Does True Democracy work?

[Strider]

The general populace seems to believe that Democracy is the best government you can have, but is this correct?

If the majority ruled (even through elected representatives), then wouldn't it make sense that the majority looked out for themselves? Wouldn't it make sense that the majority supports proposals that aid them economic wise, healthcare wise, and education wise? I'm sure that many would still support it even if it causes harm (again economic, healthcare, and education) to the minority?

I'm sure many people trust humanity to be unselfish, but in reality can you really trust the people to rule themselves? What if a group who supports racism gains the majority?

Is Democracy in reality no better than a dictatorship? Will true Democracy turn out to be like communism, good in theory, but it will never work?

Currently the majority of major countries has either a semi-democratic system of government, which works fine (or in China's case semi-communist). Is it that no government theories work, and that you must mix them to make it work?

 

[kulade]

I might work, but I personally would not want to be in one.

 

[Hitro]

Democracy itself in a pure sense is a dictatorship of the majority. That is why most people who advocate it usually only do so in connection with a set of basic rights and freedoms, things that are inalienable, that can't be taken away by majority vote.

While we currently use representative Democracy I think direct Democracy would just work as well (or not well...) as what we currently have. Sure people would often not vote for the thing they should vote for in their own interest, but that's of course the same with parties and politicians...

 

[Free Enterprise]

Mixing the proper elements of autocracy, oligarchy, and democracy (mixed constitution) produces what might be termed the most favorable government yet tested in recent times.

The United States is a large portion of oligarchy (maybe about 40%) with some democracy (possibly roughly around 35%) and a pinch of autocracy (filling in around 25%). Disclaimer: These are tenative estimates.

The crucial question which stems from this is what is the proper dosage of each and which form of each is best?

Too much democracy leads to acromonious disputes, inefficiency, and polarized rifts. On the other hand some democracy is required to contain the extremely frequently seen ambition of autocratic branches. Oligarchic branches or assemblies often have to be forced to snap out of their attempts to exploit the masses and form aristocracies.

The autocratic and democratic branch are high stakes which means you could get a great or hidieous government out of them. The autocratic is probably the most risky (payouts do occasionally happen though).

 

[stratego]

True democracy will never work on a population larger than a classroom. Not only is it discriminatory against the minority group, but it's also counter-productive to ask every single person's opinion on everything. That's why we need representatives, and the bigger the population the more levels we should have. So if there was to be a government with the population of the world, there should be around 5 levels of representation where you elect representatives to elect higher representatives.
(btw, glad to see you back.)

 

[Strider]

In theory, the best government would be a Monarchy or Dictatorship with an uncorrupt leader (although if you believe in the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutly," than this is impossible). It's efficient, stable, and fair (for the most part anyway). Now, the chance of finding a relatively uncorrupt leader, and the chance of that leader staying uncorrupt from the urge's his poistion would bring, there is a VERY low chance it will work.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Strider, just look at the DG. We're too busy trying to kill eachother and pass our own private agendas to get things done. A real democracy would never work. It would have to boil down to a good ol'democratic republic. Either that, or infringe on the voting rights of many. But to have everyone try to pass a single bill, it would be impossible. Like Kulade said, it might work, but I sure as heck dont wanna be in one.

 

[North King]

Its never been tried, how would we know?

 

[amadeus]

Once you put people in control of purse strings that aren't their own, you're on the highway to you-know-where.

 

[downtown]

uh...isnt that what we do now?

 

[nihilistic]

In theory, the best government would be a Monarchy or Dictatorship with an uncorrupt leader (although if you believe in the phrase "absolute power corrupts absolutly," than this is impossible).

Even if that leader/dictator cannot be corrupted and has the stamina to take care of the monstrous amount of issues that all governments in the modern age must, the dictator will still have a huge critical flaw: succession. Who will succeed that dictator should s/he step down? Of course, stepping down could be by death by various means, including natural death and assasination. It could be that that ruler just had enough of it. Anyway, a succession plan must be drafted in every scenario. Before the rise of democracies, it is very often the question of succession that brought down monarchs and dictators alike.

 

[Hitro]

In theory, the best government would be a Monarchy or Dictatorship with an uncorrupt leader

In theory, every system of government is the best because the theories make the circumstances fit the system.

 

[amadeus]

uh...isnt that what we do now?

Sadly. Very, very sadly.

 

[Blasphemous]

True democracy will never work on a population larger than a classroom.

