Democracy debate

[Reindeer911_SC]

Another simple question with a complex answer. Is democracy in any of it's forms all it's cracked up to be?

Yes, democracy is supposed to represent the "will of the people"... but is this necessarily a "good" thing? For those who live under some form of democracy, can it be said that the majority of the population is truly well informed enough to make a good decision on the issues and leaders?

Before anybody answers "of course!", keep in mind that some of history's worst bad guys were democratically elected to power, at least initially. Yes, one could argue that in at least some cases those leaders used corruption and/or rigged the system to stay in power. However, can one really look at what has happened in this country (U.S.A.) and say that we don't have problems with corruption or rigged elections ourselves?

Discuss!

[Black_Barook!]

I live in Kuwait, a constitutional Democracy.

What does that mean?

We have a ruling family. They rule us. Unlike other Royal families, the selection of the Amir is done by seeing the best candidate in the family. So it’s not a Hereditary Monarchy.

We also have a parliament that we elect. Their job is to make sure the Amir is in line and doesn’t infringe on our rights.

Frankly, in my opinion, parliament sucks. There are a few good people in it, but the majority rather scream, shout and steal money that should be invested in Kuwait.

The late Amir, God rest his soul, was the best. He cared about Kuwait. The new…I’d rather not voice my opinion for fear of being locked up. Which is strange seeing as how we have free speech.

I guess I have to wait and see. If life becomes unbearable then I hope to ship my family out. Life isn’t bad, in fact our standers of living are high…but I’m afraid Kuwait is changing for the worse….or maybe I’m being melodramatic.

[Doddibot]

can it be said that the majority of the population is truly well informed enough to make a good decision on the issues and leaders?

No, of course not. The majority of people are completely and utterly ignorant in nearly all realms of current affairs, economic theory, international relations, sociology and resource management. And yet, we trust the decisions of electing representatives (and thus, keep representatives as slaves to public opinion, if they want to have any chance of re-election). The decisions, for the most part, are made by those who are not qualified to do so.

Personally, I consider there are two ways to solve this, with the first being less revolutionary.

One way to increase the quality of decision making would be to preface all electoral ballots with 20 multiple-choice questions on relevant issues. Things about current promises by the candidates, hot-topics and national affairs. Do well in the quiz, and your vote counts more. If the people don't know where North Korea even is, why should they be able to vote someone on their policy about North Korea? If the people don't know what the candidates are even proposing, why should they be able to choose between them? At least this would moderate the choices to be biased in favour of the person who spent two hours reviewing the policies versus the person who just showed up to vote for candidate with the nicest looking poster.

The alternative is far more revolutionary. It would require a complete reshuffling of the political system. Although I said above the people are ignorant of how their country should be run, they are generally more knowledgeable about how their area of life should be run. That is, teachers and scientists would be able to make competent decisions on who the Minister for Education, Science and Training is, but not so much on who the Minister for Foreign Affairs is.

So, instead of electing a leader, who then chooses his cabinet, we would go the other way. You could vote for your immediate representatives are, but not who represents them. So, if you were a teacher, you could vote for a representative teacher to act as your spokesperson. Then, the spokespeople for kindergarten teachers, high school teachers, professors, scientists, trainers and so on, could elect a representative among themselves to be their spokesperson - Minister for Education, Science and Training. Likewise for all the staff employed in industries related to foreign affairs. And then, all the ministers for the various fields could vote on who could preside over them - a Prime Minister or President. That would still be somewhat democratic, just without the useless bits where the ignorant public votes in a single party, whose incapable leader (I mean it - no single person could make these decisions) chooses incompetent people to make decisions on various field. It is because of this we (in Australia at least) have a barrister controlling education and science; an economist controlling the health system and aged care; a solicitor controlling agriculture, fisheries and the forests; a doctor controlling the defence force; a farmer in control of tourism and so on.

[Synthesis]

How it works varies from country to country. I'd be reluctant to cite the American democracy as an example because, while it is very old, it also is practically a one-party state: you have two choices, always two, and they tend to be very similar on many issues.

Sure, you can have a one-party democracy, but it becomes a lot less meaningful (one of the reasons, I think, many Americans do not vote).

