishment for it? So law enforcement breaks down, and so does the state.

I don't disagree with you completely, but for reasons I mentioned prior to this I don't think the law enforcement would completely break down. I do see a continued weakening of the central government, but anarchy is impossible as some government would be required to preserve the anarchy.

no, that's because no one could not get a better choice.

The inability of the citizenry to find a viable representative inside the government would be damning evidence of a malfunctioning democracy.