Democracies worldwide

[革命者]

If we were to make a ranking of the intrinsic qualities of democratic systems in a given country; how effective is its democracy, what criteria should we use to rank them?

Not to direct the discussion in any one way, I will not yet write what I think are the most important criteria and their importance.

After making a short ranking of countries we know, we might also look at the external circumstances that make some democracies still unable to meet expectations, like education, the press, (organised) corruption, etc.

I hope this will lead to a clear way forward for democratic systems.


Scotty

[cenv]

"Effective" to what end? For who?

I'd propose this criteria: to what extent do they empower ordinary working people?

And the answer will be: not at all. Some people might see this as a black-and-white way of looking at things, but if we try to break "democracies" down into categories like "corruption," "freedom of the press," etc. we're covering up the fact that no matter how bourgeois politics are structured, they inevitably screw over the working class. Instead of ranking them, we need to reveal that "democratic rights" are really just the shiny surface of a system that, at its core, robs workers of all power over their own lives and reinforces the ruling class' economic domination -- otherwise, we're reinforcing the lie that the problem is specific attributes of the political system, not the existence of the system itself.

[Dimentio]

There are no democracies today. What most countries are, are bourgeoisie republics with straws of democracy.

[Demogorgon]

There are no democracies today. What most countries are, are bourgeoisie republics with straws of democracy.
Yes, to bring up something I have said before, capitalist societies are a sort of coalition of different bourgeoisie institutions that share power amongst themselves. They often-almost always in the West-have an elected element which varies in the quality of popular participation it offers, but this element is only one part of the chain of power and can only really stop the most outrageous excesses by the bourgeoisie and sometimes also extract some concessions.

Obviously of course some are more democratic than others. In the United States for instance, the system is particularly broken and allows for little participation whereas other places might allow for a fair bit more, but no system is allowing popular participation beyond a relatively small element of the overall power structure.

[Drace]

I wonder how the Democracy Index ranks it. Though, its shit itself.

[革命者]

If we want to create a democratic revolutionary government, we at least need to be able to tell which democracies today are most democratic and why, even if they are not really democratic.

I think some systems of government are very democratic, but other prerequisites for real democracy, like good education and independent media/press, are not met.

The press are hold back by commercial interests and education used against the people; not to emancipate them in order to exercise power within the system.

Also, systems are to easily evaded by monarchies or presidents, who sign laws and can make them legally non-binding or don't uphold them.

Then, there is the corruption, which is all around us, enslaving the people; to won't abolish it because they are unwillingly accomplice to it.

[Muzk]

167 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/5/51/Flag_of_North_Korea.svg/22px-Flag_of_North_Korea.svg.png North Korea (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Korea) 0.86 Authoritarian regime Socialist republic (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialist_republic), Single-party (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-party) communist state (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_state)

125 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/Flag_of_Cuba.svg/22px-Flag_of_Cuba.svg.png Cuba (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuba) 3.52 Authoritarian regime

18 http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Flag_of_the_United_States.svg/22px-Flag_of_the_United_States.svg.png United States (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States) 8.22 Full democracy


:castro:

[革命者]

And if we'd do the ranking?

Do you know on what that ranking is based?

[Dimentio]

Yes, to bring up something I have said before, capitalist societies are a sort of coalition of different bourgeoisie institutions that share power amongst themselves. They often-almost always in the West-have an elected element which varies in the quality of popular participation it offers, but this element is only one part of the chain of power and can only really stop the most outrageous excesses by the bourgeoisie and sometimes also extract some concessions.

Obviously of course some are more democratic than others. In the United States for instance, the system is particularly broken and allows for little participation whereas other places might allow for a fair bit more, but no system is allowing popular participation beyond a relatively small element of the overall power structure.

Switzerland is probably the most democratic amongst the western nations, probably owing to the fact that it is so wealthy and so very specialised that it cannot really be judged with the same class relations as other European countries, given that the Swiss in general are amongst the most privileged people in the world.

