Does democracy work?

Colonel Sanders

Btw please no 'if FF get back in it'll be proof that democracy doesn't work' type posts.

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't. I assume it would be necessary to make certain assumptions which one may agree or disagree with (eg voters are rational). I would guess that different people could possibly come up with conflicting ideas either proving or disproving the argument (similar to arguments for/against the efficcient market hypothesis).

Is thre actually an alternative that has worked in other countries/societies/times?

Avns1s

Of course democracy works.... so long as it's controlled!!!!;)

Aesop

For me the problem is that "all politics in ireland is local"

We elect representatives to represent us locally and elect them on local issues. National issues don't get the attention they should from the voters. I would like to see a seperate body/office that get's elected purely on national issues (no constituencies). This of course would be in addition to the Dail.

In america they have the office of president. Problem there is of course he has too much power and if you get the wrong guy there is potential for huge damage. Maybe a Seanad elected by the people and given more power to drive legislation?

RalphCifaretto

Party democracy is more about manipulation than representation.

Akrasia

direct democracy is the only true form of democracy. All this 'representative democracy' is just legalised gombeenism political clientelism and cronyism.

For examples of direct democracy in action, have a look at Switzerland and the participatory budgeting system they have in Porto Allegre in Brazil. They're no perfect but they're a good indication of what a true democracy would look like.

Considering the massive improvements in communications technology over the past few decades, it is becoming more and more feasable to allow fuller participation for every citizen in the decision making process.

cavedave

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't

Popper in "the open Society" came up with a structured argument as to why democracy does or does not work. It is an easy read and an interesting one. Basically his conclusions are
1. An open society will innovate and fix problems quicker then a closed authoritarian one.
2. An open society cannot allow people who want to destroy it to be elected. For example the Nazi's always wanted to remove democracy so they should not have been allowed be a democratic party.

A number of criticisms of these views exist.
Hayeks road to serfdom also critiques democracy http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

MontgomeryClift

I'll have to live in a democracy before I can find out whether it works.

egan007

Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
(from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

marco_polo

Best of a bad lot I suppose? I with Aesop that gombeen man local politics is the bane of Irish society.

**EDIT or what Egan007 said. **

DadaKopf

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't.

You can't 'prove' or 'disprove' democracy. It's not a scientific theorem.

There are many models and critiques of democracy. There were a number of powerful critiques of post-WWII democracy in the 1970s, which are interesting as both Left and Right reached a point of agreement.

If you're interested enough in this, you could consider reading David Held's 'Models of Democracy'. It's an excellent introduction of democratic theory from the Greeks to the present day.

Tigger

DadaKopf wrote:

You can't 'prove' or 'disprove' democracy. It's not a scientific theorem.

There are many models and critiques of democracy. There were a number of powerful critiques of post-WWII democracy in the 1970s, which are interesting as both Left and Right reached a point of agreement.

If you're interested enough in this, you could consider reading David Held's 'Models of Democracy'. It's an excellent introduction of democratic theory from the Greeks to the present day.

our democracy is simply a form of mob rule

the main problem with it would be the pandering to the many at the cost of the few
we here hear (and will hear more and more) of minorities getting "special treatment" of quotas and sqewed selection
its deemed nessiciary to make up for the issue that democracy is for the many
what we have going on at the moment the politicians would like us to believe is democracy in action but it is not its a popularity contest to choose two or three characters for us to support or disparage for the next few years
but it will matter little who is elected as they will all be proven liars in a couple of years and again will panderv to their voting blocks
voting machines for this specticale were decried because they would "take the fun out of the count"
what a load of toss
its not ment to be fun or celebitary (i never learned to spell get over it)
its ment to be work
with all the technology available now we should simply elect these celeb politicians to debate the issues then vote weekly on what way to go
a referendum on each topic
direct democracy for the future
so i throw that to the floor
why would it be any
worse?

politics
poly=many
tic=a small blood sucking parasite

Define "work" plz

Pride Fighter

Democracy works as long as their is stability in that particular nation. France and the US have very stable democracies that work because the president has the power. Look at Weimar Germany and the 3rd French Republic. They did not work as there was too many political parties for stability in those nations. Looking at Iraq now that country is going to tear itself apart as soon as the Yanks leave. What France and the US have is a type of democratic fascism which gives them stability. Our system is stable as there is only 7 political parties. In Iraq there is something like 100 which can never work. Democracy works, under the right circumstances.

