Is Democracy still effective?

[Narz]

Democracy has been a failure, IMO. It is also a fallacy for the most part, more and more so every decade.

 

[scy12]

Democracy has been a failure, IMO. It is also a fallacy for the most part, more and more so every decade.

When one starts into investigating the history of Democracy he sees that Democracy started as a reaction . A reaction to other Regimes they deemed worse. To decide if democracy is a failure we must compare it with the situation of the world with that regimes and how did Democratic regimes compare and competed to the other non democratic regimes. Can you do that and still call Democracy a failure having in mind what it's competition is ?

 

[Zarn]

Is there a democratic system (A western type Democracy) in this world or in fact any other system of governance without a constitution ?(actually there must be some but i would not call them systems of governance but systems of chaos) I don't know what you are smoking pal but i sure don't want it !

Democracy does not mean that the majority is able to decide on every issue they wish. They have to decide in specific issues where there is no better alternative than a majority deciding on , while the rest are granted by the law , and the constitution . The constitution it self must abide by some principles that grant respect of rights to all citizens. They can wish to change the law in the future if they wish but there must be some parameters to not making changing the constitution , too easy .

Now about that democracy with no Constitution you are talking about , i personally never heard of it before.

A democracy is will of the majority. It always has been.

A constitution gives checks and balances to prevent tyranny. That conflicts with the will of the majority, since their will would be curbed by a constitution.

 

[brennan]

The older democracies like the UK seem to have gone through a process of oscillating ever more slightly about a center POV for the populace and the parties seem to have become closer and closer to the middle ground - otherwise they just don't get votes.

Democracy has lost it's way and is turning off people's interest in the governance of their states at an alarming rate.

 

[aelf]

Communism is a social structure, not a political one.

Are you referring to the theoretical form of Communism? Yes, it is perfectly within Marxist orthodoxy to call it only a social structure. However, I don't agree with Marxism that politics would necessarily be abolished, at most simply frozen in place, so I would still call it a political structure as well.

Anyway, I think the tyranny of the majority is something worth discussing when speaking about democracy. It is certainly not merely a losing game to fight against it while supporting democracy. When the USA was still young, for example, some of the founding fathers advocated measures to reduce this tendency and they do work to a certain extent, perhaps to the necessary extent.

 

[Zarn]

Are you referring to the theoretical form of Communism? Yes, it is perfectly within Marxist orthodoxy to call it only a social structure. However, I don't agree with Marxism that politics would necessarily be abolished, at most simply frozen in place, so I would still call it a political structure as well.

Anyway, I think the tyranny of the majority is something worth discussing when speaking about democracy. It is certainly not merely a losing game to fight against it while supporting democracy. When the USA was still young, for example, some of the founding fathers advocated measures to reduce this tendency and they do work to a certain extent, perhaps to the necessary extent.

When you fight against it, it would not be Democracy. The United States was not founded as a Democracy. These measures make it a different form of government.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

Are you referring to the theoretical form of Communism? Yes, it is perfectly within Marxist orthodoxy to call it only a social structure. However, I don't agree with Marxism that politics would necessarily be abolished, at most simply frozen in place, so I would still call it a political structure as well.

There was no need to read between the lines of my post, I meant what I said: communism is not a political structure, it is a social one. You can have a dictatorial communist society just as you can have a democratic one, though I think the latter would work much better.

Anyway, I think the tyranny of the majority is something worth discussing when speaking about democracy. It is certainly not merely a losing game to fight against it while supporting democracy. When the USA was still young, for example, some of the founding fathers advocated measures to reduce this tendency and they do work to a certain extent, perhaps to the necessary extent.

Tyranny of the majority is why we have a bicameral legislature.

Compared to the alternatives, I think tyranny of the majority is a tolerable fault.

 

[CheScott]

It sort of depends on what 'Democracy' you are talking about.

Representational Democracy, while a great idea, is proving too bulky and cumbersome for American culture. While better than most other forms of governance, America has gone to great lengths to ignore these flaws and, as such, it has only gotten worse. Between slanted media from every direction and voter apathy, it is hardly supprising that the results we are getting are less than, just about anyone, would prefer.

The system of Democracy, commonly called 'Pure Democracy' instituted by the Greeks is held by many to be the fairest system of governance so far. The problem with such a system, when applied in a culture larger than a collection of city/states and populations of several hundred million, are apparent.

However, I think with the advent of the internet and proliferation of instant mass communication technologies, such a system could return.

Imagine, if you will, a system by which people like ourselves can debate such as we do here. And, at the end, actually have legislation as a result? As much as I have had numerous disagreements and deep ideological fissures with many of the members here, I inherently have greater faith in someone I have argued with than a person whom I have, at best, exchanged a hand-shake with.

Don't mistake me, I am aware of the pitfalls and technical difficulties involved But, if such a system could be implemented, would that not be marvelous?

 

[aelf]

When you fight against it, it would not be Democracy. The United States was not founded as a Democracy. These measures make it a different form of government.

Are you assuming the Aristotelian meaning of democracy? Representative democracy is also democracy, but it is not the same as 'rule by the mob'. In fact, a mob-rule democracy easily becomes a plebiscitary dictatorship.

There was no need to read between the lines of my post, I meant what I said: communism is not a political structure, it is a social one. You can have a dictatorial communist society just as you can have a democratic one, though I think the latter would work much better.

I disagree. Why would Communism be merely a social structure? I think the distribution of resources is a political question. Politics wouldn't be eliminated in a true Communist society, just frozen in the same state as the distribution of resources would be carried out unfailingly through the command economy.

And I assume by dictatorial Communist society you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat or perhaps the historical Communist regimes. Those are most certainly political structures, where there are clear power relations between the different strata of society.

Tyranny of the majority is why we have a bicameral legislature.

Compared to the alternatives, I think tyranny of the majority is a tolerable fault.

Indeed. It cannot be totally eliminated, but it is not uncontrolled.

 

[CheScott]

There was no need to read between the lines of my post, I meant what I said: communism is not a political structure, it is a social one. You can have a dictatorial communist society just as you can have a democratic one, though I think the latter would work much better.



Tyranny of the majority is why we have a bicameral legislature.

Compared to the alternatives, I think tyranny of the majority is a tolerable fault.

Tyranny of the majority is also why we have the judicial system, without which, the Civil Rights movement would have been further hindered.

I am also frustrated by the assumption of Communism being associated with autocracy. However, the dissolution of the 'state' seems unlikely to me, given the pitfalls of hierarchical structure. Those who have power are extremely unlikely to volunteer their jobs and livelihoods, not to mention authority, as ever being unnecessary.

 

[CheScott]

Are you assuming the Aristotelian meaning of democracy? Representative democracy is also democracy, but it is not the same as 'rule by the mob'. In fact, a mob-rule democracy easily becomes a plebiscitary dictatorship.

I disagree. Why would Communism be merely a social structure? I think the distribution of resources is a political question. Politics wouldn't be eliminated in a true Communist society, just frozen in the same state as the distribution of resources would be carried out unfailingly through the command economy.

And I assume by dictatorial Communist society you mean the dictatorship of the proletariat or perhaps the historical Communist regimes. Those are most certainly political structures, where there are clear power relations between the different strata of society.

The modern system of American governance, in my view, bears the closest resemblance to an Oligarchy. A Democracy, on paper, but an Oligarchy, in effect.

Distribution of resources is an inherently economic question.

While politics would not be eliminated in a true communist society, there is nothing to say that free elections and a multiple party system are out of the question.

I will not argue that, historically, this does not happen. However, no matter how uncommon or unlikely, it is none-the-less a possibility.

 

[aelf]

I am also frustrated by the assumption of Communism being associated with autocracy. However, the dissolution of the 'state' seems unlikely to me, given the pitfalls of hierarchical structure. Those who have power are extremely unlikely to volunteer their jobs and livelihoods, not to mention authority, as ever being unnecessary.

Whether it is a political structure or not does not only have to do with whether it was autocratic or not. The Marxist definition of political power is the power of one class to oppress another, and therefore Communism would presumably abolish political power and hence politics. However, the Marxist idea of politics isn't the only one around.

 

[aelf]

The modern system of American governance, in my view, bears the closest resemblance to an Oligarchy. A Democracy, on paper, but an Oligarchy, in effect.

It is certainly plutocratic to a large extent, but how is it oligarchic? Plutocracy is not = oligarchy.

Plutocracy has a place in a democratic system.

Distribution of resources is an inherently economic question.

It is also arguably political, and that is consistent with theories like the greed-greviance nexus as the premise for civil war.

While politics would not be eliminated in a true communist society, there is nothing to say that free elections and a multiple party system are out of the question.

Of course, but party politics isn't the only form of politics either.

I will not argue that, historically, this does not happen. However, no matter how uncommon or unlikely, it is none-the-less a possibility.

Possibility that there would be no more politics, you mean? Well, I would never believe that, since I disagree with the limited Marxist conception of politics.

 

[CheScott]

Whether it is a political structure or not does not only have to do with whether it was autocratic or not. The Marxist definition of political power is the power of one class to oppress another, and therefore Communism would presumably abolish political power and hence politics. However, the Marxist idea of politics isn't the only one around.

The espoused goal of Communism is to abolish governance, yes. But I find that pretty unlikely.

I am not sure, however, what that has to do with what you quoted.

It is certainly plutocratic to a large extent, but how is it oligarchic? Plutocracy is not = oligarchy.

Plutocracy has a place in a democratic system.

The proliferation of political 'dynasties' seems to be one indication. Another is the ever blurring line between 'Politician' and 'CEO'. Such things epitomize the concept of 'Rule by the Few'.

It is also arguably political, and that is consistent with theories like the greed-greviance nexus as the premise for civil war.

But not inherently so.

Of course, but party politics isn't the only form of politics either.

I don't recall saying or indicating that it was, only that such a political system isn't in conflict with the concept of Communism. I'm sorry if that doesn't address your point, but I honestly am not sure what that is relevant to.

Possibility that there would be no more politics, you mean? Well, I would never believe that, since I disagree with the limited Marxist conception of politics.

No, the possibility that a Communist government is democratic. I have a hard time imagining Politics going way while we still have physical bodies.

 

[aelf]

The espoused goal of Communism is to abolish governance, yes. But I find that pretty unlikely.

That is also a very tricky statement. Abolish government, perhaps. Abolish governance? Probably not. The distribution of resources is part of governance, and if governance is political then politics is not abolised either.

I'm sorry if that is what you mean by you think it is unlikely. In practice, it is unlikely that they will get over power politics in the first place, so I'm not sure which you mean.

 

[CheScott]

That is also a very tricky statement. Abolish government, perhaps. Abolish governance? Probably not. The distribution of resources is part of governance, and if governance is political then politics is not abolised either.

I'm sorry if that is what you mean by you think it is unlikely. In practice, it is unlikely that they will get over power politics in the first place, so I'm not sure which you mean.

I meant almost exactly what you said.

The end of government, governance and politics are all unlikely. Communism is, in my view, incapable of reaching it's espoused goal.

Nothing short of transcendence of physical reality is.

 

[Narz]

When one starts into investigating the history of Democracy he sees that Democracy started as a reaction . A reaction to other Regimes they deemed worse. To decide if democracy is a failure we must compare it with the situation of the world with that regimes and how did Democratic regimes compare and competed to the other non democratic regimes. Can you do that and still call Democracy a failure having in mind what it's competition is ?

I agree that Democracy has done better than most other means of governing civilization but I'd still argue it's been a failure. It's failed to prevent wars, prevent pollution, prevent an extinction event. It's failed to bring happiness to it's people despite advancing wealth (IIRC happiness peaked in the 80's in America anyway). It was a good idea in theory (though I liked the Philosopher King one even better) but hasn't worked out very well in practice. At the end of the day Democracy is just the tyranny of the majority and the biggest business these days is manipulating majority opinion.

 

[warpus]

I meant almost exactly what you said.

The end of government, governance and politics are all unlikely. Communism is, in my view, incapable of reaching it's espoused goal.

Nothing short of transcendence of physical reality is.

That is the goal of Marxism, but not communism. Communism is a purely economical idea..

it's just usually bundled up with political ideology, that's all.

 

[aelf]

The proliferation of political 'dynasties' seems to be one indication. Another is the ever blurring line between 'Politician' and 'CEO'. Such things epitomize the concept of 'Rule by the Few'.

Political dynasties would indeed mean oligarchy, but I'm not sure if the problem is all that acute in the US. I mean, you have the Kennedys, the Bushes and maybe the Clintons, but - forgive my ignorance - who else are there?

About the blurring of the line between the politician and the CEO, that is merely an indication of plutocracy. And plutocracy has existed with democracy right from the latter's inception. In the past, only people with sufficient private means of income such that they did not need to work much (usually wealthy landowners) could devote themselves entirely to politics. Plutocracy is indeed heading towards 'rule by the few', and it did result in oligarchy in ancient Greece. However, in the modern state there are usually non-plutocratic politicians that are difficult to remove, since the system ensures their livelihood.

But not inherently so.

What do you mean by 'inherent'? And does it matter? If something always comes attached with another, does it actually matter if the latter is not 'inherent'? It is simply a fact that the former is associated with the latter.

No, the possibility that a Communist government is democratic. I have a hard time imagining Politics going way while we still have physical bodies.

Well, it is actually meant to be democratic. But this doesn't even fall under the Marxist definition of politics, since politics only happens when one class is oppressing another

 

[aelf]

That is the goal of Marxism, but not communism. Communism is a purely economical idea..

it's just usually bundled up with political ideology, that's all.

Huh? When Marx wrote about Communism, he certainly wrote about politics as well as economics. I don't know why you say that Communism is a purely economic idea. I guess in a way all of Marxism is purely economic, since it bases itself on historical materialism, but non-Marxists generally don't think so.

Maybe you are mistaking command economy with Communism.