Has democracy failed?

af_thefragile

The biggest flaw I see in the modern democratic political system is that all politicians only ever concerned about is holding their position in the system.

The whole systems seems like a race for the top. Every politician just wants to get towards the top and will do anything that takes in his power to get there.
The efficient progress and development of the country is hindered and corruption becomes inevitable where every person wants to squeeze the most out of the system.

And then the leader who has struggled so hard to make it to the top from where he leads the country, he gets the chance of 4 years to do what he's spent his whole life striving for. Four years is usually too little time to make any significant change in the country. The leader usually spends this time making sure he's gathered enough privileges for himself and then to make sure he can do enough a job to get a second term to again make personal use of his newly earned power.


The whole problem with the system i see is that it's become a big power struggle and then a power trip for the one guy who eventually makes it to the top of leading the country.
While the objective of efficient development and progress of the country is secondary.


Now I'm gonna say the other system of dictatorship is equally flawed where one person can rule the whole nation according to whatever way he finds right. He ends up imposing his ideals upon the whole nation until everyone in the country gets sick of him and eventually throws him out.



What i think is we need a system which is not a power struggle and neither is it run by a dictator on a power trip.
A system where a leader is elected by the learned and moral people of the nation (not criminals and people who have any past convictions) and the leader can only work within a set framework of rules and can't make any radical changes to the nation or any changes in the law without the consult and approval of a parliamentary body.

SLUSK

Democracy will always destroy itself because it ends up in mob rule where the majority exploits and steals from the minority. Democracy is ugly and very anti freedom. No dicatorship, no democracy, just freedom!

simplistic

Any system based on violence will fail. Taxation = violence.

For some new ideas have a listen to this insightful podcast http://www.freedomainradio.com/

Ostrom

Party conventions precede policy discussions, always have. What separates our current state from before is the sheer publicity of party alignment.

And its not as if a passive, wilfully uninformed electorate is proving anyway challenging. 'Modern democratic political system' is what I would take issue with, not democracy in general.

synd

The whole problem with the system i see is that it's become a big power struggle and then a power trip for the one guy who eventually makes it to the top of leading the country.

This isn't how it works my friend - the main political parties are merely extensions of the business community, who to a large extent fund them. This completely undermines democracy in the sence that the main political organizations invariably act in the interests of their sponsors as opposed to the interests of the electorate. For instance the gov will support reductions in the social wage - while bailing out the banks ect. The main political parties are ''in reality'' nothing more than the agents of capitalist rule. No matter what party you vote for in a capitalist system - capitalists retain control over society.

Now I'm gonna say the other system of dictatorship is equally flawed where one person can rule the whole nation according to whatever way he finds right. He ends up imposing his ideals upon the whole nation until everyone in the country gets sick of him and eventually throws him out.

Ireland like any other capitalist nation is a plutocracy/oligarchy. Decisions about how society should be organized are not made by the general public (you and me), rather, once every four years a body are elected to facilitate/aid the general process of upper class management.

For instance you spend half your life in work, and who makes all the decisions ? not the workers themselves, the boss commands and the workers obey, if they don't like it their fired.

In a democracy everyone would have an equal say in how the workplace is organized.

What i think is we need a system which is not a power struggle and neither is it run by a dictator on a power trip.

Regardless of whether you vote for labor or finna fail - your everyday life is still going to be controlled by the representatives of the capitalist class.

A system where a leader is elected by the learned and moral people of the nation (not criminals and people who have any past convictions) and the leader can only work within a set framework of rules and can't make any radical changes to the nation or any changes in the law without the consult and approval of a parliamentary body.

The notion that some educated elite should rule society is disgusting. In any situation that ensures some people must be subordinated to the initiative of others - the subordinates (not required to think) eventually loose faith in their own ability to act thus become stupefied and helpless - this condition is then ''used by those in authority'' as further justification to exercise undue rule.

Instead of relying on some despot to manage the affairs of society - people need to take matters into their own hands. Everyone should be allowed an equal say in the construction and implimentation of the aspects that define their own lives. The democratization of workplace, and the de-construction of the representative parliament is required. As socialists we wish to see direct democracy ''not implemented via judicial order - but taken by the working class in revolution'' However for this to come to fruition, private capital must be taken under public ownership and the liberal courts smashed insofar as they exist to protect the rule of the capitalist class via forceful preservation of concentrated wealth. Liberalism - must be understood as the central idealogical component of capitalist rule and be exposed as such. It must, as an ideology and actual practice of oppression be undermined at every instance.

