NationStates Jolt Archive

I think that democracy is a good Idea, like everything else, will not save a far left-wing nation from being a dystopia. and the phrase "without democracy a nation has nothing" is not true.

I think people should be able to choose their own government. That way, if they get a bad one, it's their own fault.

Democracy is a shit system. It either disenfranchises a large proportion of the population (a la first past the post), or has incredible problems reaching a consensus and actually being able to do anything (eg. proportional prepresentation).

However, when compared to other systems of government it becomes relatively good. Churchill hit the nail on the head when he said

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Democracy is a shit system. It either disenfranchises a large proportion of the population (a la first past the post), or has incredible problems reaching a consensus and actually being able to do anything (eg. proportional prepresentation).

However, when compared to other systems of government it becomes relatively good. Churchill hit the nail on the head when he said

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

Agreed.

Although really, it'd be nice if adminstration costs can be cut to an absolute minimum. That's about the only benefit of dictatorships, but even then...

...a democracy that isn't weighed down by over-administration is probably a lot more effective than any other sort of government.

And yes, it does save a left-wing utopia from being a dystopia - if people actually want to have a left-wing government, then it might work. However, having a violent revolution = large segment of the population that doesn't want to live in a left-wing utopia and therefore, it doesn't work. With democracy, a left-wing utopia, and any other sort of utopia, actually becomes possible. Possible, as in, you can get closer to them. Utopias can never be reached.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."
That quote is always amusing, because I don't think I've ever seen it written in the same way twice. :p

Still, the meaning is clear, and I agree with that.

I have yet to see a democracy in the Modern World

There really isn't such a thing as a democratic country. At best we are democartaically inclined. Democracy really means rule by the people, but most democratically inclined countries are simply too big to be ruled except as Republics (ruled for the people), even the small ones tend to be too big. Rather than giving up on democracy, most democrats (American Democrats and some Republicans count as well as British Tories, Libs, most French parties and most non-communist parties) try simply to make their systems more representative and more acountable. This does ignore those who enter politics for personal power and care little about the system (Blair/Bush/Belesconi) or enter for ideological reasons (McCarthy, Le Penn, Plym Fontain) who can be in any party.

Democratic governments are unfortunately destined to legislate and legislate, and grow bigger and bigger. Eventually, governments that were created to give every possible freedom to someone become giant invasive police states, with social programs, huge militaries, and ridiculous laws costing citizens the better portion of their paycheck. Or at least, that's what has been happening in America. The governement gets bigger and bigger as each generation votes, because people are convinced that a law is the solution for everything.

Lord, how I hate government. :headbang:

That quote is always amusing, because I don't think I've ever seen it written in the same way twice. :p

Still, the meaning is clear, and I agree with that.I don't actually know the quote off by heart, so I just typed 'worst form government democracy churchill' into google, and the first two results contained the quote using that wording.

Equal distribution of votes for a mass of public with unequal distribution of knowledge :headbang:

Best we have but certainly room for improvement. Minimal governent overcomes the issues of anarchy whilst utilising government protection of individuals and using democracy effectively without being a threat to us. (particuarly if elected, eg- Nazis/communists)

Democracy is essential for better or for worse, no matter how bad a leader you get at least you elected him. The only snag is an apathetic, or evenly divided populace. I think people should be able to elect anyone they think will lead them correctly if the egyptians want the muslim brotherhood, so be it if the palestinians want Hamas give it to them.
I would much rather have an inefficient, indecisive government then a direct, unchecked one.

My view of democracy is quite simple.

Democracy means rule of 'the people'. My view is summed up in the next logical question; which people?

I'm happy.

My view of democracy is quite simple.

Democracy means rule of 'the people'. My view is summed up in the next logical question; which people?
Bob and Terry.

Duh.

direct democracy is good. anything less might as well be a dictatorship.

My view of democracy is quite simple.

Democracy means rule of 'the people'. My view is summed up in the next logical question; which people?

well, 'the people' are most frequently identified as those belonging to the 'nation', hence nationalism and all the exclusionary politics that come with it. when nationalism finally dies maybe we'll realise that 'the people' has to include all those affected by policy decisions.

direct democracy is good. anything less might as well be a dictatorship.

