Log in

View Full Version : Does democracy work?



Monty Cantsin
12th January 2004, 08:22
its a genral assumsion that demorcacy is the best system of government. but i know what i think, but i would like to know what others think of democracy?

SonofRage
12th January 2004, 08:57
I think Democracy is a great idea. I think we should try it here in the US. :D

Monty Cantsin
12th January 2004, 09:40
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:57 AM
I think Democracy is a great idea. I think we should try it here in the US. :D
yes i wold be good if it was in australian but it died out in the 70's. though it was never really there because it's really all up to the queen.

RedAnarchist
12th January 2004, 10:39
Actually, the Queen has very little power.

Hiero
12th January 2004, 10:46
Democracy fails the poeple so many times, because of the way it works to get power is by biggest numbers of vote, so when its time to vote to get in power the canidates only pay attention to the needs of the majority of the people thus the minority becomes ruled under a dictatorship since there needs are ignored. And the only groups that look out for everyone are the small parties and dont get voted in

Monty Cantsin
12th January 2004, 11:05
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 11:39 AM
Actually, the Queen has very little power.
in Australia Gough Whitlam the democratically elected Prime Minister, was fired from office by the queens representative because he was a left winger making changes that people wonted. his changes including universal health care.

Hoppe
12th January 2004, 11:42
Democracy is only good when you're with friends and want to decide whether to eat pizza or chinese.

Nevertheless, as far as I know there has been no time in history were two democratic countries engaged into war with eachother, so it's fair to say that despite all its flaws it's the best system.

Another question perhaps interesting: can the people democratically decide to end democracy?

SonofRage
12th January 2004, 11:47
The only problem with pure democracy is that 51 people can vote to kill the other 49 :D However, a Democracy with a Bill of Rights protecting against such things is certainly the best way to go.

Fidelbrand
12th January 2004, 11:53
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:47 PM
The only problem with pure democracy is that 51 people can vote to kill the other 49 :D However, a Democracy with a Bill of Rights protecting against such things is certainly the best way to go.
yup.
Tyranny of the majority sucks at times~ <_<

Fidelbrand
12th January 2004, 12:01
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 09:22 AM
its a genral assumsion that demorcacy is the best system of government. but i know what i think, but i would like to know what others think of democracy?
We need physiological supplies to keep as alive~
Economics is made (under capitalism) to determine the distribution of the power to acquire basic necessities.
Captialism creates a separation of the economic sphere & political sphere.
"Wow~~ We got voting rights~~~ Democracy rules...we are human beings with dignity and autonomy"
But are we sure that democracy can change the current economic sutations?

Conclusion:
1) Some people have voting rights, but exploited 6 days a week .......
2) Democracy is a toy for the public . Nothing much can be done with it. <_<

A communist/socialist regime with democracy would be the best model, but, not capitalism with democracy.

Hegemonicretribution
12th January 2004, 16:10
Democracy itself raises many debates, and different systems are a torturous, yet neccesary pain for most Political students at some time. The tyranny of the majority can easily be reduced by employing a proportional, rather than majoritarian system, e.g. the list system. The main 6-7 systems all have pros and cons, and which is best alters from country to country, and through the different electoral systems.

The extent to which democracy is allowed to prevail is also debatable. Voting age, frquency of elections, the make up of the government, and the madate/duties of an elected body are all very complicated.

Democracy, sure, but nowhere I can think of is currently running their optimal system, or in any hurry to change.

As for wars in democratic places...Ireland, although more of a conflict, Falklands..hell there AREN&#39;T two democratic countries, but even thosegenerally accepted to be have conflicts.

Misodoctakleidist
12th January 2004, 16:37
Democracy is a good idea but bougoire democracy is a farce.

The tyranny of the majority may not be great but it&#39;s better than the tyranny of the minority.

monkeydust
12th January 2004, 17:49
This is a very interesting topic to discuss, I think first however we need to form an objective concept of &#39;democracy&#39; with which to evaluate whether &#39;the idea&#39; is good rather than the form it has taken today.

The most accurate definition of &#39;democracy&#39; is perhaps &#39;decentralisation of power&#39;. So in a democracy, power theoretically is held with the many majority, essentially it is power in the hands of the many, not the few.

Normally this definition of democracy can be divided into three other core concepts which make up democracy itself, these are:

-Participation

-Representation

-Accountability



These three areas are vital to any democracy where all three are vital. Even if you believe in a &#39;direct&#39; democracy, then these factors apply, although the representation and accountability in this case would be achieved by the people representing themselves.