democrates

Pride Fighter wrote:

Democracy works as long as their is stability in that particular nation. France and the US have very stable democracies that work because the president has the power. Look at Weimar Germany and the 3rd French Republic. They did not work as there was too many political parties for stability in those nations. Looking at Iraq now that country is going to tear itself apart as soon as the Yanks leave. What France and the US have is a type of democratic fascism which gives them stability. Our system is stable as there is only 7 political parties. In Iraq there is something like 100 which can never work. Democracy works, under the right circumstances.

But look at the prizes won by independants for their constituencies, how many more will we have in 2012? Is this is a structural problem in our democracy, local and national issues mixed into one vote?

liberty 2007

What we have in this country and many other western countries, is an illusion of democracy, but, there's one country in the heart of Europe which is way ahead of the rest of us,economicly,socially, environmentally and politically.
The swiss had a referandum to introduce a system of direct democracy while the famine was raging in this country. I never new of such a system until I stumbled accross it on this machine. (Thank god for the internet) The political ellite and their media allies would prefare to keep us in the dark (political ages)

democrates

liberty 2007 wrote:

What we have in this country and many other western countries, is an illusion of democracy, but, there's one country in the heart of Europe which is way ahead of the rest of us,economicly,socially, environmentally and politically.
The swiss had a referandum to introduce a system of direct democracy while the famine was raging in this country. I never new of such a system until I stumbled accross it on this machine. (Thank god for the internet) The political ellite and their media allies would prefare to keep us in the dark (political ages)

Yes, it's only by getting your news from a variety of sources that the gigantic blind spots in mainstream media coverage become apparent. The Internet is the red pill.

allianz

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

liberty 2007

allianz wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

So, what do you suggest???

allianz

I don't have a solution but i do feel that the current system if fundamentally flawed.
A wise man once said “if you know you’re going in the wrong direction then continuing on will only get you more lost”.

DadaKopf

Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

Say that to people living in developing countries run by dictators or corrupt regimes. People understand issues just fine.

Everyone's discussion in this thread takes place within our existing democratic frameworks which are, generally, constitutionally 'republican' (in that you have parliamentary representatives elected by a citizenry), but actually 'competitive elitist', that is, a system which functions to exchange the rule of different elites, legitimated through the electoral process.

Voting is, however, not democracy. It's simply a feature of it.

I would say, looking at anarchist models, that people are perfectly intelligent and educated enough to make informed decisions about their own lives - as much as any human being is capable of. The point is not that we should transmit power to an elite every 5 years to be abused, but to work together to take collective decisions that affect us in the belief that one man or woman does not and cannot have all the right answers.

Democracy demands this kind of acceptance of difference.

Ultimately, in my opinion, democracy is a way of transforming power-relations in a society from top-down to horizontal - everyone, in the end, should be equally powerful to make decisions that affect the whole.

Saruman

allianz wrote:

I don't have a solution but i do feel that the current system if fundamentally flawed.
A wise man once said “if you know you’re going in the wrong direction then continuing on will only get you more lost”.

Thats the point though... its flawed, everyone knows its flawed but no one has come up with anything better.
Communism and solcialism are great ideas in theory but in practice do not work. Democracy works the best.

At least we can be proud that we have something closer to democracy than the US or France.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Ultimately, in my opinion, democracy is a way of transforming power-relations in a society from top-down to horizontal - everyone, in the end, should be equally powerful to make decisions that affect the whole.

Nice theory. How does it work in practice?

allianz

At least we can be proud that we have something closer to democracy than the US or France.

Really...do you really feel we can be proud of our government. Cos it seems to me we have the same bunch of shysters in charge as so many other countries have. We did elect them in a slightly different way but the result is ultimately the same.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

Nice theory. How does it work in practice?

In practice, it's a struggle. It always will be. Only idiots base their agruments on the belief that it's a goal which can be attained for all time.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

In practice, it's a struggle. It always will be.

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

PeakOutput

i would say communism is the best in theory but democracy is the best in practice

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

If I may be so bold as to chip in here, some schools of thought in the Anarchist movement propose a hierarchy or representative councils from local to global level, it seems to be morphing into the Swiss model of direct democracy.