So if we have a constitution, human rights act, senete, independent judiciary but are living in a country that uses representative democracy it'll be worse than a direct democracy in a country full of racists??

My opinion on Democracy can be expressed in the negative:

Having any other system of Government constitutes a casus belli.

There really isn't such a thing as a democratic country. At best we are democartaically inclined. Democracy really means rule by the people, but most democratically inclined countries are simply too big to be ruled except as Republics (ruled for the people), even the small ones tend to be too big. Rather than giving up on democracy, most democrats (American Democrats and some Republicans count as well as British Tories, Libs, most French parties and most non-communist parties) try simply to make their systems more representative and more acountable. This does ignore those who enter politics for personal power and care little about the system (Blair/Bush/Belesconi) or enter for ideological reasons (McCarthy, Le Penn, Plym Fontain) who can be in any party.

Plym Fontain? You mean Pim Fortuyn or another dude?

well, 'the people' are most frequently identified as those belonging to the 'nation', hence nationalism and all the exclusionary politics that come with it. when nationalism finally dies maybe we'll realise that 'the people' has to include all those affected by policy decisions.

Thats not what I meant.

I know full well that in theory, 'the people' refers to those who belong to the nation-state. My question asks deeper than that.

The poor? The wealthy? The wise? The foolish? The men? The women? All of them? Equally? Or perhaps some over others?

Internationally, I see nation-states interacting with other nation-states as a series of power relationships; some equal, some unequal.

Is it not reasonable to dwell on whether the same is true within the nation and the democracy as well? Whether or not certain groups and interests whether consciously or unconsciously possess greater power in these 'democracies' than others even though legally all men and women may have equal standing?

Is that then not a contradiction of democracy?

So if we have a constitution, human rights act, senete, independent judiciary but are living in a country that uses representative democracy it'll be worse than a direct democracy in a country full of racists??

that's not quite what i was saying. my point was that, unless referenda are held, a representative democracy amounts to electing a dictator every four years or so. there is no reason why a direct democracy cannot have a constitution, human rights act or independent judiciary elected through a popular vote. of course direct democracy in a country full of racists would lead to a pretty nighmarish country but at least then the actions of the government would be an expression of the will of the people which is what democracy is supposed to be.

Equal distribution of votes for a mass of public with unequal distribution of knowledge

BALDERS: Hey Brains?

BRAINS IN TANKS: Yeah?

BALDURS: Who should I vote for?

BRAINS IN TANKS: I can't tell you that even though you recognize that I have much greater knowledge than you on who is likely to form the best government because then it would be like me having two votes. And if I had two votes we wouldn't have equal distribution of votes across the mass of public and then entire system would come crashing down.

BALDERS: So... you're saying that smart people would never use their superior knowledge to gain an advantage in a democratic political system?

BRAINS IN TANKS: That's exactly what I'm saying.

BALDERS: Oh... I didn't know that.

BRAINS IN TANKS: Yes, but I'd never take advantage of that fact.

Thats not what I meant.

I know full well that in theory, 'the people' refers to those who belong to the nation. My question asks deeper than that.

The poor? The wealthy? The wise? The foolish? The men? The women? All of them? Equally? Or perhaps some over others?

Internationally, I see nation-states interacting with other nation-states as a series of power relationships; some equal, some unequal.

Is it not reasonable to dwell on whether the same is true within the nation and the democracy as well? Whether or not certain groups and interests whether consciously or unconsciously possess greater power in these 'democracies' than others even though legally all men and women may have equal standing?

Is that then not a contradiction of democracy?
it is certainly true that in many ostensibly democratic countries the definition of 'the people' is contradictory to what democracy is supposed to be about. but in most western democracies at present sufferage is universal. of course, the uber-rich often have more weight behind their vote because they can donate significant amounts of capital to campaign funds and the like, and this is obviously a bad thing. also, pressure groups, corporations and wealthy individuals can employ lobbyists to push their interests, which is another perversion of democracy in western countries. in france, after the revolution, the number of individuals included in the revolutionaries definition of 'the people' actually only came to 90,000 because a person had to own a certain acreage of land and be male, along with several other attributes, before they were deemed eligible to vote.

it is certainly true that in many ostensibly democratic countries the definition of 'the people' is contradictory to what democracy is supposed to be about. but in most western democracies at present sufferage is universal. of course, the uber-rich often have more weight behind their vote because they can donate significant amounts of capital to campaign funds and the like, and this is obviously a bad thing. also, pressure groups, corporations and wealthy individuals can employ lobbyists to push their interests, which is another perversion of democracy in western countries. in france, after the revolution, the number of individuals included in the revolutionaries definition of 'the people' actually only came to 90,000 because a person had to own a certain acreage of land and be male, along with several other attributes, before they were deemed eligible to vote.