Funny you should mention a classroom...
You're wrong, and I've got evidence to back it.
Okay, it may not be way more than a classroom, but I've spoken with several people from Sudbury (some very recently) and the reason they stick with about 250 students (iirc) is rather that their building won't fit many more comfortably, most certainly not because the direct democracy begins to fail in greater numbers than that.
Perhaps the model of the Sudbury Valley School is not exactly right for running a country (a gross understatement), but being a student in such a school (that I helped found two years ago) I can definately say that direct democracy is manageable if scaled correctly.
Absolute direct democracy, where every single decision goes through every single citizen with no limitations on the decisions that can be made, would be dead inefficient and completely unviable in groups larger than a couple dozens - but direct democarcy does not need to be absolute. Delegation would have to be one major factor in managing it. Some issues would go through specific groups that take care of those issues. Voting would not be compulsory - citizens who care, vote. The message of the system must be absolute: each person is responsible for their own fate and for the fate of the country. Today's representative democracies give a mixed message that causes people to blame the government for problems. But when you are held completely responsible for yourslef and completely responsible for your environment, you get responsible, or you suffer the consequences.
I'll try to be more coherent tomorrow perhaps, it's 5:20 am here and I wanna sleep before it gets light.
The issue of applying direct bureaucratic democracy to large groups is one I've thought of alot, and I'd love to elaborate once I'm rested.
gnight

 

[Archer 007]

Once you put people in control of purse strings that aren't their own, you're on the highway to you-know-where.

The road to serfdom...........

 

[cgannon64]

Mob rule? Nah...

Anyway, a problem with the majority looking out for themselves is that there is a minority that's going to be oppressed.

Then again, democracy through politicians seems like an even dumber idea than straight democracy..

 

[Archer 007]

Currently the majority of major countries has either a semi-democratic system of government, which works fine (or in China's case semi-communist). Is it that no government theories work, and that you must mix them to make it work?

The current government of the United States is a republic. A republic is a mixed form of government.

The One: The President
The Few: Congress
The Many: The People

 

[AVN]

Funny you should mention a classroom...
You're wrong, and I've got evidence to back it.
Okay, it may not be way more than a classroom, but I've spoken with several people from Sudbury (some very recently) and the reason they stick with about 250 students (iirc) is rather that their building won't fit many more comfortably, most certainly not because the direct democracy begins to fail in greater numbers than that.
Perhaps the model of the Sudbury Valley School is not exactly right for running a country (a gross understatement), but being a student in such a school (that I helped found two years ago) I can definately say that direct democracy is manageable if scaled correctly.

Interesting site
I trust that direct democracy can work at such a school with so much freedom for everyone, but I do have a few questions (sorry if the answers are on one of the pages of that site, I didn't read them all).

Are there any tests/exams during a year so that students can check if they have acquired the results they wanted to achieve ?

I suppose that at the moment a student doesn't understand the subject he is trying to learn (for example maths, or a language) it's his own responsibility to ask someone for help (to explan the subject). Is this correct ?

Absolute direct democracy, where every single decision goes through every single citizen with no limitations on the decisions that can be made, would be dead inefficient and completely unviable in groups larger than a couple dozens - but direct democarcy does not need to be absolute. Delegation would have to be one major factor in managing it. Some issues would go through specific groups that take care of those issues. Voting would not be compulsory - citizens who care, vote. The message of the system must be absolute: each person is responsible for their own fate and for the fate of the country. Today's representative democracies give a mixed message that causes people to blame the government for problems. But when you are held completely responsible for yourslef and completely responsible for your environment, you get responsible, or you suffer the consequences.
I'll try to be more coherent tomorrow perhaps, it's 5:20 am here and I wanna sleep before it gets light.
The issue of applying direct bureaucratic democracy to large groups is one I've thought of alot, and I'd love to elaborate once I'm rested.
gnight

Now to the topic of this thread.
I agree that in today's representative democracies people are blaming their governments for a lot of their problems, mainly because they can't (or only partially) influence their own situation. I like to know how your "direct bureaucratic democracy" is going to solve that problem.

But I guess it's better that I let you describe your model first completely, before I'm going to comment on it

And I can assure you I will read it with interest

 

[Blasphemous]

Interesting site
I trust that direct democracy can work at such a school with so much freedom for everyone, but I do have a few questions (sorry if the answers are on one of the pages of that site, I didn't read them all).

Are there any tests/exams during a year so that students can check if they have acquired the results they wanted to achieve ?

I suppose that at the moment a student doesn't understand the subject he is trying to learn (for example maths, or a language) it's his own responsibility to ask someone for help (to explan the subject). Is this correct ?

If a student asks someone to make them an exam it's up to that person to decide if they wanna do this for the student or not. Ther are no compulsory tests because a person can gague themselves far better than anyone else can. A Sudbury model school is not centered around formal subject and definately not around frontal learning in classes. People learn about life by living, not by sitting in a chair for six hours a day and listening to the banter of a person they most likely hate.
But it is true that whenever a student is pursuing something nobody will coem and check on them, nobody will tell them what to do. All activities are student-initiated.

Now to the topic of this thread.
I agree that in today's representative democracies people are blaming their governments for a lot of their problems, mainly because they can't (or only partially) influence their own situation. I like to know how your "direct bureaucratic democracy" is going to solve that problem.

But I guess it's better that I let you describe your model first completely, before I'm going to comment on it

And I can assure you I will read it with interest

I'm in the middle of something at the moment but in a bit, I'll get back to your on this.

 

[Mise]

Small scale direct democracy and left wing anarchy have much in common, and I'd chose either/or instead of no-voice capitalism.