I don't think it's possible to create any perfect system based on flawed humans, we don't have to design heaven here, but in general I'd prefer the self interest of the many to guide society than the self interest of a few.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

I could turn your question around on you, Corinthian: how can one prevent dictatorship? Or, if that's too low a common denominator, how can a society move away from dictatorship to democracy?

Rule 1 of democratic theory: there is no universal theory. It's only meaningful when discussing actual situations.

You often seem keen to defend dictatorship against democracy with such rhetorical devices.

heyjude

allianz wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

Probably true and I've no doubt that the politicians know it too. They know that while a government will deal with hundreds of different issues over a five year term, a high proportion of voters can be swayed by a policy on one particular issue.

Another big issue here is that we actually have government by cabinet not by parliament. Backbenchers are glorified county councillors, got a pothole you need filling.... need help with a medical card.... on a hospital waiting list... Who you gonna call ? Your county councillor, no, your local TD. So when we are told that we are electing a government, we are actually voting for guys and gals to blindly support whatever the cabinet proposes. Only the cabinet members have power.

A final point, during the Thatcher years, there was a degree of snobbery here about how Thatcher with barely 40% of the vote, using the First Past the Post system, still ended up with a huge majority. The point being made that our voting system more accurately reflected the actual vote. But in reality, FF are as dominant here now as the Conservatives were then and with just 41% of the vote, they dominated the last two governments and essentially the Programme for Government of our new government is the Fianna Fail election manifesto, the Greens, PDs and independents seem to have contributed virtually nothing. Which creates an impression that in reality instead of a coalition, we have a FF minority government

We have a democracy in which just 68% of the electorate actually voted and just 41% of those that voted, then voted FF and yet that was enough for them to form the government. A perfect electoral system ?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I could turn your question around on you, Corinthian: how can one prevent dictatorship?

You could, but you'd just be sidestepping my question.

Or, if that's too low a common denominator, how can a society move away from dictatorship to democracy?

I think that was answered at the start of the thread. It also has no baring on what I asked.

Rule 1 of democratic theory: there is no universal theory. It's only meaningful when discussing actual situations.

Of course, just as there is no perfect political system. However, anarchic ones appear to be grounded in very little other than fuzzy and unrealistic theory, unlike other systems, which is why I asked for an example of a practical implementation.

You often seem keen to defend dictatorship against democracy with such rhetorical devices.

Do I? I'll admit I'll play Devil's advocate, but I don't think I've ever defended dictatorship against democracy, to be fair. I can see where it would make sense to have the classical model of dictatorship, as a limited political tool in times of crisis or chaos, but even then I'd have grave reservations as dictatorships are, ironically, the most unstable systems around.

Anyway, are you going to answer my question?

Zombrex

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Btw please no 'if FF get back in it'll be proof that democracy doesn't work' type posts.

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't. I assume it would be necessary to make certain assumptions which one may agree or disagree with (eg voters are rational). I would guess that different people could possibly come up with conflicting ideas either proving or disproving the argument (similar to arguments for/against the efficcient market hypothesis).

Is thre actually an alternative that has worked in other countries/societies/times?

First you have to define what you mean by "works", by what criteria do you define that democracy isn't working

Pazaz 21

Democracy may not work but it seems to be the best of a bad bunch. Whatever political system is put in place there will always be someone at the top of the political pyramid, wheather it be a council, cabinet or a single person and here in lies the problem. When people get power they tend to use it either to there own selfish benefit or they use it in the best way they know how.

Taking the latter part of that statement it is up to us, as the voting public, to choose a person who we believe will use their power in a way which we would find acceptable and would agree with. This is where the problem is, how can we vote for a person to make a certain decision in a given crisis, we can't. We have to make a judgement call and hope for the best. Also a big drawback of democracy is the lack of an alternative in elections. It seems to be that we are usually voting against someone as much as we are voting for the other person.

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc. I know that it seems that America is under the dictatorship of Bush, but he will be gone next year along with this cronyies, albiet to be replaced by new cronyies but hopefully better ones!!!

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

The Corinthian

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc.

Actually most systems have such 'checks and balances', it's just that those in democracy appear to be the only ones that work in practice.