[革命者]

Switzerland is probably the most democratic amongst the western nations, probably owing to the fact that it is so wealthy and so very specialised that it cannot really be judged with the same class relations as other European countries, given that the Swiss in general are amongst the most privileged people in the world.Why is the system in Switzerland democratic; what makes it democratic as opposed to other European countries, as you claim?

[mykittyhasaboner]

Why is the system in Switzerland democratic; what makes it democratic as opposed to other European countries, as you claim?

It would appear that citizens can in some cases overturn laws approved by the parliament.


Swiss citizens are subject to three legal jurisdictions: the commune, canton and federal levels. The 1848 federal constitution defines a system of direct democracy (sometimes called half-direct or representative direct democracy since it is aided by the more commonplace institutions of a parliamentary democracy).

The instruments of Swiss direct democracy at the federal level, known as civic rights (Volksrechte, droits civiques), include the right to submit a constitutional initiative and a referendum, both of which may overturn parliamentary decisions.[32][37]

By calling a federal referendum a group of citizens may challenge a law that
has been passed by Parliament, if they can gather 50,000 signatures against the law within 100 days. If so, a national vote is scheduled where voters decide by a simple majority whether to accept or reject the law. Eight cantons together can also call a referendum on a federal law.[32]

Similarly, the federal constitutional initiative allows citizens to put a constitutional amendment to a national vote, if they can get 100,000 voters to sign the proposed amendment within 18 months.[38] Parliament can supplement the proposed amendment with a counter-proposal, with voters having to indicate a preference on the ballot in case both proposals are accepted. Constitutional amendments, whether introduced by initiative or in Parliament, must be accepted by a double majority of both the national popular vote and a majority of the cantonal popular votes.[39][40][41][42]

[革命者]

That's majority-rule without a way to reach some kind of consensus or to protect the minorities. How is that democratic?

As I see it, as far as democratic systems go, referenda are possibly the least democratic.

Federations aren't democratic because again minorities have little change to have themselves be represented in the central government of the federation. Devolution is not democratic if some region can somehow harm another by exporting problems.

[Q]

That's majority-rule without a way to reach some kind of consensus or to protect the minorities. How is that democratic?

As I see it, as far as democratic systems go, referenda are possibly the least democratic.

Federations aren't democratic because again minorities have little change to have themselves be represented in the central government of the federation. Devolution is not democratic if some region can somehow harm another by exporting problems.
Perhaps you should clarify what, in your opinion, is exactly a democracy.

[Ravachol]

I think some systems of government are very democratic, but other prerequisites for real democracy, like good education and independent media/press, are not met.


As in, systems of government currently in existence anywhere? I am curious as to which and where.



Also, systems are to easily evaded by monarchies or presidents, who sign laws and can make them legally non-binding or don't uphold them.


Any system that doesn't work bottom-up and works with representatives instead of recallable delegates isn't a democracy. Democracy can only function in a classless society, the dominance of capital is inherently anathema to democracy.



Then, there is the corruption, which is all around us, enslaving the people; to won't abolish it because they are unwillingly accomplice to it.

I dislike the notion corruption. Corruption implies that the system itself is not the problem, but the implementation and niceties. This is not the case. The reason why corruption even exists is simply because of the fact that the system is designed in a manner which allows abuse. Complaining about a leak in the roof but refusing to fix the roof and instead calling for the rain to stop raining inside doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

[Demogorgon]

Switzerland is probably the most democratic amongst the western nations, probably owing to the fact that it is so wealthy and so very specialised that it cannot really be judged with the same class relations as other European countries, given that the Swiss in general are amongst the most privileged people in the world.
Switzerland is a good example of one of the more democratic countries, though you also have to bare in mind that the people have an unusually small degree of control over who controls the Executive branch due to the way the Federal Council is selected.

Anyway, I think that in order to measure the quality of contemporary democracy, you would probably want to consider two question: How democratic is the popular part of the system? and How important is the popular aspect? To the first you would want to consider the voting system (proportional systems obviously ranking higher) whether there is a clear choice in elections, the level of corruption, what elements of direct democracy or at least participation there are and so on.

For the second question, you would need to look at the ability the popular aspect of power has to exercise some control over other parts of the power structure and how much it has to bend to their will.