What's so bad about not having democracy?

[red_elk]

Why should people trust someone or something that is not answerable to them, not even in theory?

People generally trust something which works and which they can replace if it stops working. It doesn't necessary have to be elected by them or be directly answerable to them.
Take for example your local fire department, or medical clinic. Ideally, government should work similarly. Of course implementing this in practice would be much more complicated than it sounds.

Edit: Imagine if people start electing doctors in hospitals - that would be a freaking disaster. Government should be staffed by appointed professionals too.

You're kidding. Кадры решают все!

A bear died in the forest... Yeekim is quoting Stalin!
His words were actually about extreme importance of qualified personnel in key positions.

And by extension, he who appoints the personnel, pulls all strings.

Yes, this can be a problem, when too much power is concentrated in one person's hands. I think it should be resolved through additional mechanisms of power separation. Like a judge - he also theoretically "pulls all strings" in the process, but his powers are also limited.

 

[Yeekim]

Government should be staffed by appointed professionals too.

Again, it is. Just at some level you'll eventually need to co-opt the populace.

A bear died in the forest... Yeekim is quoting Stalin!
His words were actually about extreme importance of qualified personnel in key positions.

And he would've known, huh?

In 1922, the office of General Secretary followed as a purely administrative and disciplinary position, whose role was to do no more than determine party membership composition.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Secretary_of_the_Communist_Party_of_the_Soviet_Union
Who even remembers who nominal heads of state of USSR were?

 

[red_elk]

Again, it is. Just at some level you'll eventually need to co-opt the populace.

Perhaps this co-opting (in a form of electing populists as lawmakers and state leaders) is the weakest part of democracy?
At least in its current form.

And he would've known, huh?

He was talking about skilled engineers and technicians in the first place, not bureaucrats. It was 1935, time of industrialization.

Soviet system had its advantages, but the problem with Soviet economy was that it was structurally militarized. Extremely simplifying, every factory and plant was able to switch from production of frying pans to artillery shells in a matter of days. It was designed to maximize resilience in case of external aggression, but the cost was suboptimal effectiveness - especially in providing people with high quality consumer products. Yet, in some areas such as space program, USSR was not only competitive with USA, but in some periods of time ahead of them, having most likely, much smaller funding.

From what I'm reading about China, it looks like they adopted good sides of Soviet system, but managed to avoid our mistakes, at least the most serious ones. Their approach to governance is based more on science rather than ideology. Of course, the devil is always in details and what works well in theory may fail in practice.

 

[innonimatu]

How well do you think your national government (or mine) could enforce its national data protection rules against Google, Amazon, Facebook or Alibaba? That's right, they wouldn't even bother to lobby. I'm naming giants, but it's not like smaller companies from third countries would have any reason whatsoever to comply either. This is why people who talk about "taking back sovereignty" are bloody delusional fools. The EU as a whole just might have enough hard and soft power to make a difference though.

Now for the 1 million whatever question: would we even have such transnational monopolies as a Google or an Amazon in a world without the EU and the whole web of transnational deals that shelter corporations for the sake of "free trade"? Would he have a privacy problem "beyond the power of national governments" of the scope of companies had been kept limited to the national size, or broken into functionally semi-independent national subsidiaries?

I am old enough to recall the time when national governments actually collected taxes on corporations. They were not allowed to claim tax exemption on "fiscal paradises". I am old enough to recall the time when governments actually controlled financial flows across national borders. I am old enough to recall the time when governments did not make excuses that "they were powerless" to govern.

The EU has been part and parcel of the construction of this international web of treaties that allegedly voided the power of governments to actually govern. Without that power, democracy is meaningless. The US alone would not have been able to build this web alone. Japan, China and Russia have refused to join on it: though they take as much advantage as they can from it, they kept creating their own local versions of anything they deemed important. The major Western European states subscribed to the Washington Consensus, to the WTO, and pushed the other European states (caught in the siren song of the "European Economic Community") to join it. But those were unequal treaties: only a few governments, only a few centers of power, would be able to have a say in this brave new world. The "third world", Europe's dependencies in Africa (where outright neocolonialism ruled after the collapse of the USSR as an alternative pole) and the US's dependences in Latin America (in the wake of the latin american debt crisis), was also pushed to join this new world order. Granted, some actually had a size such that they might expect to benefit, to have a seat at the hight table (Brazil, Mexico...) had they been well governed all these years. Japan and the "asian tigers" kept somewhat apart and prospered the most during these last few decades. Notably, those that kept the most national control resisted better to the asian financial crisis of the late 90s.

