nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Is the west tired of Democracy?

paddythere

I don't think i'm the only person who feels like many people in the west are happily cheering on the erosion of their democracy out of some tribal loyalty to some leader or party. What is driving this? I suspect there's many many reason's for this shift in western politics. I think the internet/social media has a lot to do with (conformation bias etc.) I also think there is a degree of the modern working class and middle class not having as good a grasp on history as their predecessor's and therefore are not as aware of how much their ancestor's fought to secure their right to vote and other rights.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? What other factor's are at play here? Am I completely talking complete Bollocks?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

I see sheep

In my opinion capitalism has failed and will always fail, and western democracy is attached to capitalism.

completedit

Rising inequality since the 1980s and the era the system stopped working for a lot of wester. Countries.

We don't have this in Ireland because we benefited directly from the changes of global markets. In big countries, or relatively big ones like the UK, huge swathes of the population have been left on the sidelines with no hope and no major distribution to compensate them.

completedit

I see sheep wrote: »

In my opinion capitalism has failed and will always fail, and western democracy is attachd to capitalism.

Millions maybe billions lifted out of poverty. Most peaceful era in our history and quality of life that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago
I don't think we are truly able to grasp how bleak existence was for the majority of our ancestors.

KungPao

I see sheep wrote: »

In my opinion capitalism has failed and will always fail, and western democracy is attached to capitalism.

It’s the only system that works, comrade.

Pompous

completedit wrote: »

Millions maybe billions lifted out of poverty. Most peaceful era in our history and quality of life that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago
I don't think we are truly able to grasp how bleak existence was for the majority of our ancestors.

This is akin to saying, basically, "it could be worse".

Yes, it could be, but should that be a reason not to strive something better?

paddythere

I see sheep wrote: »

In my opinion capitalism has failed and will always fail, and western democracy is attached to capitalism.

I agree. To me it feels like capitalism is now swallowing democracy.

I see sheep

completedit wrote: »

Millions maybe billions lifted out of poverty. Most peaceful era in our history and quality of life that would have been unthinkable 100 years ago
I don't think we are truly able to grasp how bleak existence was for the majority of our ancestors.

In areas of the UK 35% of children live in poverty today. I don't think you grasp this.

I see sheep

KungPao wrote: »

It’s the only system that works, comrade.

It doesn't work.

completedit

Pompous wrote: »

This is akin to saying, basically, "it could be worse".

Yes, it could be, but should that be a reason not to strive something better?

Sometimes it could be worse is a fair assessment. We literally one have one other alternative and that didn't go too well. In Europe, we generally get the system right or at least close to. Ireland, for instance, is ruined by too much classism.

Padre_Pio

I see sheep wrote: »

In areas of the UK 35% of children live in poverty today. I don't think you grasp this.

Poverty is a moving scale.
There will always be poverty, no matter how good quality of life gets.

The UK is a special case and the Tory's have done nothing for the country outside of London.

completedit

I see sheep wrote: »

In areas of the UK 35% of children live in poverty today. I don't think you grasp this.

How do we define poverty? Realistically their quality of life is far better than a kid in the same area in 1840.

The system we have isn't great though and UK is more like the USA which is worse.

paddythere

completedit wrote: »

Rising inequality since the 1980s and the era the system stopped working for a lot of wester. Countries.

We don't have this in Ireland because we benefited directly from the changes of global markets. In big countries, or relatively big ones like the UK, huge swathes of the population have been left on the sidelines with no hope and no major distribution to compensate them.

Yeah I agree. The inequality and corruption at the highest level have created a general feeling of apathy about politics.

I see sheep

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Poverty is a moving scale.
There will always be poverty, no matter how good quality of life gets.

The UK is a special case and the Tory's have done nothing for the country outside of London.

In 2018 (latest study I can find online, I assume it's worse now) 11.9 million children in the US lived in poverty. So no sorry you're wrong it's not a unique case, it's fully understood and accepted as part of the system by the people running the UK, US and Ireland (which is better I admit)

I 100% disagree that there needs to be poverty, what are you basing this on?

paddythere

Padre_Pio wrote: »

Poverty is a moving scale.
There will always be poverty, no matter how good quality of life gets.