I'd also say there are both political and economic aspects of democracy. Political equality is invariably linked to economic equality--people won't vote if they're struggling simply to survive, and feel that their vote makes little difference. And those with enormous economic strength usually have disproportionately high political strength over others.

Of course, that part is hardly a uniquely American problem.

I personally hold democratic processes in higher regard than monarchy, which can be positive, but is frequently little more than dictatorship with incest. I also think that democracy with even only two political parties is better than the joke of one-party "democratic" rule, such as the KMT in my own home country. It should have simply gone ahead and admitted it was a fascist dictatorship for forty years, as it was, but then it'd have more trouble in recent elections.

[sabrown100]

How it works varies from country to country. I'd be reluctant to cite the American democracy as an example because, while it is very old, it also is practically a one-party state: you have two choices, always two, and they tend to be very similar on many issues.

Sure, you can have a one-party democracy, but it becomes a lot less meaningful (one of the reasons, I think, many Americans do not vote).

I'd also say there are both political and economic aspects of democracy. Political equality is invariably linked to economic equality--people won't vote if they're struggling simply to survive, and feel that their vote makes little difference. And those with enormous economic strength usually have disproportionately high political strength over others.

Of course, that part is hardly a uniquely American problem.

I personally hold democratic processes in higher regard than monarchy, which can be positive, but is frequently little more than dictatorship with incest. I also think that democracy with even only two political parties is better than the joke of one-party "democratic" rule, such as the KMT in my own home country. It should have simply gone ahead and admitted it was a fascist dictatorship for forty years, as it was, but then it'd have more trouble in recent elections.

It's the same here in the UK. I remember something about The Conservatives promising to "match Labour's spending".:!!:

[Haylifer]

I'd rather live in a democratic country than under a dictatorship personally. Having at least some free speech is preferred over having absolutely none.

Those politically-inclined amongst us always will criticise their countries politics. Even when the politics are perfect there'll be those that disagree. It's all about opinion and some people take their opinions too far. Like, in my opinion Blair was the best PM we've had here in the UK in the past 30 years or so. Many people think Thatcher was, but I think she was a psycho bint, but again opinions -shrug- I'm rambling anyway :lol: Politics scare me.

[Rabid]

A democracy isn't perfect and never will be, but then again, what form of government is? I think a democratic republic is one of the ideal governments to live under because it allows the people a measure of power that communism and dictatorship don't, but it's not perfect. The problem with democracy is the voting issue; many of those eligible to vote are not motivated enough and, because of their absence at the polls, the person elected may not reflect the true feelings of the nation. If there was some way to coerce everyone of age to vote into voting, perhaps the crisis would be solved.

I've heard of countries that force eligible voters into voting by imposing a fine as a penalty if they don't. Honestly, I don't know if this would be such a bad thing. It might persuade people to take their government more seriously, but it's a slippery slope. Forcing people to have an opinion and benefitting from it as a nation seems better than national governmental apathy and a leader that reflects it, or at least to me. Government in and of itself is imperfect, but then again, so is anarchy.

[sabrown100]

[QUOTE=RabidAngel77]A democracy isn't perfect and never will be, but then again, what form of government is? I think a democratic republic is one of the ideal governments to live under because it allows the people a measure of power that communism and dictatorship don't, but it's not perfect. The problem with democracy is the voting issue; many of those eligible to vote are not motivated enough and, because of their absence at the polls, the person elected may not reflect the true feelings of the nation. If there was some way to coerce everyone of age to vote into voting, perhaps the crisis would be solved.
[QUOTE]

No - that would be dangerous. They might just guess and someone terrible might get in.

[Black_Barook!]

No - that would be dangerous. They might just guess and someone terrible might get in.

Like Bush?

[Synthesis]

Some countries require voting in national elections of all citizens--Argentina is one. I'm not certain, but I think it's born out of fear of disenfranchisement which gave rise to military dictatorship for decades.

There are obvious problems with it--"If people can't be bothered to go out and vote, do you really want them voting?". But make a government that is more subject to the will of the electorate.