Which leads to my view.

Democracy does not exist. Nor perhaps has it ever....

that's not quite what i was saying. my point was that, unless referenda are held, a representative democracy amounts to electing a dictator every four years or so. there is no reason why a direct democracy cannot have a constitution, human rights act or independent judiciary elected through a popular vote. of course direct democracy in a country full of racists would lead to a pretty nighmarish country but at least then the actions of the government would be an expression of the will of the people which is what democracy is supposed to be.


In england right now if we had a popular vote on the Human rights act it'd most liekly be dropped. Individual human rights can't be put to a simple popular vote. Governments are supposed to protect the individuals rights and keep people from harm, if religious fundementalism suddenly had a sharp increase in popularity I would still want a seperation of the church and state to continue as much as possible even if the majority of the population might vote against it.

Which leads to my view.

Democracy does not exist. Nor perhaps has it ever....

nor can it, but direct democracy is the closest we can probably get.

nor can it, but direct democracy is the closest we can probably get.

Not even that, I would summise.

'Direct democracy' isn't close to democracy as it still incorporates several power relationships.

The 51% over the 49%. The persuader over the persuaded. The corrupt over the bribed.

And so on....

This is why ideally I prefer never to use the term 'democracy' because it can be vague and inaccurate. I prefer to use terms like 'representative systems' and 'majority rule'.

In england right now if we had a popular vote on the Human rights act it'd most liekly be dropped. Individual human rights can't be put to a simple popular vote. Governments are supposed to protect the individuals rights and keep people from harm, if religious fundementalism suddenly had a sharp increase in popularity I would still want a seperation of the church and state to continue as much as possible even if the majority of the population might vote against it.

well i don't know how true your claim is but if it is, i would hazard that it is largely the result of scaremongering by the 'representative' government to push their agenda and by the press which is increasingly monopolised and has strong lobbying power over the government. while it is certainly the resposibility of the government to protect human rights that does not really work in practice when the government wishes to push certain policies - such as those being considered at present, id cards, increased surveillance, stop and search powers for policing agencies, etc.

Not even that, I would summise.

'Direct democracy' isn't close to democracy as it still incorporates several power relationships.

The 51% over the 49%. The persuader over the persuaded. The corrupt over the bribed.

And so on....

This is why ideally I prefer never to use the term 'democracy' because it can be vague and inaccurate. I prefer to use terms like 'representative systems' and 'majority rule'.

well, democracy will probably come to be seen as an outdated term in the not too distant future. but while we're still using it i'll maintain that direct democracy is the closest we can get to achieving the central tenets of the ideology. but in any system of government there will always have to be officials to see that policies are carried out, and while there are officials they can be bribed or cajoled into going against the popular vote. as for the 51% over the 49% scenario i would suggest that such a case would need to be sent back to the drawing board to see if a compromise can be established before being put to the vote again.

well, democracy will probably come to be seen as an outdated term in the not too distant future. but while we're still using it i'll maintain that direct democracy is the closest we can get to achieving the central tenets of the ideology. but in any system of government there will always have to be officials to see that policies are carried out, and while there are officials they can be bribed or cajoled into going against the popular vote. as for the 51% over the 49% scenario i would suggest that such a case would need to be sent back to the drawing board to see if a compromise can be established before being put to the vote again.


People have been using the term democracy for the last 2500 years or so.
They have also been using it as a way-of-Government for that long - albeit with intermissions.

If and when a better system has been proven to work, we can start to make comparisons.
Until then, Democracy is the only way, and the theoretical notions of better systems nothing but snake oil.

EDIT: actually, this post is about greater sagacity.

