Democracy

[DeBon]

Is democracy just majority rule? Think about it, whether it's direct democracy or representative democracy, the majority will always rule.

Say you have a direct democratic society, and people are deciding on something random, say what steel or iron reserves should be used for. Or better yet, we're a small village and we have some steel reserves. A couple of villagers suggest making weapons out of the metals to protect the village, and the other villagers want to put it to some other use, like pipes or tools. If 51% of the people are for making weapons out of the metals, regardless of what anyone else has to say the 49% will be governed by the majority.

So now we have agreed to use our metals for weapons, but the guys who work the metal machines were a part of the 49% and don't want to make weapons because in their eyes, their labor is being stolen or used for the wrong reason. But in the 51%'s eyes, the metal workers are just cowards or lazy and need to put in their share.

The more and more I think of these random scenarios the more I question the democratic process, and democracy as a whole.

:unsure:


So basically what are your thoughts on democracy, and the democratic process? Or what do you think is the ideal form of democracy? Any fancy quotes or your own two cents maybe?

[Buttress]

How about only those in the 51% will produce the weapons?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Is democracy just majority rule? Think about it, whether it's direct democracy or representative democracy, the majority will always rule.

Say you have a direct democratic society, and people are deciding on something random, say what steel or iron reserves should be used for. Or better yet, we're a small village and we have some steel reserves. A couple of villagers suggest making weapons out of the metals to protect the village, and the other villagers want to put it to some other use, like pipes or tools. If 51% of the people are for making weapons out of the metals, regardless of what anyone else has to say the 49% will be governed by the majority.

So now we have agreed to use our metals for weapons, but the guys who work the metal machines were a part of the 49% and don't want to make weapons because in their eyes, their labor is being stolen or used for the wrong reason. But in the 51%'s eyes, the metal workers are just cowards or lazy and need to put in their share.

The more and more I think of these random scenarios the more I question the democratic process, and democracy as a whole.

:unsure:


So basically what are your thoughts on democracy, and the democratic process? Or what do you think is the ideal form of democracy? Any fancy quotes or your own two cents maybe?

Yes democracy in essence is just majority rule. The "perfect form" of democracy doesn't exist because I think the decisive thing is who rules and how. Part of a real bottom-up democracy would mean that even if a vote was 51-49%, there would still need to be some kind of compromise or work by the 51%. Like if a strike-vote went down, then the 51% couldn't hold the pickets down or maintain unity among the rank and file without going on some kind of campaign to convince people or making some concessions to win people over or they would just have to be more modest about their strike plans since it's just barely a majority in support.

I think if worker's ran society, there would not just be one model for how they cooperate and make decisions, it would depend on what they mutually wanted to accomplish. Some things may require representative democracy whereas some locations or decisions would be better handled through direct voting of all the people involved. So the main thing to me is that worker's establish their power and rule over society and then can work out what kind of collective decision-making is appropriate.

Bourgeois democracy is not really bottom up or representative because the ruling class has set up all sorts of checks and ways to ensure that popular demands don't pose a direct threat to the capitalistic running of society. People don't vote on trade deals or what subsidies or resources the government grants to private institutions that do a lot of the shaping of our society with no popular input whatsoever. The seperation from the legislative and executive bodies and other "checks and balances" are not to prevent congress from taking over in a coup, it's to prevent huge popular pressure from directly impacting the way the government works - the President can blame the congress and the congress can blame the President or they can each blame some archaic procedural rule and claim that their hands are tied.

[The Young Pioneer]

But is representative democracy actually majority rule?

Certainly not what goes on in our pseudo-representative democracy in the US. Only those who can afford campaigns can become candidates, and because they work in favour of their class's interest, the people benefitting from their decisions are usually not the working class majority.

Where is a representative democracy that actually is?

[Kamos]

In my view, a representative democracy is just the equivalient of you choosing your own executioner. It is, by nature, not accountable, therefore it cannot be truly democratic. Once the people themselves have actual power, it is no longer representative democracy either.

I suppose that this quote, that I also remember seeing in someone's sig a while ago, sums it up:


If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.

(Tony Benn)

It's not about whether people rule over you, but whether you can choose to accept this or not, that really makes a democratic system democratic.

[Blake's Baby]

Good question.

In Britain many years ago (around 1974 I believe) a senior politician referred to Britain's system (and this can be extended to any other bourgois democracy) as 'elective disctatorship'. Once every 4 or 5 years we get to have a choice (?) in which representatives of the ruling class mis-govern us for a period.