The main problem with democracy as I see it today, is that the system of elections, has become almost unchallengable, as it&#39;s so widely accepted to be so, but are elections and political parties really helpful towards democracy? In both Britain and The U.S.A today, all the key parties hold an ideological consensus, whilst they may vary slightly they all bear the same basic capitalist ideas. So people of our political leaning cannot really have anyone to represent our own views, we can only choose the better of two evils.

To add to this, the people, representing us, are not representive of the population demographics at all; they largely tend to come from rich, white, people, who&#39;ve had the oppurtunity often to buy their way into better educationc etc. (for example via public schools)

As you can see, our current systems are not very democratic at all, so how can we make them so?

One system suggested here was proportional representaion, this is quite common already, however it has it&#39;s own problems. For example minorities are actually over represented. To put it another way if the fascist party got one seat, having that one man would have more influence than giving a larger party 1 more man a seat, hence minorities are almost over-voiced.

Other systems suggested are &#39;direct democracy&#39; where the public at large have a choice to vote on several issues rather than simply allow their representatives to do so, and &#39;demarchy&#39; advocated by redstar, a system whereby candidates are selected randomly.


Having said all this, some people argue that democracy is not something that we should aim to achieve. Fascists for example would argue that things don&#39;t get done quickly enoough, that it is better to have one almighty leader.

Myself, I accept that things can&#39;t necessarily get done as quickly through democracy as they can through dictatorship, but believe that it is more desirable to have a system that is &#39;fair&#39; than one that is &#39;decisive&#39;.

iloveatomickitten
12th January 2004, 19:06
Do the people know whats best for themselves?
Democracy has suffered from the celeb culture in my opinnion parties are voted for simply in a popularity contest.
This I believe is highlighted with Tony Blair though I don&#39;t agree with his politics the idea that he can&#39;t be trusted seems totally wrong to me . At least he wasn&#39;t a slave to the publics views and did what he though was right that make him more trustworthy to me - usually laking in democracy.

monkeydust
12th January 2004, 19:55
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 08:06 PM
Do the people know whats best for themselves?
Democracy has suffered from the celeb culture in my opinnion parties are voted for simply in a popularity contest.
This I believe is highlighted with Tony Blair though I don&#39;t agree with his politics the idea that he can&#39;t be trusted seems totally wrong to me . At least he wasn&#39;t a slave to the publics views and did what he though was right that make him more trustworthy to me - usually laking in democracy.
The whole essence of &#39;representative&#39; democracy is that people don&#39;t have the time or the skill to govern their country, hence they elect representatives to govern. This would seem OK however in the case of Britain at least, the representatives (e.g. parties) in my opinion do not accurately reflect the views of the population at all.

To add to this the first past the post system is completely outdated, no party has since 1955 aquired above 50% of the voters support, to add to this, the &#39;winner takes all&#39; nature of the system sidelines minority parties and effectively makes all votes except those for the winning candidates worthless.



Tony Blair clearly isn&#39;t trustworthy, yet because he has such a huge majority, he can get away with so much. For example not only did his last manifesto not include top-up fees, it went so far to say that labour would not try to introduce them, as you should know, he&#39;s trying toi introduce them right now, effectively betraying the electorate that he hasn&#39;t already.

STI
12th January 2004, 20:13
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 12:42 PM
Democracy is only good when you&#39;re with friends and want to decide whether to eat pizza or chinese.

Nevertheless, as far as I know there has been no time in history were two democratic countries engaged into war with eachother, so it&#39;s fair to say that despite all its flaws it&#39;s the best system.

Another question perhaps interesting: can the people democratically decide to end democracy?
Not True. Chile 1973, the US supported Pinochet in overthrowing the democratic government of Salvador Allende.