There really isn't such a thing as a democratic country. At best we are democartaically inclined. Democracy really means rule by the people, but most democratically inclined countries are simply too big to be ruled except as Republics (ruled for the people), even the small ones tend to be too big. Rather than giving up on democracy, most democrats (American Democrats and some Republicans count as well as British Tories, Libs, most French parties and most non-communist parties) try simply to make their systems more representative and more acountable. This does ignore those who enter politics for personal power and care little about the system (Blair/Bush/Belesconi) or enter for ideological reasons (McCarthy, Le Penn, Plym Fontain) who can be in any party.

Great, now I don't need to articulate my thoughts, you've already done it for me :D

Representative Democracy is by far the best governing system we have come up with so far. True, you could accomplish a lot in a dictatorship if the administration is competent and fair, and the people support it... but that is essentially what representative democracy does; supports or endorses the administration.

This doesn't mean that democracy isn't in need of reform. There are always ways to make it more representative and accountable, primarily through decentralization of issues that directly affect a smaller area, and eliminating the 'winner takes all' mentality of many modern democracies.

Truly non-coercive government is simply impossible. Democracy is the closest that we can come to legitimizing authority.

People have been using the term democracy for the last 2500 years or so.
They have also been using it as a way-of-Government for that long - albeit with intermissions.

If and when a better system has been proven to work, we can start to make comparisons.
Until then, Democracy is the only way, and the theoretical notions of better systems nothing but snake oil.

EDIT: actually, this post is about greater sagacity.

Theoretical notions of better systems? No, you misunderstand me.

I never once suggested any theoretical notion of a better system. Only that what we call democracy isn't as straightforward as many would place it.

Theoretical notions of better systems? No, you misunderstand me.

I never once suggested any theoretical notion of a better system. Only that what we call democracy isn't as straightforward as many would place it.

So either it is the best we have, and we ought to laud it,
or it isn't the best we have, and we ought to deride it.

I believe very strongly in direct democracy, or at least, a democracy where the common person actually wields influence.

So either it is the best we have, and we ought to laud it,
or it isn't the best we have, and we ought to deride it.

In my view, all systems are tyrannies for they have power relationships. Some tyrannies are arguably better than others.

But does that mean that they are not still tyrannies?
Does that mean that the concept of one man's dominion over another is not to be criticised?

What if the best we have isn't good enough?

I believe very strongly in direct democracy, or at least, a democracy where the common person actually wields influence.

The common person who watches pop idol and reads fashion mags?

In my view, all systems are tyrannies for they have power relationships. Some tyrannies are arguably better than others.

But does that mean that they are not still tyrannies?
Does that mean that the concept of one man's dominion over another is not to be criticised?

What if the best we have isn't good enough?


Unles you have a 'battle-proven' better way of doing things, yes, indeed, you have an obligation to laud the concept of man's dominion over man.

The common person who watches pop idol and reads fashion mags?

Yep. Now consider this. If you think you are a cut above the crowd intellectually and you spend your time reading and engaging in learned discourse instead of watching pop idols and reading fashion magazines, can't you see that there are ways in which you can have influence beyond your single vote? For example you can gain power via economic means by using your brains to make a fortune. You can use the system for your own ends by going into politics yourself. You can become a power broker behind the scenes and influence politics that way. If none of these options are open to you, perhaps you aren't that smart or ambitious after all.

Unles you have a 'battle-proven' better way of doing things, yes, indeed, you have an obligation to laud the concept of man's dominion over man.

I ask you, what could be better than to live alone in a cave? :D

I ask you, what could be better than to live alone in a cave? :D

*whispers* to RULE from it....

Yep. Now consider this. If you think you are a cut above the crowd intellectually and you spend your time reading and engaging in learned discourse instead of watching pop idols and reading fashion magazines, can't you see that there are ways in which you can have influence beyond your single vote? For example you can gain power via economic means by using your brains to make a fortune. You can use the system for your own ends by going into politics yourself. You can become a power broker behind the scenes and influence politics that way. If none of these options are open to you, perhaps you aren't that smart or ambitious after all.

To go into politics would mean being dependent on these peoples popular support, and it becomes as much about image personality and manipulation than intelligence and ideas. Which even if one were to have the best ideas may not neccessarily be the most popular ideas anyway.