Only of course we don't. Every state has a different system but in essence:
1 - we have no control over the alternatives we're given - so we know we must vote for one or other representative of the bourgeoisie depending on who has been chosen by the main political parties;
2 - we have no control over the media manipulation of the election event, so even if there are people we agree with politically or have ideas that we can go along with, unless they also have ideas that the ruling class goes along with, they won't get any publicity for their politics;
3 - even if elections are considered to be worthwhile, socialists don't have the resources to contest them very much so the chances are that they never form a majority even if they stood because even if every one was elected that would still only be to 1/50 of the seats in the parliament, congress or whatever;
4 - we can't infuence in any meaningful way what the vast majority of other people will do so any election where great effort is spent getting 300 people to vote for a socialist is dwarfed by the 14,000 who vote for the social-democrat and the 19,000 who vote for the laissez-faire capitalist and the 40,000 who dn't vote at all... multiply by 600 for the size of your chosen legislature;
5 - party leaders who become heads of government are elected by their parties not the electorate; so people like Cameron or Blair in the UK were in fact voted for by about 20,000 electors in their home constituency and about 300 of their party's MPs - the situation isn't quite like that in countries with presidential systems of course, but it's a minor point really, the system for chosing who gets the party nomination is even less democratic in some ways

So, yeah, representative democracy is a sham. Look at the figures:

David Cameron is the British Prime Minister: he was elected as an MP by around 25,000 people, but he's the head of the governemnt of a nation of 60 million.

The Conservative Party is the largest party in the House of Commons, with around 300 of the 650 seats (about 46%) but only recieved 36% of the vote.

The turnout was 29,000,000 out of a population of 60 million.

So in all 36% of slightly less than 50% of the population voted for the party that produced the Prime Minister, 10.7 million out of 60 million, just less than 18% of the population. Of those around 1/1,000 actually directly voted for the man himself, 0.178% of the population. Sure, some of those who voted for other members of his party undoubtedly approved of him, but even so, a maximum of 18% of the population.

Hope that's dealt with the whole 'representative democracy' issue, as someone may well have said, it's neither representative nor democracy.

[Aloysius]

Good question.
So, yeah, representative democracy is a sham.

I was literally about to say this very thing.

I've never really been happy with democracy as a whole, especially with the US's bipartisan system and the constant bickering that occurs.
Democracy is a good idea, and it seems to work most of the time, but the view of the majority isn't always the view of everyone.

[Nox]

Not only that, but it's simply just electing a temporary dictator.

Socialism is the only true democracy.

[Rafiq]

We do not aim for "majority rule" in some kind of ethically universal way. We aim for the dictatorship of the proletariat over the class enemy.

Of course we know the proletariat is the majority already. But that's not why we support them.

[Red 7]

Democracy isn't just 'majority rule' to the detriment of the minority. Its very much wrapped up in equality and egalitarianism. The 51% forcing legislation or decisions on the 49% isn't what I'd define as democratic - although its often the result of so called 'democratic institutions'. The 49% should have as equal of a right as the 51% surely? Under the equal conditions of Socialism of course. Otherwise 'democracy' is the enemy -the fact we have apparent and actual 'democracy' in the form of our current institutions (we can vote for which bourgeois party we'd like to rule over us!) gets in the way of our desire and realisation towards a real, and proper, form of democracy.

[ColonelCossack]

But is representative democracy actually majority rule?



No. You have a few members of the government (the minority), ruling the majority!

I remember Marx or someone said something along the lines of, that representative democracy is the proletariat periodically choosing which members of the bourgeoisie will rule them. It's even worse when you take into account what Blake's Baby said; we don't even have a real choice of that!

[Nox]

No. You have a few members of the government (the minority), ruling the majority!

I remember Marx or someone said something along the lines of, that representative democracy is the proletariat periodically choosing which members of the bourgeoisie will rule them. It's even worse when you take into account what Blake's Baby said; we don't even have a real choice of that!

Yeah, all presidents/prime ministers are generally the same. Except Nick Griffin, but he's a wanker.

[Die Rote Fahne]

When it comes to democracy, it's an important ideal to take into socialism, and keep. The workers councils and the like will have elected representatives, with recallability.

This is key, to allow varying socialist platforms to be put forward, discussed, debated and voted on.

However, the formation of a socialist constitution would prevent the whole 51-49 idea. Perhaps suggesting that at least 65% be in favour of legislation for it to pass.

This is all hypothetical, and not necessarily what I'd advocate, per se. The idea of "tyranny of the majority" is not likely to be a problem in secular and progressive socialist society.

[CommunityBeliever]

Marx or someone said something along the lines of, that representative democracy is the proletariat periodically choosing which members of the bourgeoisie will rule them.

This quote from the communist manifesto (ch. 1) comes to mind:

The bourgeoisie has at last, since the establishment of Modern Industry and of the world market, conquered for itself, in the modern representative State, exclusive political sway. The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole bourgeoisie.