This was not a predetermined destiny. Technology did not force these political choices. The internet" was the only big technological change since the early 1990s when this new world was settled. But even so it is not any more natural to have a big on-line retailer operating worldwide that it would be to have many, that is a result of the institutional framework created by the international treaties in force. I can argue that absent those treaties, Amazon the corporation with international operations could not exist (though I would rather do it on a separate thread, if you want) because its economies of scale would turn negative. What the treaties, directives and regulations of supra-national entities do is set the rules of the game where some forms of business thrive and other wither. Same for the reach of even the googles and facebooks, which met with no barriers to entry where in a different world they would have been delayed and local competitors arisen.

The EU produced a social poison: monopolies, concentrations of power, and the reduction of democracy to empty rituals. And now pushes more poison claiming that it is the required medicine to cure the poisoning it had created. When will people spot the swindle in this?

 

[Aleksey_aka_al]

Nothing bad. You just call your oligarchy or monarchy or whatever you have a democracy and bomb other nations including the real democracies. Usual things, nowadays, medieval ages, ancient times, no difference. Just stomp those heretic b*st*rds for not being holy marvellous you!

"Democracy" is a loaded word and a lie. Since ancient Rome, they called tyrant the guy whose will represents the interests of plebs and nation, and they set him against a republican rule as if Senate is not an embodiment of elitist interests and will having nothing to do with plebs or the majority of people, except a rare coincidence and glorified fiction.

 

[red_elk]

"Democracy" is a loaded word and a lie.

Funny that all countries in the world are self-proclaimed democracies.
With exceptions of Saudi Arabia, Brunei and Myanmar.

 

[innonimatu]

Nothing bad. You just call your oligarchy or monarchy or whatever you have a democracy and bomb other nations including the real democracies. Usual things, nowadays, medieval ages, ancient times, no difference. Just stomp those heretic b*st*rds for not being holy marvellous you!

"Democracy" is a loaded word and a lie. Since ancient Rome, they called tyrant the guy whose will represents the interests of plebs and nation, and they set him against a republican rule as if Senate is not an embodiment of elitist interests and will having nothing to do with plebs or the majority of people, except a rare coincidence and glorified fiction.

Democracy is not a lie. In your own text you mention " real democracies", so you know that. It is just often a word used by liars to disguise other forms of government and create consent for what would have been unacceptable if presented plainly.

Going back to what I regard as the most influential democracy-undermining international experience going on, the European Union, I can say that the lies under that disguise are easy enough to expose, but people need to have a sense of history to see them. That is why younger people are more easily fooled, and the institutional propaganda chooses them as a target. There is some hope because demographics are tilting towards older generations, I believe.

The EU advanced its cases for "further integration" with technocratic promises of prosperity and security. With each new treaty a chunk of sovereignty, a chunk of democratic control closer to the people, was sacrificed, but it was all for a good cause the promoters would claim.
But those who remember, who recall those promises, develop a sense of how they have been lied to. More (and sometimes also claimed better) employment after "reforms" to eliminate "rigidities"? All lies. A large boost to GDP (and presumably living standards) with the introduction of the Euro? Lies. Better management of economic crisis under common rules? Lies. Greater trade and "economic integration" within the EU? Lies.
People can try checking the data themselves, or reading what others who did that say. But it's not really necessary. Those that are old enough to remember how things were, the promises that were made, instinctively know they were lied to. So, whenever these people are given a chance to actually vote on "further integration", or on actually exiting the whole pile of lies, they show their disillusionment. That these manifestations have not so far been stronger and have not yer led to the dismantling of the whole thing is solely due to the institutional frameworks being stacked against that happening.
The lies are no longer about future future prosperity, they are scaremongering about disasters to come if the superstructure that has been built is dismantled. When the scaremongering does not work, the institutions go into full vengeance mode, which is why brexit cannot really be negotiated. The technocratic promises of "growth" are not mere technocratic promises of "solving crisis".

Hording democracy as a value above all others, not to be sacrificed to any promise of prosperity or to any quick fix to some crisis, would have avoided this whole disaster in the making. Countries would have remained sovereign, international deals would have kept being done through usual diplomacy according to the needs of each period, and people would have remained empowered and vigilant over each democracy. Now instead people are cynical and some indeed willing to call democracy a lie, due to their recent experiences.
I use the EU here as an example only because it is the one I've been observing the longest. The same dynamics are happening in other places where nations are caught up on webs that severely restrict sovereignty.