Anyway, I wrote an article for my school&#39;s newspaper about how capitalism and democracy can&#39;t co- exist indefinately (one will destroy the other). A lot of focus has been put on Canada, b/c that&#39;s where I live, and it would be more relevant to the audience. Here it is:


Capitalism vs. Democracy


Canada adheres to two broad, widely- defined systems. One, our economic system, is Capitalism, where the "means of production" (the methods with which goods are produced), is controlled by private shareholders, and the workforce is used to generate profit. The other, our political system, is democracy, wherein sections of our government are selected by the public. It&#39;s my belief, after examining history, that one of our two systems will inevitably destroy the other.
I&#39;d like first to start by looking at examples of capitalism destroying democracy. One of the most apparent examples would be our nabours to the south. In the United States, the electoral system is controlled by two parties (appologies go to any Greens out there, but, come on, you know as well as I do that the two parties controll everything), the Democrats and the Republicans. On the surface, these two parties may look as though they have some differences, but they are, in reality, almost exactly the same. In fact, the only things the two parties disagree on are homosexual rights, and abortion (there are members of both parties who have recently spoken out against the war in Iraq, but both party lines officially agree on the issue). The economic models of both parties are almost identical (resembling &#39;trickle down&#39;, wherein large tax cuts are given to the richest people, in hopes that they&#39;ll invest in their businesses, creating jobs). When you can&#39;t distinguish one presidential candidate from another, you don&#39;t have democracy. Both parties are firmly in the hands of the country&#39;s richest men. Mega- corporations give massive donations to the Democrats and Republicans (or &#39;Republicrats&#39;, as they&#39;re &#39;fondly&#39; referred to by the left), which pretty much compells them to work for the interests of said mega- corporations. No democracy there.
The economic reasons for the war on Iraq (and in Afghanistan, for that matter), are no secret (OIL&#33;). As a result of these wars, freedom- decimating policies (ie. the USA Patriot Act ) have come into effect without question. The USA Patriot Act allows any person to be held in jail for indefinate lengths of time, without having charges laid, an opportunity to speak to a lawyer, or get out on bail. This act tramples the very freedom that was fought and died for. The very freedom on which democracy depends. Without freedom, there is no democracy.
Let&#39;s look at an example of democracy destroying capitalism. Chile, in 1970, elected Salvador Allende, a socialist as their president. Even though Chile was in the midst of a depression, Allende managed to impliment several social benefit programs (for example, he gave free milk to young children). Chile seemed to be well on the road to socialism, that is, until September 11, 2003. A US- backed coup put dictator and hardcore right- winger Pinochet into power, which effectively turned South America&#39;s oldest democracy into a slaughterhouse.
There are better examples, though. Venezuela, for example, is well on it&#39;s way to getting rid of capitalism. Venezuela was the only nation to stand against the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) plan. If implimented, both North and South America would become an unrestricted free trade zone, allowing the biggest corporations to hightail it to the third world in order to exploit the unrestricted labour laws (kept in place by displaced government death- squads). This is, of course, the dream wet of every industrial capitalist, and is capitalism at its peak.
There are cases all over the world of workers standing up and saying NO to capitalism by using their democratic rights of assembly, speech, and association. We only need to look at Europe to see how workers can use democracy to build better lives for themselves. Comparing the economic structures of, say, England in the 1800s to the pre- Thatcher days shows that huge strides to the left can be made democratically. Finding a democratic county who has elected a socialist/labour government is like shooting fish in a barrel.
Canada is a unique case, though. We seem to have taken both roads. The Anti- Terrorism bill, introduced in the wake of 9-11, takes away our freedoms in exactly the same manner as the USA Patriot Act. NAFTA&#39;s Chapter 11 gives a foreign corporation to (almost always successfully) sue a government for &#39;jeopardizing future profit&#39;. A perfect example of this was when EthylCorp, a US- Based oil company, sued the Canadian government, when parliament passed a bill banning the import of MMT (an additive in gasoline), a dangerous neurotoxin. EthylCorp sued the Canadian government for &#036;350 million in damages for lost future profit. To avoid having to pay this crippling sum, the Canadian government reversed its ban on MMT, and paid EthylCorp &#036;20 million in compensation "for its trouble". That sure isn&#39;t democracy.
We&#39;ve taken steps to weaken capitalism as well. Just this year, parliament passed a bill limitting union, corporate, and individual donations to political parties to &#036;1000/year. This is a huge step in the right direction, especially after looking at how big- money donations to the US&#39;s political parties has effectively destroyed any real democracy south of the border. Anti- scab laws are on the horizon for Canada as well, which would take away one of the deadliest weapons of the oppressive capitalists.
We&#39;re at a crossroads in this country. A crossroads between democratic socialism, and autocratic capitalism. What do you consider more precious, your freedom to elect, express, and protest; or your freedom to be exploited, impoverished, and pitted against your brother?


... Tell me what you think.

Monty Cantsin
12th January 2004, 21:24
until September 11, 2003.

you got that date wrong it was september 11, 1973 other then that i liked it and agreed with it.