Soldie

Don't you get tired of trotting out that nonsense at every half-oppurtunity you get, synd?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

The notion that some educated elite should rule society is disgusting.

What role should the educated have?

synd

My support for the proletarian revolution against tzarist feudalism aside - where have I ever expressed approval of the established soviet union ? I have merely provided the economic track record in response to claims that liberalized economies are necessarily more productive and entail higher living standards. I recognize fully that a socialist movement is entirely susceptible to corruption. However the form of socialism I advocate necessarily entails the immediate implimentation of direct democracy - among the first measures taken by the Bolshevik regime where the subjugation of the soviets to the central command of the Kremlin, the dissolution of the workers councils ect.

Essentially, your favored mode of capitalist organization is very similar to the Bolshevik structure - although presumably on a smaller scale. You propose a board of directors in place of a politburo - a manager in place of a political officer and a ''private police force'' in place of the KGB. State Capitalism - the natural extension of your primitivist market fantasy, is synonymous with imperialism given the requirement for ever expanding accumulation of surplus. As I have already explained - imperialism is merely an expression of the market compulsion to expand via the state apparatus.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbjr_cPS9_A

synd

efla wrote: »

What role should the educated have?

I suppose educating people wouldn't be a bad idea

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

I suppose educating people wouldn't be a bad idea

Because they are not best placed for policy direction?

synd wrote: »

State Capitalism - the natural extension of your primitivist market fantasy, is synonymous with imperialism given the requirement for ever expanding accumulation of surplus. As I have already explained - imperialism is merely an expression of the market compulsion to expand via the state apparatus.

synd wrote: »

However the form of socialism I advocate necessarily entails the immediate implimentation of direct democracy - among the first measures taken by the Bolshevik regime where the subjugation of the soviets to the central command of the Kremlin, the dissolution of the workers councils ect

What, if not absolute surplus accounts for the forced intensification and territorial expansion of the Soviet state, and what of your alternative will check this?

synd

Because they are not best placed for policy direction?

You will have to more specific. I think people should be entitled to a say in collective decision making to the degree that it effects them - I do not for example consider it appropriate for an unqualified person to make decisions with regards how a medical operations ought to be performed. I am unaware of what you mean exactly by policy direction ? Regional public works could conceivably be decided via vote after consultation with a given body at a periodic community meeting ie. proposals for a public park put forward decided upon and then presented before landscapers ect.

What, if not absolute surplus accounts for the forced intensification and territorial expansion of the Soviet state, and what of your alternative will check this?

Can you re-word this ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Ostrom

synd wrote: »

You will have to more specific. I think people should be entitled to a say in collective decision making to the degree that it effects them - I do not for example consider it appropriate for an unqualified person to make decisions with regards how a medical operations ought to be performed. I am unaware of what you mean exactly by policy direction ?

Agreed, but practicality aside, would this involve greater weight of authority to experts? Assuming a perfect impartial and external means to establish such authority?

synd wrote: »

Can you re-word this ?

Sure*,

You made the point above on imperialism as an expression of market compulsion via. the state. (My own frame of reference for state capitalist alternatives is limited largely to russia - I cant argue in any depth upon others, but can comment). Considering imperialist expansion as emerging from a surplus imperative, how would a proposed alternative ensure the same historically observed expansion and intensification does not occur under socialism/communism?

Since communism historically has extracted surplus (which I located at the level of absolute), what, aside from intensive regulation would ensure the limiting of surplus extraction? And whom, if not the educated expert is best placed to safeguard against such tendencies through intensive analysis and co-ordination of information?


* Sorry if I'm dragging it off topic. OP, were you hinting at something like the Seanad system? I dont think its a very fair alternative.

synd

Agreed, but practicality aside, would this involve greater weight of authority to experts? Assuming a perfect impartial and external means to establish such authority?

I suppose it would to a degree - but im not sure what you mean by ''impartial means'' - you seem very abstract. Theoretically stipulations about what exactly constitutes legitimate authority should (in a democratic society) be decided democraticlly. Im just going out on a limb in assuming people wont decide its appropriate for 12 year olds to carry out brain surgery.

Considering imperialist expansion as emerging from a surplus imperative, how would a proposed alternative ensure the same historically observed expansion and intensification does not occur under socialism/communism?