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

I wouldn't hold your breath on the "how would they work" portion of your question.

Pazaz 21

The Corinthian wrote:

Actually most systems have such 'checks and balances', it's just that those in democracy appear to be the only ones that work in practice.

That seems to be the main argument for democracy, that it has worked in the past, and is working at present, unlike all the other types of political systems. It just seems that all the other systems self-destruct eventually. I think the only option is to refine and re-work the democratic model until we get it right (if thats possible is another topic for another thread).

democrates

Pazaz 21 wrote:

The last point i want to make is that democracy seems to be the only system with the 'checks and balances', to borrow a phrase, that are needed to stop our political systems turning into dictatorships, etc. I know that it seems that America is under the dictatorship of Bush, but he will be gone next year along with this cronyies, albiet to be replaced by new cronyies but hopefully better ones!!!

I agree the democrats in power would probably be better, or maybe more aptly "not as bad".

The transparency for those checks and balances to work does not pass muster regardless of who has been in power there over recent decades. For example the day before 9/11 Rumsfeld admitted that 2.3 trillion dollars of the military budget was unnacounted for. As I find the accounting ineptitude defence implausible, I think it's probable that something very wrong is being done in secret.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I would also like to echo the comments of 'the Corinthian' about what alternatives are out there and how would they work?

I think the Swiss have made great progress in direct democracy (swiss political system portal), but it arose as a solution to warring factions and perhaps still bears some scars (very revealing bbc anecdote).

Kudos where it's due, that last story hammers home some of TC's points in various threads about self-interest when power is too devolved, consequently and on deeper consideration I'm now giving more weight to the risk of nimbyism, selfishness, and the potential for radical groups of any persuasion to establish effective fiefdoms while the greater good takes a back seat.

Birds of a feather will flock together over time and while some diversity is welcome I doubt many would support a carte blanche allowing for example a local community to legalise paedophilia or worse. There was an attempt to establish a party supporting the legalisation of paedophilia in the Netherlands or somewhere, and in the US there are some very questionable cultish communities which seem to be untouchable. So let's not devolve too much power.

At the same time we Irish reject moves toward centralising tax policy in the EU. The distribution of power between small and large groups is a fine balance which in peacetime tends to change slowly as any change requires some group entity to relinquish some power and also because wider public support is usually effectively required. (Academic aside - I doubt one may conclude that it's easier to devolve or concentrate power as a rule, conflicting historical examples indicate that circumstances make all the difference, eg. Internet connectivity is a big change in circumstance, and Googles translation efforts may greatly amplify that.)

In Ireland I'd like to see greater transparency, put budgets and minutes of meetings online so we can better see how our communities and country are being run. Then based on reliable information we may consider evolving the distribution of power between local and national, and introducing measures of direct democracy, or not.

Considering on top of the bbc story that Switzerland is home to some firms with bad records; Nestle of the third world baby milk scandal, banks profiting from secret accounts of criminals/corrupt individuals including nazi (stolen Jewish) gold, and certain big pharma operations, I won't hold that or any potential individual national democracy up as a panacea.

The wider circumstance is that global FDI is a take it or leave it deal, and 99.n% of a nation will vote for a livelihood versus adhering to fine principles that put no bread on the table. That said limited opportunity is not zero opportunity, it doesn't amount to a case to avoid trying to improve anything.

However you slice or dice it, the 'tyranny of the majority' still tends to be more humane than what can arise in certain smaller groups. We're in no position to implement global direct democracy or world government and I'm cautious on excessive central planning, but we can work within existing mechanisms to build upon the highest common factors of ethics such as the universal declaration of human rights.

Apologies for the disjointed post, I'm not the best at picking a good serial flow through a mesh.

DadaKopf

Actually, asking 'Does democracy work?' should start with an evidence-based interrogation of sources of power right from the 'lowest' to the 'highest' levels of human life.

As a result of my reading over the hears, the inescapability of the abuse of power implies that (1) anything other than democracy is not acceptable; (2) that a realistic understanding of the sources of power can lead us to a strategy to contain it; (3) direct democracy emerges as the most desirable option in a world where it seems unjustifiable to support the idea that we should surrender all our power to equally, if not more flawed individuals.