The UK is a special case and the Tory's have done nothing for the country outside of London.

I think the problem is the fact that poverty is growing despite all of the wealth in the world.

Padre_Pio

I see sheep wrote: »

In 2018 (latest study I can find online, I assume it's worse now) 11.9 million children in the US lived in poverty. So no sorry you're wrong it's not a unique case, it's fully understood and accepted as part of the system by the people running the UK, US and Ireland (which is better I admit)

I 100% disagree that there needs to be poverty, what are you basing this on?

The UK define household poverty as having an income less that 60% of the average income.

So if you doubled the wages for the entire country, you'd have the same poverty level.

Pompous

paddythere wrote: »

I don't think i'm the only person who feels like many people in the west are happily cheering on the erosion of their democracy out of some tribal loyalty to some leader or party. What is driving this? I suspect there's many many reason's for this shift in western politics. I think the internet/social media has a lot to do with (conformation bias etc.) I also think there is a degree of the modern working class and middle class not having as good a grasp on history as their predecessor's and therefore are not as aware of how much their ancestor's fought to secure their right to vote and other rights.

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? What other factor's are at play here? Am I completely talking complete Bollocks?

I'd say you're talking a unique blend of bollox and substance xD

Yes, many Americans are happily cheering on the erosion of their democracy. What is driving this is the general political polarisation of that country, coupled with technology that allows for extremely targeted advertisement (personal propaganda) which is bought by the highest bidder.

I'm sure the Irish electorate are being digitally manipulated, like the rest of the world. To be honest I don't have my finger on the pulse of Irish politics but I still wouldn't equate it to "western politics". We are a uniquely greedy and short-sighted country, in my opinion. Perhaps the nepotism and corruption are so embedded in this country that social/digital manipulation are not required.

I do agree that there seems to be an alarmingly short memory in the American psyche regarding the price that was paid to protect democracy. Ironically, they are usually so quick to cite 1944 to justify the subsequent 70 years of global oppression for countries as unfortunate as Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would not say your post is "talking bollox", but I would question your use of the term "western politics" in place of a more accurate "American politics". I fail to see how your views of Western Politics apply to Ireland.

I see sheep

Padre_Pio wrote: »

The UK define household poverty as having an income less that 60% of the average income.

So if you doubled the wages for the entire country, you'd have the same poverty level.

Are you Boris Johnson? ðŸ˜‚

Look, I live in the UK, the level of child poverty is shocking, I know teachers who buy their students lunches regulary because they know it's the only meal they will get all day. It's ****ing disgraceful and if you disagree there is something very wrong with you and I pity you.

paddythere

Pompous wrote: »

I'd say you're talking a unique blend of bollox and substance xD

Yes, many Americans are happily cheering on the erosion of their democracy. What is driving this is the general political polarisation of that country, coupled with technology that allows for extremely targeted advertisement (personal propaganda) which is bought by the highest bidder.

I'm sure the Irish electorate are being digitally manipulated, like the rest of the world. To be honest I don't have my finger on the pulse of Irish politics but I still wouldn't equate it to "western politics". We are a uniquely greedy and short-sighted country, in my opinion. Perhaps the nepotism and corruption are so embedded in this country that social/digital manipulation are not required.

I do agree that there seems to be an alarmingly short memory in the American psyche regarding the price that was paid to protect democracy. Ironically, they are usually so quick to cite 1944 to justify the subsequent 70 years of global oppression for countries as unfortunate as Afghanistan and Iraq.

I would not say your post is "talking bollox", but I would question your use of the term "western politics" in place of a more accurate "American politics". I fail to see how your views of Western Politics apply to Ireland.

Not Ireland, but that could easily change. But I do think it applies to Britain at the moment.

Padre_Pio

I see sheep wrote: »

Are you Boris Johnson? ðŸ˜‚

Look, I live in the UK, the level of child poverty is shocking, I know teachers who buy their students lunches regulary because they know it's the only meal they will get all day. It's ****ing disgraceful and if you disagree there is something very wrong with you and I pity you.