First - the answer to this question is really dependent on what region/regions of the world have been incorporated into the alternative sphere. Its entirely possible, and probably likely in my opinion that so long as large population centers are external to this mode - idealogically driven conflict will ensue. However I would consider this as a continuation of revolutionary warfare. If you choose to perceive the expansion of the revolution a form of imperialism then thats understandable - its a reactionary conceptualization from my point of view.

If however you refer to settled socialism/communism, it would be structured in such a way so as to ensure rotational delegation replaces representation in matters of public administration - this would conceivably prevent corruption and act to prevent abuses of power.

Since communism historically has extracted surplus (which I located at the level of absolute), what, aside from intensive regulation would ensure the limiting of surplus extraction?

The amount of surplus appropriated for social expenditure would be decided democratically, presumably variations could exist by region - or alternatively a set rate could be enacted at a higher level via vote.

And whom, if not the educated expert is best placed to safeguard against such tendencies through intensive analysis and co-ordination of information?

Educated people are no less susceptible to corruption - as I have explained rotational delegation and anonymous voting mechanisms could ensure corruption be kept to a minimum. If you want to conceive these mechanisms as forms of control - thats fine, its inconsequential to the fact that they would most likely reduce the consolidation of power.

drunken_munky52

af_thefragile wrote: »

What i think is we need a system which is not a power struggle and neither is it run by a dictator on a power trip.
A system where a leader is elected by the learned and moral people of the nation (not criminals and people who have any past convictions) and the leader can only work within a set framework of rules and can't make any radical changes to the nation or any changes in the law without the consult and approval of a parliamentary body.

How about a world without politics at all... there is true democracy.

It is sick to suggest that we currently live in a democracy now to begin with... we live it what I l call a "corporatocracy". We cast a vote every few years to give power to a waffler so he can go into a big talking shop with other wafflers. What is the benefit of this hamsterwheel excercise... an endless carousel of lies and corruption.

The majority are eluded into thinking the world consists of 192 nations, when in fact this is a mask for countless corporations which really control the geo-political divide... and as you know, the primary mission of a corporation is the persuit of profit... they do not care about anything else.

The world is business... nothing more than that in its current flawed setup. Higher arcial structures of control need to be dismantled from the inside out if the doomed route is to be diverted on to a path sustainable growth.

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

How about a world without politics at all... there is true democracy.

Democracy is a form of politics....so a world without politics cannot be "true democracy".

Kama

Democracy was failed, is failing, and will continue to fail.
The appropriate response here, I think, is the Beckettian:

'No Matter. Try again. Fail Again. Fail Better'



Failing is not a bad thing. Tbqfh, it's how you learn.
You do something, examine what goes wrong, and work out something better.
You can take the best exemplar or model, and still 'fail'.


Success comes to the persistent.

nyarlothothep

Are we failing worse? The rise of the virtual parliament of shareholders in the past 30 years with abandonment of keynesian economics would suggest this.

drunken_munky52

bonkey wrote: »

Democracy is a form of politics....so a world without politics cannot be "true democracy".

Replace "democracy" with "freedom" in this sense.

The majority believe we are free... a number of factors that elude to this include:
1. We live in the "Western" world
2. We are mostly caucasian by race
3. We have running water and electricity
4. We have various institutions that shape our thoughts and prespectives, which are unbeknownst to most.

ei.sdraob

go to cuba or north korea and ask the same question of the locals

turgon

I think there are levels of quality of democracy, and I wouldn't rank Ireland very high.

Essentially we have a system where the person who commands a majority in the Dail commands the whole governmental apparatus. When you combine this with the inordinate amount of party loyalty in the Dail, the PM can effectively do whatever he wants.

What I would propose is a federal republic. Yes, as DF mentioned, it would lead to more money being spent on decision making. However I think this financial disadvantage would be outweighed by the advantages. Principally that decisions are taken on the lowest level possible. It makes it easier to have your say in how your governed and it makes your Reps more accountable to you as they are a lot nearer to home.

Additionally, from a Liberal perspective, it allows one state or country to do what it wants even if the other how many disagree. For example I would propose devolving social welfare and a sizable chunk of income tax competencies to the regional legislatures. Any increases in social welfare (which seem to have been introduced almost exclusively in Ireland as a vote purchasing exercise) would effect you a lot greater. Most importantly you would be in a better position to lobby given that you occupy a bigger percent of the population at county level than state level.