 

[aelf]

Also, why would he be "extremely critical" of Singapore? It's not like there could be anything wrong with such a great political system?

Hahaha, you read things so literally.

No, I know of the endemic problems caused by the system - which not very many people seem aware of, even within the country. But it's difficult to argue against the system, which is in practice less democratic than it appears to be on the surface, using the prospect of things that might happen. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine continues to whirr and even gullible Westerners lap it all up when they see and hear about how safe and clean the country is.

Which is why it's important to come up with some credible arguments; and economic arguments have so far failed miserably, whether you know it or not.

To make an argument about merits of democracy and focus on its ability to create economic growth is, frankly, appalling.
Democracies generally beat non-democratic regimes in economic growth, because, fortunately, it is NOT cost-effective to oppress people by denying them basic rights and liberties, at least not long-term.
It is, however, not overly difficult to imagine a dystopia where some technology (yeah, that again!) makes this cost-effective.
I dearly hope no-one here would argue in favor of embedding half the population with cheaply produced, free-will erasing microchips or shock-collars and sending them off to labor camps, were this found to outperform democracy in economic growth?

Yes!

Is the argument that democracy is primarily good economically a symptom of the spread of neo-liberal thinking? It seems to be backfiring outside the West. What are non-economic arguments for democracy that can bridge cultural differences? Maybe it's too late in this thread to get into that.

 

[Hehehe]

No, I know of the endemic problems caused by the system - which not very many people seem aware of, even within the country. But it's difficult to argue against the system, which is in practice less democratic than it appears to be on the surface, using the prospect of things that might happen. Meanwhile, the propaganda machine continues to whirr and even gullible Westerners lap it all up when they see and hear about how safe and clean the country is.

Well, I guess I've never been one of these gullible Westerners, given that I've never looked up to Singapore.

Which is why it's important to come up with some credible arguments; and economic arguments have so far failed miserably, whether you know it or not.

I guess you could argue that authoritarian countries are naturally inferior to Western countries, and that their political system is a result of that, rather than the other way around. But even so, I see zero reason to take steps to move our political systems to be more in line with these inferior systems.

 

[Yeekim]

posts #164 & 167

This really deserves both a separate thread and a much, much more thorough answer than I am prepared to post right now, but in recognition of your posts I'd like to give a brief reaction at least before this thread gets buried...

In short, I believe we generally agree in that the dangers/problems you have referred to do exist, but I'm probably more of a historical determinist than you appear to be, and not quite as
pessimistic. Basically, there are a few axioms I believe in, such as: "Once it becomes possible for stuff to happen, it tends to happen" and "Adapting to change is generally more efficient than resisting it".

When measured in time it takes for people and information to travel, world used to be huge; today it is tiny. It used to be sparsely populated, today it is crowded. It seems reasonable to conclude that national boundaries (in the widest meaning) that once made sense and were enforceable get less sensible and enforceable each day. Globalization has become possible on a more deeper level than ever before - rather than trying to erect or maintain barriers to stop it from happening, we should try and cope with it. And once again, I do recognize the concomitant risks.

I still very much doubt any of us would be better off in the absence of the EU, nor do I think losing (a degree of) national sovereignty necessarily means sacrificing democracy. Principle of subsidiarity might be poorly applied (or not at all) in any particular situation, but it is still "a thing" that successfully works on national level, so why couldn't it work on supranational level? After all, why would today's nation states be the optimal level for exercising democracy?

 

[innonimatu]

Thanks, I'll be in for such a discussion, though presently I'm a bit short of time.

The general problem of the biggest size for a working democracy is relevant for this thread, as is the one of democracy and sovereignty. The EU just happens to present an ongoing experience on those problems.

The reversibility of globalization, indeed the origins of the political idea of "globalization" (quite recent!) are worth a dedicated thread!

 

[inthesomeday]

ITT: Statists argue the merits of "democracy", which they define as everybody voting on which person gets to rule them.

 

[Manfred Belheim]

Anarchy forever comrades!

 

[Hrothbern]

The general problem of the biggest size for a working democracy i

Where ends the scale size of a good democracy, where starts the probably various levels or clusters of supra democratic unit associations.
I think a thread on her own would be good.