In sum: democracy is a tragedy. And like all Greek theatre, we're damned if we do, and damned if we don't. Or, as Beckett wrote in Waiting for Godot, "I can't go on, I'll go on".

That's not to say I'm an existentialist, no, no, no. Perhaps a little drunk.

But perhaps people have another idea about power, but I've never found a more satisfactory tradition of power as Friere, Foucault, Adorno, Habermas, and Bordieu. Establishment figures of the right and libertarian right presen either incomplete, or entirely incorrect theories which only serve the abuse of power.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

That's not to say I'm an existentialist, no, no, no. Perhaps a little drunk.

Any chance you'd respond to my question when you sober up a little?

Pazaz 21

Democrates thanks for the links about direct democracy in swizerland, really interesting stuff. I just browsed through it but it seems like a good system which is working pretty well. The idea of being able to take government decisions, etc, to a public vote sounds like a great idea, a real "check and balance" against the government. I just wonder if it gets in the way of the government actually doing their job? Are they forever inundated by requests for public votes on everything and does this slow down things actually getting done? I didn't know much about direct democracy before but i agree that it looks like the way to go. I don't know how far we should take it here in Ireland but i do think the ability to bring government decisions to a public vote, as i mentioned above, would be a welcome additon to our democracy.

Picking up on your point of power becoming too devolved, one of the biggest problems i have with local town councils, etc, is that they never seem to get anything done, well especially where i live. All the councilors seem to have their own agenda, there are a group which form a majority on the council which do whatever they want and the other few who actually what to do something to help the town are left powerless to do anything. The biggest tragedy to emerge from this is that no decent local people go up for election to the council because they know that even if they get elected they won't be able to do anything.

I say bring in term limits, that should spice things up a bit!!!

democrates

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I just wonder if it gets in the way of the government actually doing their job? Are they forever inundated by requests for public votes on everything and does this slow down things actually getting done?

Though any citizen can intitiate change it takes a large number of signatures on a petition to trigger a vote, that prevents crackpots from interrupting the normal flow of government.

Pazaz 21 wrote:

Picking up on your point of power becoming too devolved, one of the biggest problems i have with local town councils, etc, is that they never seem to get anything done, well especially where i live. All the councilors seem to have their own agenda, there are a group which form a majority on the council which do whatever they want and the other few who actually what to do something to help the town are left powerless to do anything. The biggest tragedy to emerge from this is that no decent local people go up for election to the council because they know that even if they get elected they won't be able to do anything.

I say bring in term limits, that should spice things up a bit!!!

Another problem is the creation by central government of scapegoat untouchables such as county managers and the HSE, roles with great power but which sidestep democratic accountability.

No politician takes the blame for PPARS, it was the HSE whodunnit. The design goal was fine, to unify policy across hospitals and economise on IT costs but, the HSE expected to use this IT project as a Trojan horse to bypass the normal change management apparatus, off to a bad start, but the tragic side-effect of this raw power exercise was insufficient involvement of stakeholders so the design was based on a centrally-planned subset of policies that did not give due regard to the true diversity of critical hospital systems and organisations it was supposed to integrate with. The few pilot implementations were not representative, one size did not fit all.

Aside from bringing public sector power back under the umbrella of democratic accountability, transparency is the key, think league tables for politicians. Who did what and when, trends in key indicators such as crime statistics or hospital waiting lists, and the accounts including drill down to the identity of key beneficiaries of decisions. With that information online we can assess performance more accurately and if then, knowing these facts, people vote certain poor politicians in again, so be it, they have the government they deserve.

Jim_Are_Great

I'm curious as to what is meant by democracy (or any other system for that matter) 'working'.
In democracy's case, if it's a simple matter of representation, then democracy as we know it could be called effective. But if we approach our system regarding consistant and accurate ruling, then I feel it is inadequate at best.
I'm no expert. In fact, I'm two steps short of a jackass, but couldn't it be said that for democracy to work, the most fundamental requirement is a well-informed and enthusiastic electorate. I don't know a whole lot, but I know Irish voters, and I know that, en masse, they are by no means informed and enthusiastic.

JSK 252

Meh, Ill try write something a little better to please OscarBravo. Its just my opinion on the subject.