Seanad reform is necessary as well, and I would do this within the context of federal reform. So perhaps the Senate would become a countries chamber, where counties are represented and where smaller counties have a bigger say per head than larger ones. To remove competencies from county level to state level might require a two thirds majority in this house which would give a degree of state sovereignty.

The problem here of course is that the PM has to voluntarily give away power.

bonkey

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Replace "democracy" with "freedom" in this sense.

Interesting idea.

Acquaintances of mine went to live in Venezuela some years back. Lets call them the Smiths. Their line of thinking was that they coud effectively live like kings down there...and in a country where many rules weren't enforced, they could do what they want.

To their dismay, the Smiths discovered that the flaw in their thinking is that the same lack of enforcement meant that others could also do what they wanted...resulting in the Smiths being repeatedly robbed, ripped off, Mrs. Smith threatened with (and narrowly escaping) rape, and any number of other harrowing experiences.

The sad truth is that in the absence of a utopian ideal, there will always be people who want to use their freedom to climb on the backs of others. The more freedom they have, the more they will oppress. They will, collectively, turn a free society into one which is subservient to them....which they effectively fight over.

This is our past. We've come through those feudal times, and we've discovered that political frameworks give us an imperfect, (mostly) non-violent alternative to the more-imperfect, more-violent feudal option. In many respects, modern politics was born from the common people freeing themselves from the tyranny of oppression of ruling classes who had become entrenched in power-structures, which in turn were created from feudalism.

We can improve those political systems, sure. We can possibly even radically alter them. However, the notion that we can live without a political framework and the imposition and enforcement of a set of constraints (lets call them laws) involves - as I said earlier - a change in human nature which in itself would obviate the very need for abandoning politics in the first place.

Freedom is a notional idea that means different things to different people. To some, freedom would mean the ability to live and work in peace. To others, it might mean to never have to answer to anyone for anything, allowing one to take without contributing, or to commit any amount of oppression or atrocity without reprisal. "True freedom" doesn't exist, because ultimately my freedom and your freedom will collide...and you need a framework which will ensure a fair outcome to that. In the absence of politics...where's that framework going to come from?

drunken_munky52

I do not want to proceed with bringing the other thread topics into this discussion, becuase this one specifically relates to the question of if democracy has failed or not.

All I will say is, that democracy has failed becuase it is not sustainable. All empires crumble. In light of this tried and tested statement, it is apparent that it is happening again and will keep happening into the future as long as we continue to have blind un-questioned faith in it.

A rejection of democracy is not the solution... a transition is.

Pocono Joe

Democracy fails when it goes against a basic principle set forth by Irving Kristol:"Democracy does not guarantee equality of conditions - it only guarantees equality of opportunity."

Boskowski

synd wrote: »

In a democracy everyone would have an equal say in how the workplace is organized.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, but for that piece. If everyone had a say in workplace organization/politics/strategies there'd be no successful businesses.

asdasd

A rejection of democracy is not the solution... a transition is.

Dont know what exactly you are suggesting so I think we can rule your philosophy out.

I am not sure what world synd is living in, the one I live in allows me to work for small comapnies, or for myself as a contractor, where I can tell any "capitalist" to feck off if i choose to.

Its always 1842 with these guys.

not that I am denying that there is a ruling class, but that class is born to a small elite and may not even be capitalist - it produces the artists, top level bureaucrats, journalists, top level bankers etc, head surgeons. This is more obvious in England than in Ireland - and it has always been accepted in England that the Establishment was largely a State/Feudalist based, or backed Establishment - from the Queen, to the ArchBishop, to the Clergy, M15, and top level bureacrats. King, Clergy, Navy.

All State employees.


What it doesnt produce is the entrepeneurial class, that class comes - more than likely - from the working classes. For instance my housemate a restaurant worker who is setting up a restaurant with her sister, my uncle who was a taxi-driver but now employs people as a taxi company owner.

Most people work for small businesses like that, or work by owning them. Handing over the "means of production" to the State takes wealth from the aspirational working classes ( which is how I define my taxi company owning uncle, and how he defines himself - a definition we hold because of accent and background) and handing to the State" that's a clear transfer of power from the working classes to the Establishment.


But then I have never met a Marxist who wasnt posh.

silverharp

Pocono Joe wrote: »

.......... - it only guarantees equality of opportunity.

It would seem that a modern democracy cannot achieve this if it ever could. One only has to look at Ireland or the US to see that special interests have a backdoor to the levers of power or simple leverage so that some groups are always more equal than others.

asdasd

Equality of oportunity is probably impossible, as well.