What's so bad about not having democracy?

[aelf]

In a previous thread, I posed a question about alternatives to democracy, but ultimately the discussion wasn't able to move beyond assertions that democracy tends to make society better or rhetorical questions about what could be better than democracy.

So let's re-examine the topic from a different angle. The majority of people worldwide, I dare say, are apolitical or inherently apathetic - for example, just think about how normal people want to keep political discussions out of their daily interactions, even when they're on the Internet. Perhaps people are only political insofar as they're interested in improving their material lives.

What if you were living under a non-democratic system that is able to deliver improving standards of living, or at least what you think is better than the alternative? Stability, relative economic security or the hope of unprecedented social mobility - would these not be enough for you?

So what if there's little to no hope of changing the people in charge? So what if you weren't allowed to voice dissent? Would you prefer the risk of living in Trump-electing America or the controlled stability of Singapore? Would you want to live in poor, disorganized India or economically rising China? And how reflective do you think your choice is of the general population's?

For a good life, is democracy really an essential ingredient?

 

[metatron]

I appreciate what you are trying to do here, but the opening post is constructed in an arguably faulty way.

You pose the question.
And then you make a set of hypothetical, arguably one big compouhnd hypothetical - i hope we can say that without fear of misrepresenting your argument.

So, i suppose my personal answer to your "what's so bad" question is:
"Because, first of all, the hypothetical isn't true." And then i will worry about the rest once it is.

This is admittedly lazy. But none the less i am sure you can see the problem here.

 

[Ryika]

If living under Trump is so bad, then he'll be out of office in 4 years.
If living under a non-democratic leadership is bad, then you're out of luck.

Nothing bad about not living in a democracy until it gets really bad. Then it's pretty bad.

 

[Hehehe]

In a previous thread, I posed a question about alternatives to democracy, but ultimately the discussion wasn't able to move beyond assertions that democracy tends to make society better or rhetorical questions about what could be better than democracy.

So let's re-examine the topic from a different angle. The majority of people worldwide, I dare say, are apolitical or inherently apathetic - for example, just think about how normal people want to keep political discussions out of their daily interactions, even when they're on the Internet. Perhaps people are only political insofar as they're interested in improving their material lives.

What if you were living under a non-democratic system that is able to deliver improving standards of living, or at least what you think is better than the alternative? Stability, relative economic security or the hope of unprecedented social mobility - would these not be enough for you?

So what if there's little to no hope of changing the people in charge? So what if you weren't allowed to voice dissent? Would you prefer the risk of living in Trump-electing America or the controlled stability of Singapore? Would you want to live in poor, disorganized India or economically rising China? And how reflective do you think your choice is of the general population's?

For a good life, is democracy really an essential ingredient?

There really aren't any better alternatives to democracy, certainly none that I would like to try. They all have a huge chance to turn out bad. A large chunk of apolitical people doesn't matter that much, they don't vote, and if they do, they usually vote for centrists, which makes politics more stable. Like Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

 

[luiz]

In my opinion the great benefit of democracy is not that 50%+1 of voters get to pick a leader. I don't think a leader who got 50%+1 of votes has more of a mandate than one who got one less vote.

The benefit is that democracy has an inbuilt mechanism for peaceful power change, as well as to get rid of bad rulers. If the rules of liberal democracy were followed, disasters like Venezuela would have been stopped in its tracks. Voters did make a bad decision, even repeatedly, but eventually they did see their huge mistake and now 80% want to get rid of their president. But now it's too late, because Venezuela is no longer a democracy. So the temptation of "moving past the constraints of liberal democracy" to achieve a more "socially just" system is now biting them in their butts.

 

[red_elk]

Like Churchill said, democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others that have been tried.

Interesting that this quote is almost always interpreted as we should stick to the worst form of government instead of trying something new.

 

[Hehehe]

Interesting that this quote is almost always interpreted as we should stick to the worst form of government instead of trying something new.

And what would this "new" thing be? If it turns out that there is a better system out there, then I wouldn't rule it out completely. I would however like to see if this system would actually work in practice (preferably, they would try it somewhere far, far away from me). So far, I just see no alternatives to democracy. Nothing comes close, even in theory.

 

[Ryika]

AI-based (dictatorial) governments will bring peace to the world.
Still a few decades 'till then though.

 

[red_elk]

And what would this "new" thing be?

Whatever comes next - unless you think the worst form of government is in the same time an ultimate and perfect one. I hope it's not the case and there is a room for improvement.
I have a few ideas about what it can be, which I described in another thread a couple of months ago, but I don't think details are very important now.

 

[uppi]

Democracy is such a nebulous term that its elements should be broken down a bit before starting the discussion:
First, there is the method to select the leader(s), I think this is the least important aspect, because all the "democratic" methods have their flaws (note that this includes more than the 50% + 1 rule, you can have democracy without that).
Second, there is the rule of law and the independence of the judicial branch.
Third, there are the rights and protections for the citizens, especially for minorities. I consider this the most important part, because it prevents tyranny either by individuals or by the majority.

In principle, these are more or less independent of each other, but in practice the first aspect of democracy has so far been the best way to achieve the other two.

 

[christos200]

In a democracy you may sometimes get bad leaders, but you can vote them out. In dictatorships, if the leader is bad you cannot change him (at least not peacefully). Also, even if the dictator is 'good', you get denied basic liberties (such are free speech, freedom of thought, etch) which in my opinion are essential. If you think having a few dollars more is worth giving up your liberties (assuming that a non democratic state leads to better governance, which is very disputable as most of the more advanced economies in the world are democratic), it is up to you. Personally, I would not make such a trade.