The tyranny of the majority may not be great

Isn’t that what you want with the dictatorship of the proletarian?

LSD
12th January 2004, 22:52
Nevertheless, as far as I know there has been no time in history were two democratic countries engaged into war with eachother, so it&#39;s fair to say that despite all its flaws it&#39;s the best system.


Greek Wars, 5th and 4th Centuries BCE
Punic Wars, 2nd and 3rd Centuries BCE
Franco-American Naval War, 1797-1799
Anglo-American War, 1812-1815
American Civil War, 1861-65
Spanish-American War, 1898
First World War, 1914-18
Occupation of the Ruhr, 1923
Second World War, 1940-45
First Indo-Pak War, 1947-49
Iran, Guatemala and Chile, 1953, 1954 and 1973 respectively.
Cod Wars, 1958-61, 1973, 1975-6
Croatian War of Independence, 1991-92
Border War, 1995
Kosovo War, 1999
Fourth Indo-Pak War (Kargil War) 1999
Lebanese Civil War, 1978, 1982

ComradeRed
12th January 2004, 23:05
demokracy just DOESNT WORK, in a case of direct democracy sokrates knows the flaws, if it is an indirect democracy, then it becomes an elected oligarchy. Either way IT JUST DOESNT WORK&#33;&#33;&#33;&#33;

STI
12th January 2004, 23:19
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 10:24 PM

until September 11, 2003.

you got that date wrong it was september 11, 1973 other then that i liked it and agreed with it.


The tyranny of the majority may not be great

Isn’t that what you want with the dictatorship of the proletarian?
Thanks for pointing that out. I have no idea what i was thinking there. Geez.

MiDnIgHtMaRaUdEr
13th January 2004, 00:30
I say direct democracy....if it serves our interests. When people start voting in some people from the extreme right, something needs to be done.

Osman Ghazi
13th January 2004, 00:52
exploit the unrestricted labour laws (kept in place by displaced government death- squads).
Propagandhi much? :lol:

Monty Cantsin
13th January 2004, 01:11
US style democracy in Russia how it works

http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2...3/people/2.html (http://www.time.com/time/personoftheyear/2003/people/2.html)

Hegemonicretribution
14th January 2004, 08:35
Originally posted by [email protected] 12 2004, 06:49 PM

One system suggested here was proportional representaion, this is quite common already, however it has it&#39;s own problems. For example minorities are actually over represented. To put it another way if the fascist party got one seat, having that one man would have more influence than giving a larger party 1 more man a seat, hence minorities are almost over-voiced.

Other systems suggested are &#39;direct democracy&#39; where the public at large have a choice to vote on several issues rather than simply allow their representatives to do so, and &#39;demarchy&#39; advocated by redstar, a system whereby candidates are selected randomly.

Over-representation needn&#39;t be a problem in proportional systems, it is easy to say that in order to possess any seats you must hold at least 3%s worth or so, thus allowing smaller parties a chance, whilst stopping parties with less than one seats worth of seats getting any. If a fascist party is voted for, then it is the choice of people, and they should be represented so. It may not be desireable but thats democracy, you can&#39;t only allow certain people rights. Just hope that people are more rational in their voting.

Direct democracy, very nice but the tyranny of the majority will prevail.

As for T.B. he did what he thought was best, the s system allows for an "elected dictatorship" but perhaps that is a way in which things can be achieved as in fascism, but can also be reversed like in democracy. I think I agree with Burke, at least there.

moncadista
14th January 2004, 15:03
democracy is quite useless. the tyranny of the majority rules it out as a relavent system. why would we want to choose our opressors? (okay, that might be a little overdramatic.) why have a power structure when there is no need. communism does not include a power/ruling structure, so is chosing our leaders any different then them chosing themselves? we need to creat a community with no ruling class, not any ruling class whatsoever, regardless whether they are chosen or they sieze power.

P.S. sorry if that post makes no sense or is all roundabout. im not in any frame of mind to concentrate on writing anything understandable.

Xprewatik RED
14th January 2004, 23:58
Can anyone give a good link to a site that discusses the flaws of democracy i.e the dictatorship of the majority? The fact that the majority is not in power because it is the fairest rulers, or the fairest to the minorities; but simply because they are the majority. Also democracy seen in our time is an expedient, which oppurtunists use to their advantage. How the legislatures and parliments make people give up their concience for a governing body that is forced upon people.