Compare this to ours in America, where incumbents secure their position in Congress for decades, and the electoral college guarantees political minorities in a state have no representation in the executive branch. It's no wonder American voter turn-out is on the lower side. Our system isn't perfect either, clearly.

There are just so many deciding factors, really. Some people would consider the electoral college desirable, while myself and others consider it a archaic, non-democratic feature.

[Black_Barook!]

Having at least some free speech is preferred over having absolutely none.

I have to disagree, on one point.

I'd rather have a government that is able to create a stable economy, a strong Nation. No wars. Keeps corruption down. Makes sure that I never have to worry about my kids or grandkids becasue I have a government that will take care of them.

Though I can understand why you want a government that let's you speak. I on the other hand don't have to worry. Dictatorships are forbidden in Islam.

[Reindeer911_SC]

I'd rather live in a democratic country than under a dictatorship personally. Having at least some free speech is preferred over having absolutely none.

The irony is that many dictators ARE democratically elected! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and Hamas were all voted into power!

[Doddibot]

I've heard of countries that force eligible voters into voting by imposing a fine as a penalty if they don't.
Yes, Australia does that.

I'm of two minds about it. On one side, I can see that this ensures the silent majority gets a voice rather than the outspoken minority. But then again, perhaps those who are most inclined to vote are those who are informed enough to make the best decision (then again, maybe they are the ones who are fiercely loyal to one party, and never consider the others). I really don't know.

[Haylifer]

I on the other hand don't have to worry. Dictatorships are forbidden in Islam.

What about Saddam Hussein? Wasn't Iraq an Islamic country? -gets confused- :blink:

EDIT: Aha..

The irony is that many dictators ARE democratically elected! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and Hamas were all voted into power!

Buut they then turned the country into a dictatorship, so it was no longer a democracy. Well, in some cases they just scared people into voting them.. it's still a dictatorship to my mind :eviltongu Anyway, I don't even get to vote. That sucks. If I did, I'd vote Monster Raving Loony Party! Bring in the 99p coin, heated pavements and seperate passports for terrorists! They actually have some good policies, I think.

[Black_Barook!]

What about Saddam Hussein? Wasn't Iraq an Islamic country? -gets confused- :blink:

Errr...no. What gave you that impression. It was a secular ruthless dictatorship, dressed up as an Islamic Government.

Saddam Hussein did more then his fair share of killing anyone who was even a little bit religious.

People who would go to Haji would be put on a little black list.

Syria isn't better, nor is Egypt both secular dictatorships, masquerading as Islamic States.

Also Saudi Arabia would fall under that, but not secular. Just a twisted Islamic State with a ruling family.

[urisStar]

Democracy is running a muck in America when you have the men and women who are sent to fight to uphold it finds themselves fighting the very ones who sent them for their rights to democracy. It would be funny if the threat was not so common thereby putting all Americans on notice that freedom is only freedom until you attempt to actually use it. The war has only just began! :handbag: :eviltongu

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/091807R.shtml

[kennyinbmore]

The irony is that many dictators ARE democratically elected! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and Hamas were all voted into power!

if you call those elections. Hamas is the only one among that group that was really elected

[ElZorro]

Democracy may not be perfect, but who would want to live in a dictatorship?

[Amish Nick_SC]

This has been dead for almost a year, can we please not revive dead threads!

[ElZorro]

This has been dead for almost a year, can we please not revive dead threads!

I haven't been a member for a year and this thread isn't locked.

[sayyadina_SC]

The really tough thing about democracy in the modern sense of the word is that it comes with a lot of individual responsibility. Sweden often takes pride in being a highly democratic country, yet people demand things to be run democratically by itself, like democracy is the new religion or something. If you want things to be democratically done, you have to devote time to take care of democracy, and, even better, become a politician yourself and spend the rest of your life discussing, debating and voting like the old Greeks once did. How very unlikely that is! True democracy only works in theory.
And some kids here in Sweden simply think democracy means "freedom". As if!
(...tired...)

[ElZorro]

And some kids here in Sweden simply think democracy means "freedom". As if!
(...tired...)

Which system of government do you feel is most compatible with high levels of personal freedom?

[Synthesis]

The irony is that many dictators ARE democratically elected! Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Saddam Hussein, and Hamas were all voted into power!

I realize this was posted some time ago, but that's not technically correct.

Josef Stalin was never "voted" into power. He was appointed First Secretary (sometimes known as General Secretary) of the Soviet Union's Communist Party in 1922, two years before Vladimir Lenin's Death. Lenin himself was only held one formal position: Chairman of the People's Commissars, and he was succeeded by Alexei Rykov. The position of General Secretary was originally strictly over appointments, and that of somewhat limited power (in any case, Lenin was still the formal head of government, even though he's health was rapidly failing). Stalin used the power vacuum left by Lenin's death in 1924 to turn the Secretariat into the central power over the Supreme Soviet and the Congress of Soviets, and establish himself as dictator, not unlike the Tsars his government had removed. He used said power to remove Rykov in 1930.

While he was in power, the USSR did have several elections--mostly on amendments to the still relatively-new Soviet Constitution (some of which actually resulted in change, most others of which did not). My memory isn't perfect, but Stalin himself did stand for election in his position of Chairman of the People's Commissars (General Secretary is not voted for ever, it's an appointment through and through), but we can assume these were pretty phony elections. That being said, he was already well-established in power this way.

Unlike other dictators, Stalin's rise to absolute power was heavily analyzed during and after his lifetime, and thus, the Soviet Government established several legal protocols to avoid a repeat of it. While we in America might believe differently, the USSR was not a dictatorship over a alliance of Socialist Republics--it was an oligarchy over them, with power highly defused between the positions of Prime Minister, General Secretary, and other offices. No leader of the USSR ever came close to wielding the power Stalin had, including even Lenin himself--in no small part due to the Second World War.

I'm also fairly certain Mao Tse-Tung wasn't formally elected either. Hitler was elected Reich Chancellor, though later, he combined the officer with Reich President as an emergency action. Hamas was elected into seats of the Palestinian Leadership, which brings up an interesting point--we, as Americans, tend to be supporters of democracy, until it becomes evident that our opponents will win (see Operation Ajax in Iran, and elections in Chile and Vietnam prior to the civil war). Which is not to say I support Hamas--I don't, but then again, I'm not a Palestinian, so my opinion might be mute.

In any case, this is an old thread, but I think it's important to clear up certain misconceptions.

[lockshockbarrel]

I think that the United States system, with all its original intentions, (except for judicial review, that's not constitutional and I think it's just as important as the rest of it) is basically the best.

By that, I mean that a constitutional democratic republic, with a strong but not too strong executive leader, strong congress, checks and balances like the supreme court's judicial review to uphold our natural rights, which I strongly believe in, is simply the closest thing to a perfect system that I'm aware of. James Madison did his homework.

Here's why: The democracy part of it ensures that we all have a voice in the government. The republic part of it ensures that the backbone of our government isn't mass-public-whim. The constitutional part (as well as the ability to enforce it via the Supreme Court) makes sure that our rights to things like freedom of speech and religion are upheld.

Case in point: The California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. I don't care how many people don't want it to happen, if the Supreme Court says that it's unconstitutional to deny gays that ability, that it's their right to be able to marry each other, then you cannot take it away from them, any more than you can take away people's right to due process of law. (And we keep the Supreme Court in check by choosing an executive)

Ta-da!

Edit: Ack, just realized this had been dead for a while... It's still a fun debate, though, at least, if you're as big of a history nerd as I am.

By the way, Adolf Hitler manipulated the Weimar Republic system to get himself appointed, not elected, Chancellor, as well. His party was a significant minority, but a minority nonetheless.

[ElZorro]

Case in point: The California Supreme Court ruling in favor of gay marriage. I don't care how many people don't want it to happen, if the Supreme Court says that it's unconstitutional to deny gays that ability, that it's their right to be able to marry each other, then you cannot take it away from them, any more than you can take away people's right to due process of law. (And we keep the Supreme Court in check by choosing an executive)

In California, the State Supreme Court is also subject to the voters.

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/supreme/about.htm

"One Chief Justice and six associate justices are appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Commission on Judicial Appointments. The appointments are confirmed by the public at the next general election; justices also come before voters at the end of their 12-year terms."