As for the ability to get behind the scenes and be influencial on merit and skill, democracy should get no credit for that.

Direct democracy, I support, but conventional democracy is really a fraud. It's a way for people to pretend to be free without actually being free.

I don't support the "right" for any number of people to oppress any other number of people.

That said, Democracy is a sham in my eyes.

Direct democracy, I support, but conventional democracy is really a fraud. It's a way for people to pretend to be free without actually being free.

Can the common man run a countrys economy or home office? No, thats why we need to get the most intelligenct people to do so for us. Representative democracy is simply a good way to influence roughly how we want these more skilled persons to run their department and so that if they turn out to be incometatant/corrupt they become accountable to us (in theory)

Its boarderline okay (for me) that many people are free to vote on issues they don't really understand to well. Are you suggesting people should be free to directly run these departments via the vote :rolleyes:

A "pure" democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on dinner menus. Or a bunch of people who watch "American Idol" making decisions for a few intellectuals.

A representative government with protections against "tyranny of the majority" is better, but it's still vulnerable to apathetic voters and rich special interests.

I think democracy is a bad thing, it makes people think they are free when they are not, you can't choose anything in a democracy, you can only choose people who will decide things for you.
Also: in a democracy there will allways be unhappy people since decisions are made by majority, so there will allways be an unhappy minority.

And last but not least, democracy got people like Hitler, Bush and Berlusconi in power.:headbang:

People have been using the term democracy for the last 2500 years or so.
They have also been using it as a way-of-Government for that long - albeit with intermissions.

If and when a better system has been proven to work, we can start to make comparisons.
Until then, Democracy is the only way, and the theoretical notions of better systems nothing but snake oil.

EDIT: actually, this post is about greater sagacity.I think perhaps intermission would be a better word. In Europe the idea of democracy fell from grace between the Roman civil war, and the increasing importance of the house of commons in England in the 15th century. I'm going to estimate that Athenian democracy started in about 600BC. So democracy has not been a common, nor a well regarded system of government for most of its life. And universal suffrage only coming into force at the turn of the 20th century. So yeah... I think I forgot what my point was.

Anyway, the term democracy is quite an odd one. Notice how it's not demarchy. Instead of meaning 'people rule', it means 'people power' or 'people force'. So in antiquity, it seems democracy was more about power politics rather than state governence. Pretty much how it is now.

I'll stop now. I was going to mention something about demagogues and the surrounding problems, but I'm sure we're all clever people here. You can figure out what I was going to say.

I hate democracy!!!!!

If it's a true democracy, it falls apart because stupid people make stupid decisions. And let's face it: the majority of persons in the world are stupid!

If it's representative, it falls apart because the stupid opinions of stupid people are still present, just presented to the government by one person rather than a couple thousand.

I favor a republic, if it is truly a republic. The people vote for intelligent, moral, educated (not schooled, there is a difference) persons to rule over the country. The people still have a voice: they determine who is in office, but they really don't decide what's going on. If something's happening they don't like, they can change the persons making the decisions. Of course the problem is that some charismatic idiot or psycho is elected and ruins everything, but it's the best system I've heard of yet.

I use the word republic because I haven't been exposed to too many different names for government systems. If anyone has any more accurate names, let me know.

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

damn you, i was going to use that quote after reading the OP.

Churchill is full of intersting quotes

always handy to have a churchill quote on hand

damn you, i was going to use that quote after reading the OP.

Churchill is full of intersting quotes

always handy to have a churchill quote on hand
of course churchill wasent always right. he said we need to make a united states of europe, when the truth is that we must not make a untited states of europe.

A "pure" democracy is 2 wolves and 1 sheep voting on dinner menus. Or a bunch of people who watch "American Idol" making decisions for a few intellectuals.

A representative government with protections against "tyranny of the majority" is better, but it's still vulnerable to apathetic voters and rich special interests.
and compulsory voting will not fix that prblem. It will just cause donkey votes.

of course churchill wasent always right. he said we need to make a united states of europe, when the truth is that we must not make a untited states of europe.You think that's the easiest thing to pick Churchill up on? I actually agree with that sentiment. If you're gonna pick Churchill up on something it might as well be the quote about the use of gas.

In reference to Arab IraqisI am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes.