What is the purpose of Democracy?

[innonimatu]

Arguing in another thread, I realized that it would be worth it having a dedicated discussion about the idea and purpose of Democracy.

What purpose is Democracy as a political organization system supposed to achieve? It seems to be simply about favoring the interests of the many against the installation in power of narrow interests of a few.

But it has consequences also, or are these purposes in themselves?
- the peaceful transfer or power?
- the frequent transfer of power between individuals and groups?
- universal consent by the population for whatever majority government is formed?

It is also often said that a democracy must have a series of attributes to be accepted as one (keeping that consent, among other things):
- be inclusive (universal suffrage)
- be effective (a government that can deliever on the will of those who voted it it)
- have some checks on what a "small majority" can do, namely against democracy itself

What, do you thing, and important and necessary attributes and purposes of democracy, for it to work?

 

[Crezth]

The purpose of democracy is to sustain the legal structures that allow monopoly capital to exert political influence over societies. In the more specific sense of what democracy means to liberals, it's mostly to serve as a continuous pat-on-the-back.

Democracies are neither more inclusive, effective, nor free than other societies. The conceit a liberal has that a democracy must be these things is only, really, a conceit. Democracies have quite a legacy in being none of these things, while non-democratic governments that are all of inclusive, effective, and free have existed since the dawn of time. As an example, the liberal democracy is habitually unconcerned with the participation of the poor and working classes, and usually the influential elements in liberal democracies consider the wishes of the lower classes an unwanted nuisance. It's also true that liberal democracies, where they exist in diverse societies, tend to privilege the preferences of the majority at the expense of the minority. The only defense against this state of affairs is the existence of "laws and norms" to prevent such exploitation, laws and norms which can and often are replaced when the majority begins to consider them inconvenient.

Consider Germany. As a non-democratic empire, Jews were free to work and were considered German subjects the same as their Gentile neighbors. Once liberal democracy was introduced, the Gentile majority began gradually promoting the authority of a new regime that considered Jews enemies of the state. The rule of kings, who were singular and utterly and totally responsible for government, was replaced by the rule of mobs and murderers with devastating consequences. Ultimately a peaceful and humble democracy was only accepted in Germany when forced at gunpoint and enforced with 60 years of occupation and national humiliation, and now the fastest-growing party in that democracy is the Neo-Nazis. Hurrah!

Democracy is a dream. Most people just aren't cut-out for national decision making, and the price ends up being paid by the wretched. A good government is righteous, but it does not have to be considerate of the opinions of fools. Unfortunately democracy is neither righteous nor judicious.

 

[abradley]

I think this will answer the question: What is the purpose of Democracy?
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Introduction
It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.


Through theoretical analysis, historical case studies, empirical data, and quantitative analyses, this web site shows that:

• Freedom is a basic human right recognized by the United Nations and international treaties, and is the heart of social justice.
  
• Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and scientific and technological advancement.
  
• Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.
  
• Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine.
  
• Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and political instability.
  
• Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder; the only practical means of making sure that "Never again"
  
• Free people do not make war on each other, and the greater the freedom within two nations, the less violence between them.
  
• Freedom is a method of nonviolence--the most peaceful nations are those whose people are free.

The purpose of this web site, then, is to make as widely available as possible the theories, work, results, and data that empirically and historically, quantitatively and qualitatively, support these conclusions about freedom. This is to invite their use, replication, and critical evaluation, and thereby to advance our knowledge of and confidence in freedom--in liberal democracy. It is to foster freedom.

normal">
Pray tell, my brother,
Why do dictators kill
and make war?
Is it for glory; for things,
for beliefs, for hatred,
for power?
Yes, but more,
because they can.

 

[Socrates99]

I think this will answer the question: What is the purpose of Democracy?
https://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

Introduction
It is true that democratic freedom is an engine of national and individual wealth and prosperity. Hardly known, however, is that freedom also saves millions of lives from famine, disease, war, collective violence, and democide (genocide and mass murder). That is, the more freedom, the greater the human security and the less the violence. Conversely, the more power governments have, the more human insecurity and violence. In short: to our realization that power impoverishes we must also add that power kills.