I don't disagree it's shocking. Not in the slightest.
My point was that there is always poverty as it's not a fixed scale and I was asked to show that was true.

paddythere

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't disagree it's shocking. Not in the slightest.
My point was that there is always poverty as it's not a fixed scale and I was asked to show that was true.

Yeah your point is correct but that is more a criticism of how poverty is measured. rather than an argument that poverty must necessarily exist.

I see sheep

Padre_Pio wrote: »

I don't disagree it's shocking. Not in the slightest.
My point was that there is always poverty as it's not a fixed scale and I was asked to show that was true.

The fact that there's always been poverty doesn't mean there has to be poverty.

It's actually pretty simple.

If we concern ourselves with looking after people rather than basing our entire way of life on money money money everyone can be looked after with ease, there is an abundence of food and resources in the world.

Unfortunatley this isn't the current situation and the people running things have no intention of dying with a bit less silver in their coffin if it means feeding hungry kids.

Gretas Gonna Get Ya!

I think the problem, is that most western democracies are creating cookie cutter type politicians.

Nobody really wants to vote for these people, because we can see that they have no personality. No great leadership skills or any great inspired vision.

But we have created these useless leaders. At the core of the problem, is that we do not like to give anyone much power... we don't like to have people in power who think for themselves or trust their own instincts in the job. We have a deep mistrust of this style of leadership.

So, we end up with spineless people who just spend their entire careers trying to do what they're told or appease the masses. They are put in power to lead, but they are actually following not leading.

We really need to develop leadership institutes. Something akin to the old military academies, where people were taught about what that word actually means.

440Hertz

Unless your definition of the West is the United States, I’m not seeing much evidence of that. The US has fallen for a TV star and gone into cult of celebrity to the point it’s slipping into authoritarian rule. It’s demanding democracy does something about it though. As screwed up as it is, the engagement is likely to be huge.

It’s arguable that places like Hungary or Turkey that have major issues with sliding into authoritarian rule were ever in the West in the first place. They are very much one foot in and one foot out.

The rest of Europe seems to be functioning very democratically, you’re just seeing pushing against status quo parties in some, which is how democracy works.

Canada, Australia, NZ, Japan and others certainly aren’t sick of democracy either.

[Deleted User]

paddythere wrote: »

Does anybody have any thoughts on this? What other factor's are at play here? Am I completely talking complete Bollocks?

One issue is that modern democracy is, well, modern. It's a relatively new mode of governance, with all other forms being pushed away as being wrong, but there are few hard questions (with an expectation of changing anything) about democracy, and how it operates. Politicians and law makers can (and have) worked in the background to change how the democratic system operated from the time of it's creation by the founders, but there's been little involvement by the people in that. As such the power of the people has declined over the decades, and the power of the politician has increased.

I think that the first problem is the promotion of democracy as if it's something that has been applied equally, across all western nations in the same manner. There are large differences between US, UK, or Irish Democracy, the way they're implemented and maintained. Even to the importance of the Constitution and the protections contained within for it's citizens.

The second problem is that there hasn't been any major reform of democratic systems to account for changes in society and in the world itself. The advent of mass immigration, the "melting pot" of cultures, the rise of minority rights, and activism are all core components of modern western societies, which democracy can be manipulated for all manner of results.

The third being that the service term for elected governments are too short, which means that there is no long term focus to the campaigns. Everything is based around their term of office, which at 4-5 years, is very short comparatively speaking to the running of a country, and the implementation of long-term planning and implementation of policies. The secondary issue, but still connected, is the lack of accountability for the choices made. Once in office, governments can do pretty much as they please, as there's few laws that cover their decisions about how the country is run. The Banking Crash brought that home to me, and I suspect a lot of the apathy with voters is down to the lack of responsibility by politicians, who treat politics as a career, rather than a service for the benefit of the nation.