Just something from my experience to share here
In 1986 the municipality Amsterdam was split up politically in 17 neighbourhoods as if they were 17 municipilaties, with still one on top with some limited general Amsterdam responsibilities.
The poltical argument behind it was to bring democracy closer to the people. How fantastic that sounds....... until you know the background, because it was designed as a power grab at the expense of the people, by trying to kill the selforganisations:

In each of the 17 neighbourhoods there were very strong neighbourhood selforganisations, having a strong and close base in the people, and having had in around two decades a huge influence on the Amsterdam politics, with as main target good housing: better regulations and execution of existing regulations to protect people against malicious house owners. We stopped completely the big scale housing projects whereby old neighborhoods with 4 floors and small shops, were to be replaced by 12 floor big flats, and in those actions caused a complete exchange of the politicians of the all powerfull and arrogant social democratic party the PvdA. We got into going that the original plan to sell off houses to privater owners was reversed, and the municipality of Amsterdam purchased privately owned houses to be converted in public housing after a big overhaul. The big squatting movement in Amsterdam, and some laws that are close to a fundamental right on housing, were important here. Houses no longer fit to overhaul were bought and replaced by new houses of 4 floors and in the old street pattern.
The overall effect was 43% public housing in Amsterdam, at a social rent, aided with rent subsidies for people that got unemployed etc.
All in all: we had a strong citizens support, we could topple the politics, we were engaged in many other areas as well => the politicians decided to root us out and replace us with a democratic layer !!!

On a personal note, 1986 was the moment I disengaged from all my work in the selforganisations to start a family with a regular job in the industry. When I retired in 2015 , orientating myself again in Amsterdam, ready to engage again, Amsterdam had already reduced from that 17 units to 7 in 2000 or so, argumented as economy of scale, and was now moving to take out that lower layer of 7 smaller democratic units, back to 1 unit, as before 1986.
And again a power grab.
The 7 units are more cost effective because of closer to the issues. They are meanwhile matured in quality of people, politicians and civil servants. matured in practical cooperation with the top unit, between the units AND not to forget the still existing selforganisations. So now these 7 units are like the old (bigger) selforganisations strong enough to really be there
But the Hague, the central dutch government does not like it, wants to concentrate power in 1 Amsterdam unit. And the toplayer unit of Amsterdam, a bit like the toplayer of the EU, wants more power.

From there:

• Somehow having a body on top has the inclination to want to have it all.
• Democratic political parties do not like strong bottom up selforganisations

 

[innonimatu]

Seems to me that your example from Amsterdam is one where a top layer promised to "devolve" power (the principle of subsidiarity?) closer to people, but retained the overall power to take it back, and rearrange everything.

This is exactly the reason why I do not believe any such promises. Diplomacy between states, yes. Treaties, likewise. Executive power and laws, no! Bad enough that we have to deal with this kind of "management rearranging" when the powers that be feel threatened, in a national scale, which in Europe is relatively small. Now imagine the same thing on a continental scale...

 

[BvBPL]

Steven Koptis, in a recent op-ed, suggests that Singapore's success is a consequence of capitalism and motivating law makers through greed, rather than autocracy.

 

[aelf]

Steven Koptis, in a recent op-ed, suggests that Singapore's success is a consequence of capitalism and motivating law makers through greed, rather than autocracy.

Those aren't mutually exclusive. In fact, such a reward system might be associated with some degree of autocracy or at least technocratic rule. Since we're talking economics, beware perverse incentives that speak to how money and accountability to voters can be incompatible:

When you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. When you pay million dollar salaries, you get other kinds of monkeys too--the kinds that will cling for dear life to their cushy pay packets, disclaiming responsibility for screwups under their watch, assigning blame to their underlings. Why admit to incompetence when there's all that money at stake?

From:

 

[Lexicus]

Steven Koptis, in a recent op-ed, suggests that Singapore's success is a consequence of capitalism and motivating law makers through greed, rather than autocracy.

From that article:

The central problem today is Congress’s propensity to spend money the country does not have, and spend too much of it on favored interests and too little on economic growth.

My question is, why are people who don't know anything about anything still allowed to write columns where they pretend they know things?

 

[BvBPL]

My question is, why are people who don't know anything about anything still allowed to write columns where they pretend they know things?

It’s called "free speech." It’s a pillar of democracy.
That, and I think they give you a free pass to spew nonsense and get paid for it when they give you an MBA.

 

[Lexicus]

It’s called "free speech." It’s a pillar of democracy.

It has nothing whatever do with free speech, as you know full well. Free speech doesn't mean that media outlets are obliged to employ morons to write nonsense.