Through theoretical analysis, historical case studies, empirical data, and quantitative analyses, this web site shows that:

• 
  
  
  • Freedom is a basic human right recognized by the United Nations and international treaties, and is the heart of social justice.
  • Freedom is an engine of economic and human development, and scientific and technological advancement.
  • Freedom ameliorates the problem of mass poverty.
  • Free people do not suffer from and never have had famines, and by theory, should not. Freedom is therefore a solution to hunger and famine.
  • Free people have the least internal violence, turmoil, and political instability.
  • Free people have virtually no government genocide and mass murder, and for good theoretical reasons. Freedom is therefore a solution to genocide and mass murder; the only practical means of making sure that "Never again"
  • Free people do not make war on each other, and the greater the freedom within two nations, the less violence between them.
  • Freedom is a method of nonviolence--the most peaceful nations are those whose people are free.

The purpose of this web site, then, is to make as widely available as possible the theories, work, results, and data that empirically and historically, quantitatively and qualitatively, support these conclusions about freedom. This is to invite their use, replication, and critical evaluation, and thereby to advance our knowledge of and confidence in freedom--in liberal democracy. It is to foster freedom.

normal">
Pray tell, my brother,
Why do dictators kill
and make war?
Is it for glory; for things,
for beliefs, for hatred,
for power?
Yes, but more,
because they can.

If "free people" have hit all those bullet points there has literally never been "free people."

 

[EnglishEdward]

The primary purpose of democracy is better decision making.

Democracy is the concept that due to bias, fallability and personal interests etc,
decisons are best made with as many people, as practical and relevant, voting.

In particular democratic decisons are likely to

(a) benefit more people
(b) be objectively better
(c) be more acceptable to the people

than decisions made by non democratic means.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

@Crezth is back!

 

[Lexicus]

"Democracy" is an abstraction that maps onto reality only imperfectly at best. Various things that people more or less identify with democracy are really democratic only to varying degrees.

 

[Zardnaar]

Safety valve so the elites don't get shot or gulliotened.

 

[Socrates99]

Safety valve so the elites don't get shot or gulliotened.

Sounds pretty spot on. Things get too bad for the plebes and they let us think we have power.

Man, western democracy is corrupt as hell...

 

[innonimatu]

The purpose of democracy is to sustain the legal structures that allow monopoly capital to exert political influence over societies. In the more specific sense of what democracy means to liberals, it's mostly to serve as a continuous pat-on-the-back.

So, the (near) "universal consent" purpose of it. Yes, I do thing that is a purpose, not just a consequence. But the "peaceful transfer of power" aspect is also an important purpose: civil wars are nasty.

Democracy does not necessarily result in giving power to the masters of exploitative monopolies. I can argue that it creates more problems for the continued power of those than other forms of government, requires more effort from them to achieve and maintain that power. They have to keep fighting to maintain that consent, invest much more on propaganda, and are forced to give up another of their tools, outright arbitrary violence, except against small minorities. They can still use violence against the majority but only within the "consented to" rules, which must be prepared beforehand.

If these are the main purposes then democracy can be considered good from an utilitarian moral point of view. It's better to to achieve then than not to.

But is the rest just attributes, things that are proclaimed as a goal but then ignored? Or is the the failure to achieve inclusiveness, effectiveness, etc when it happens a failure of a particular attempt at a democratic regime that should be corrected? Are they secondary, or critically important as well?

 

[Naskra]

The purpose of democracy is to depose the king, after which the demos argues with itself.

 

[Narz]

The purpose of democracy is for TPTB to let the sheep think they have a say.

Kings & queens can lose their heads.

Edit : Zar beat me to it

 

[Berzerker]

to put a happy face on stealing other people's stuff

 

[FriendlyFire]

Democracy is the worst form of government, save for all the rest

 

[Dekker]

Democracy means nothing when big corporations run their own little fiefdoms within them.

 

[Akka]

Democracy is a form of government that is supposed to work on general consensus.