With regards democracy, it is the hope of the democratic people that self government will result in good government. But if a choice has to be made between imperfect self-government and good government imposed from the above, the democrat will prefer imperfect self-government. It is the hope of democrats, however, that need be no such choice in practice. Democrats believe that democracy is the only form of government that can work and is fair to the people.

If we look at the records of many countries such as Great Britian and the United States, the worlds two leading democracies, it has been shown that this is possible.

Im 16 by the way so dont try to be an asshole to me if Im WRONG.

Zombrex

JSK 252 wrote:

With regards democracy, it is the hope of the democratic people that self government will result in good government. But if a choice has to be made between imperfect self-government and good government imposed from the above, the democrat will prefer imperfect self-government. It is the hope of democrats, however, that need be no such choice in practice. Democrats believe that democracy is the only form of government that can work and is fair to the people.

Even more than that, it is the only way to judge "good government" in any fair way.

Using your example above of the imposed government, who decides that this imposed government is actually "good government" The only fair way is to ask the people "Do you think this is good government?" And if they say yes, we do, then the government doesn't need to be imposed in the first place.

democrates

16! Top marks for your level of interest and understanding on this kind of topic.

As for being right or wrong you've got the right approach, "so what!". An idea only deserves loyalty if it fits the evidence better than other ideas. Otherwise drop it like a hot potato and be happy on having a more robust idea set.

A lot of debate also revolves around how universal or specific a given assertion is, to what extent it is true, does the extreme example work or does it depend on certain circumstances.

EG "Lowering taxes boosts the economy". I remember paying 60p in the pound income tax, that was clearly too high and the statement was "true" in my opinion given that starting point. But zero tax would mean no government or state services, in that case "Raising taxes helps society" would be the "truth" in my opinion. The statements truth depends on where you are and where you want to get to, but neither assertion above is easily defended as a universal law.

In general no system can deliver utopia since we can't make a perfect society out of flawed beings. In days of yore the people beset by warlords and cheats clamoured for justice through law, a wise ruler delivering this was hugely popular, but to avoid assassination had to balance popular measures with satisfying the greed for power and wealth of the ever plotting nobility. "The Prince" by Niccolo Machiavelli is a highly recommended read on this topic.

Expectations of the masses back then were limited to minimised suffering, nowadays most people expect a system to protect the greater good while allowing individual freedom, but the balance there and how to achieve it remain contentious issues.

We still and will always have those who want more power and wealth for themselves regardless of anyone else's interests, some even revel in advancing at the expense of others, a predatory Darwinian outlook. At the same time, rare is the person who wouldn't like to win the lotto.

Most people would agree "F the begrudgers, whatever floats your boat so long as it doesn't sink mine". It's ok that a rich mans child has a head start, so long as the possibility exists for a poor mans child to get rich.

If economic growth is bound to finite resources, power and wealth are not in infinite supply. So concentration with the few is at the expense of the many. With a burgeoning population and dwindling resources the question is becoming more pressing. To escape this issue extra-planetary resources are held up as a solution.

This still leaves the question, how much must the many give up to create the possibility for a few to get ahead? What shape of a wealth distribution curve are we happy with?

It is against this backdrop that the debates on what system of government is best and how much government we should have takes place. My preferences for a political machine are based on what design I believe can best deliver an economic and social system I can support.

My view is that we have unsustainable consumption and pollution today, the population is exploding and we have to make serious cutbacks. If some are busy consuming and polluting ever more, then others will have to tighten their belts even more, both now and in the future. I've little tolerance for that state of affairs.

At the moment our political systems are in the net allowing accelerating consumption and pollution, and simultaneously an intensifying gap between rich and poor both nationally and internationally. The correlation is no surprise, but wealth distribution aside we still have to come up with better alternatives, direct democracy and social enterprises are not enough.

In continuously developing my views I'm looking forward to reading "Making Globalisation Work" by Joseph Stiglitz when I get time. Anyone got a heads-up on that?

Jackie laughlin

"Democracy" is not one thing but a range of possibilities. The ideal is direct democracy in a society of equals. That equality would have to extend to power, education, leisure time to participate etc. etc.

The representative democracy with which we are familiar has two roots. Firstly, it recognises that in a large society all cannot participate. Secondly, it recognises that informed judgement may require an educated professional politician with the time to devote to studying complex arguments.

Give me a break, of course I realise that representative democracy doesn't always operate like this in practice.