Lastly, democratic elections are popularity contests with candidates who typically, have little actual skill in governance. They're career politicians who know how to play the crowd, manipulate media, or engage in many soft skills, but there's little emphasis on the ability of politicians to be leaders. The lack of profiling for particular positions based on their education/skills, means that politicians are all reliant on external experts, and advisors, which begs the question as to why the politician is there at all. Our politicians, typically, have no education/experience in a particular portfolio, and yet, they're expected to make informed/reasonable decisions on all manner of complicated issues. Even after a century of democracy, that hasn't changed. Politicians are still more concerned with their popularity, and what decisions may negatively impact their public image, than getting on with their responsibility to the Nation. We've (as a society) allowed our politicians to place their own expectations above that of the general population.

In conclusion... there's no point comparing or using American as an example of democracy. It's an elective elitist political system, where their most powerful position, that of President, can only come from the upper class due to wealth considerations. There hasn't been a common born president since the creation of the American government. It's not a democracy, as much as they want to advertise it as such, considering there are only two possible choices, and there's little in common between the general population and their elected representatives. Even when it comes to minority leaders, most come from privileged backgrounds in comparison to those they're supposed to represent.

Oh, and I've lived in both Russia and China.. and while they're light years from a western democracy... there are a lot of similarities in how western governments, (and tech companies), are seeking to manipulate or control western populations. All for different reasons, and their methods are also different, but it amounts to the same thing. An erosion of power for the electorate, or the average joe, and the increase of power for the political elite, or the government organs.

Graces7

I see sheep wrote: »

In areas of the UK 35% of children live in poverty today. I don't think you grasp this.

To see something of this google food banks UK . We have nothing as hard as this

McHardcore

To the people who are happy to moan about Democracy:

Can you propose a better alternative?

Wibbs

Graces7 wrote: »

To see something of this google food banks UK . We have nothing as hard as this

Having been back and forth to the UK, mostly England since I was a kid visiting an uncle, the changes over that period have surprised me, specifically the level of obvious poverty over the last 20 years. Whole estates that look like they should be photographed in black and white for effect. Like you say we have a tiny fraction of that here.

Now the UK always had pretty bad levels of poverty and a large power/money gap, like pretty much anywhere in Europe, but they seem to have kept it going that way for longer, or it's more engrained somehow. We can look to London in the past and how they treated the Irish commoners, but they treated "their own" often just as badly, never mind the Welsh and Scottish.

As for America, they see their poor, those who woke up before the American Dream took hold, as embarrassments to be feared and thanks to that strain of protestant thought largely their own fault. Their political system is deeply flawed as far as who holds the reins of power, but so long as they idolise the very type of people who are more likely to be dicks I don't know how that will change.

timmyntc

More and more people are growing frustrated with their elected representatives, and in turn with the whole democratic process.
It doesn't matter who gets into office, end result is always the same - things just stagnate and nothing really changes.

Healthcare is just as much of a mess as ever, housing costs higher than ever, insurance higher than ever.. I could go on.

People are completely disillusioned with modern democracy as promises are never fulfilled, and many would take a chance on a 'benevolent' dictator to come in and 'fix' things

[Deleted User]

McHardcore wrote: »

To the people who are happy to moan about Democracy:

That's part of the problem. Any criticism is seen as "moaning". In that it's unreasonable to object to the current form.

Can you propose a better alternative?

Benevolent monarchy/oligarchy mixed with elements of democracy.

I quite like the idea that the Spartans had with a sharing of power, and an evaluation of the term of service when it comes to an end, often with nasty results for a leader to performs badly. I'd be interested in a combination of the Spartan system combined with a democratic voting system for replacement of individuals rather than it being based on family succession. A strong emphasis on accountability for the leadership, but with notable rewards for a job well done, and harsh punishment for negligent or corrupt leaders.

In any case, all political systems or systems of governance become corrupt over time, and bring in all manner of inefficiencies or inequalities, due to politicians seeking to expand or protect their positions of influence.

There isn't going to be a perfect system. That's where Democracy has gone wrong. It should have been a system that was regularly evaluated and changed, to reflect the needs of the nation, and to ensure that the people were properly represented. Instead, in most cases, the core structure has been maintained, with minor changes made over the years, to increase political groups powerbases.

biko

The amount of people conflating capitalism and democracy is astounding.