 

[OldBoomer]

So what if there's little to no hope of changing the people in charge? So what if you weren't allowed to voice dissent? Would you prefer the risk of living in Trump-electing America or the controlled stability of Singapore?

Just think, with this kind of a system you could end up with the best of both worlds - A Trump controlled Singapore with no hope of changing leadership at any point in your lifetime.

If living under Trump is so bad, then he'll be out of office in 4 years.
If living under a non-democratic leadership is bad, then you're out of luck.

Nothing bad about not living in a democracy until it gets really bad. Then it's pretty bad.

No, it's going to be okay. I think you misunderstood him. His thug is going to be in charge.

Whatever comes next - unless you think the worst form of government is in the same time an ultimate and perfect one. I hope it's not the case and there is a room for improvement.
I have a few ideas about what it can be, which I described in another thread a couple of months ago, but I don't think details are very important now.

You're not an Aleksandr Dugin, 4th Political Theory guy are you?

 

[red_elk]

You're not an Aleksandr Dugin, 4th Political Theory guy are you?

Don't know much about him, I thought he was one of ultra-conservative politicians?

 

[OldBoomer]

Don't know much about him, I thought he was one of ultra-conservative politicians?

I've read a little bit about him and his 4th Political Theory. I thought you might of been more familiar with him since you're also Russian. From what I understand he's a professor, or he used to be and he's also involved in Russian politics. I've also seen some of his interviews on RT.

From what I know about him, I would describe his theory as a mix of communism, fascism, and social conservatism.

 

[innonimatu]

The benefit is that democracy has an inbuilt mechanism for peaceful power change, as well as to get rid of bad rulers. If the rules of liberal democracy were followed, disasters like Venezuela would have been stopped in its tracks. Voters did make a bad decision, even repeatedly, but eventually they did see their huge mistake and now 80% want to get rid of their president. But now it's too late, because Venezuela is no longer a democracy. So the temptation of "moving past the constraints of liberal democracy" to achieve a more "socially just" system is now biting them in their butts.

Your jihad against Venezuela is tiresome. They had elections, and they still have elections. Theirs are not any less effective that those of, say, Brazil.

The presentation of "democracy" as a virtue that requires no further discussion (what type of democracy, who actually holds power in each "democracy") is also tiresome. Can we discuss that here?

I'm recommending reading this speech, in order to question quite a lot of myths about "liberal democracy". The bits most relevant, where he uses Reagan's Contras as an example:

In the view of the US government, a dangerous example was being set. If Nicaragua was allowed to establish basic norms of social and economic justice, if it was allowed to raise the standards of health care and education and achieve social unity and national self respect, neighbouring countries would ask the same questions and do the same things. There was of course at the time fierce resistance to the status quo in El Salvador.

I spoke earlier about 'a tapestry of lies' which surrounds us. President Reagan commonly described Nicaragua as a 'totalitarian dungeon'. This was taken generally by the media, and certainly by the British government, as accurate and fair comment. But there was in fact no record of death squads under the Sandinista government. There was no record of torture. There was no record of systematic or official military brutality. No priests were ever murdered in Nicaragua. There were in fact three priests in the government, two Jesuits and a Maryknoll missionary. The totalitarian dungeons were actually next door, in El Salvador and Guatemala. The United States had brought down the democratically elected government of Guatemala in 1954 and it is estimated that over 200,000 people had been victims of successive military dictatorships.

Six of the most distinguished Jesuits in the world were viciously murdered at the Central American University in San Salvador in 1989 by a battalion of the Alcatl regiment trained at Fort Benning, Georgia, USA. That extremely brave man Archbishop Romero was assassinated while saying mass. It is estimated that 75,000 people died. Why were they killed? They were killed because they believed a better life was possible and should be achieved. That belief immediately qualified them as communists. They died because they dared to question the status quo, the endless plateau of poverty, disease, degradation and oppression, which had been their birthright.

The United States finally brought down the Sandinista government. It took some years and considerable resistance but relentless economic persecution and 30,000 dead finally undermined the spirit of the Nicaraguan people. They were exhausted and poverty stricken once again. The casinos moved back into the country. Free health and free education were over. Big business returned with a vengeance. 'Democracy' had prevailed.

But this 'policy' was by no means restricted to Central America. It was conducted throughout the world. It was never-ending. And it is as if it never happened.

 

[Moriarte]

The obvious next step may be to mix in a degree of meritocracy, along the lines of what China tries to do. It just makes sense to pick leaders based on a trail of merit they leave behind them as opposed to picking them based on the amount of money and political influence they have access to. Doesn't it?

 

[red_elk]

Yes, classification along "democracy-dictatorship" line is often too much politicized, using "plutocracy-meritocracy" instead can be more useful in many cases.

 

[Berzerker]

everybody places limits on what the majority can do, so what exactly is democracy?

 

[OldBoomer]

everybody places limits on what the majority can do, so what exactly is democracy?

Democracy is a system where the majority has limited rule and if you don't like the leadership you only have to put up with it for a minimum of 4 years. It's a system that encourages compromise and moderation, which is why it's necessary for both sides to work together in order to pass any large policy changes unless you have a super-majority. This is because the majority opinion isn't everyone's opinion and that's why there's limits placed on what the majority can do.

But, I also understand that things like moderation, compromise, and allowing someone who you didn't vote for to run the country for 4 years are all things that are now considered to be unreasonable, mainly by enlightened college kids.

 

[Berzerker]

our version is 4 years, but wouldn't limiting majority rule be something else?