However, it's important to defend and improve our democracy. Spreading cynicism benefits only the authoritarian forces who fear democracy.

JSK 252

Wicknight wrote:

Even more than that, it is the only way to judge "good government" in any fair way.

Using your example above of the imposed government, who decides that this imposed government is actually "good government" The only fair way is to ask the people "Do you think this is good government?" And if they say yes, we do, then the government doesn't need to be imposed in the first place.

Yah but you have to give people the choice. If you dont give people the choice how are they to judge which is better?

I understand where your coming from though.

banaman

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't. I assume it would be necessary to make certain assumptions which one may agree or disagree with (eg voters are rational). I would guess that different people could possibly come up with conflicting ideas either proving or disproving the argument (similar to arguments for/against the efficcient market hypothesis).

Is thre actually an alternative that has worked in other countries/societies/times?

What do you mean by works?

Does it produce "better government"?
Better than what?
Are people happier, healthier, better fed, housed etc under a democracy?
Possibly but given that the alternatives have not succeeded where they've been tried it would be hard to say.
Although in the case of communism it was never given a chance to prove itself because the capitalist world controlled most of the resources and forced the communist states into an arms race they were never going to win.

However given the embargo and propaganda war waged against it by the US, Cuba has done not too bad a job of providing for its citizens, especially in the education and health fields.
Compared to the US its literacy and mortality figures are impressive. They're probably better than ours too.

It really does depend on what you mean by the term "work"

banaman

JSK 252 wrote:

If we look at the records of many countries such as Great Britian and the United States, the worlds two leading democracies, it has been shown that this is possible.

Britain is a democracy in principle but is in fact ruled by an entrenched elite who control upwards of 90% of the wealth and resources.
For example the majority of the British people voted to ban fox-hunting (its still legal).
Armed police shot an unarmed man they had in a head lock and are still on the streets. More brits are anti-nuclear, anti-Iraq war and anti-trident, than voted for that A..H...e Blair but their views don't count.

The elite decide the agenda then make sure it is carried out.

The US is the same only more so. It is the most unequal society in the developed world and actively disenfranchises its own citizens, many of the poorest of whom have jobs that don't provide sufficient medical care or wages and yet the top 5% "Bush's Haves and Have Mores" have become increasingly wealthy.

To see what I mean watch "Wal-Mart the High Cost of Low Price" and any of the films of Michael Moore.
"Supersize Me" is also worth a look as is "The Corporation"

Both the UK and US have media that are controlled by members of the elite and so provide a very narrow and biased amount of information on any topic.
For democracy to work we, the people, have to have access to reliable info in order to make informed decisions.

WE ARE NOT GETTING THE INFO.

QED we are incapable of making informed decisions. Therefore we need "wise" leaders and "experts" in the media to "interpret" the events around us.

WE have a sham democracy because as Emma Goodman famously observed "if voting changed anything they'd make it illegal"

banaman

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything."
Joseph Stalin

Jackie laughlin

Banaman,
I agree that we live in an unequal society. However, unlike you I don't reject imperfect democracy. It is a freedom in which struggle can take place.

You do realise that there is a flaw in your argument? If so many people hold views which oppose those of the ruling classes, it cannot be that they are deprived of information.

There is no shortage of information. The problem is that too few people have the time, education or inclination to seek it out and reflect on it. This is compounded by a failure - even when informed - to link political views to voting choice. (To be fair to the average person, journalists almost never frame their material as political.)

The Aer Lingus row is a case in point. I would guess that the vast majority of those who oppose the wholly commercial Aer Lingus decision also hold the view that the state has no business controlling an airline!

banaman

Jackie laughlin,

I don't reject imperfect democracy. I am a firm believer in democracy, my point was that in practice neither the US or UK are truly democratic since only the views and political decisions that suit the elite will be put to the populace. And then couched in such terms as to make the elite's preference the only "sensible" choice.

The point you make about the views of the many which are contrary to those of the elite merely illustrates my point, I feel.

However I absolutely prefer to live in a democracy BUT I believe that what we have is imperefect and even such freedoms as we have, are under increasing threat from the elites and their economic/ political hegemony, and therefore we must become more militant in their defence.

Jackie laughlin

I'm bothered by "militant"!