Democracy

Post Reply New Topic

In the aftermath of the rebellion in Egypt and other Middle Eastern countries the focus seems to be on instituting a democratic system. Does democracy guarantee a just and free society? The founding fathers put little faith in democracy as anything other than an electoral system. Has the world forgotten about this? Is a true democracy the proper form of government for a modern society or is it little more than mob rule? What protects individual rights when the rules are whatever the majority says they are?
Is it proper for rights to be 'decided by committee?

Many forms of government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. - Sir Winston Churchill

It doesn't matter because the middle eastern cultures are still too barbaric to build and sustain a functional direct democracy or constitutional republic. If new secular dictators are not put in place, than militant clerics will eventually rise to power all over the middle east. If that happens, the best we can do is keep rival clerics in a state of civil war.

Perfect quote. I think society, in general, does not recognize the dangers of democracy. I think people do not realize that we have the freedoms we have in the US, not because of our democratic electoral system. Our freedoms our protected because we are a "...republic, if [we] can keep it."

There was a time when certain people used similar language to describe your forefathers.

Considering the level of barbarism out of the military organizations of the West now currently blasting people indiscriminately with advanced technology it's a bit idiotic to accuse other cultures of barbarism.

Not to be rude, but the subject is the concept of democracy and its validity, not whether or not the pre-enlightenment middle eastern societies are capable of a modern 'free' society.

Its difficult for me to say. On some level I think democracy is a great thing. But I also have firsthand experience with one of its many flaws, that being the ability of charismatic people to manipulate the masses. The entire Quebec Separatist movement that is relevant to my life is the perfect example of this. On the other hand, the fact that the province decides on it's future in a democratic manner is something I admire.

As technology advances direct democracy becomes more possible, but so too does the ability to corrupt the system. There has to be something better, but unless technology pushes our society in such a direction that individuals no longer need communities and thus communal decision making, I feel democracy is better then putting one's faith in an oligarchy or in a monarch.

Some would say that Democracy is dying in the modern time

@Vigilans:

I agree with everything but the last line. I think too much emphasis is put on democracy, it's only true value is the collection of opinions (elections). But what protects the individual from a society who does not recognize their rights in a democracy?

I'm conflicted about democracy on a couple of levels:

1) How democratic are we really? I mean, in the United States you pretty much have to be rich to get elected. And white (up until recently). And Christian. Really, the United States is an oligarchy. It's just that the oligarchy consists of two factions and the people feel like they have power when they choose a faction once every 4 years. Canada is a bit better in that you don't need as much money to get involved (the premier of one province was a gym teacher before entering politics). But on the other hand, the political parties are downright oppressive--if you, as a member, deviate from the party line, out you go. Not to mention our messed up electoral system--it is incredibly rare that the party in power actually has the majority of the popular vote.

2) Should the average person be trusted with decisions? To be perfectly honest, no. People are stupid. I include myself in that, even though I often think I know what's best for everyone. But I don't, and nor does anyone else. We inevitably get our emotions manipulated and/or ignore long term problems in favour of short term benefits because that's what the average person wants.

Is democracy necessary for a humain society... I don't know. It certainly doesn't lead directly too one... look at any number of "democracies" out there. And look at the United States, for that matter. Yes, people are free, but what sort of society refuses to save someone's life because they can't afford it. On the other hand, I can't think of many non-democratic societies that were particularly just. Napolean did a decent job within France I suppose. And, although they did many bad things, Communists did have a few enlightened policies too, even though Americans will never admit it. For example, when Lenin came to power in Russia, he basically made men and women equal in the eyes of the law. But over all, the only really just societies I've seen, even though they continue to have many injustices, are democracies.

@JWC

Majoritarianism is always a potential problem within democracies. The Founding Fathers of the United States saw pluralism as being the only answer: In their view, the larger and more diverse a democracy was, the less likely it was that majoritarianism would become a problem. There is, of course an opposite to this; the democracy that is so plural that it cannot reach consensus on anything; so the best form seems to be in a robust balance between the two.

As to Vigilans's comment; relating to the views that some people have of the dying of democracy. I think it is a useful idea, to a point. Democracy is not something that can be taken for granted, for long. All of the democracies of the ancient world were either conquered or committed suicide. It is therefore incumbent on us, to ensure that we always struggle against this possibility. The awareness of the potential end of our way of governance and life is, perhaps, the best motivator we have to make an effort to preserve it.

@AstroGeek:

1) Is someone who isn't wealthy really qualified to make decisions concerning the large amounts of money involved in running a country? I think that someone who has no experience in finance of that level would be in over their head. I know a lot of really wealthy people, and in spite of what most people think, it isn't all that easy. Maintaining wealth takes a lot of discipline. Why do you think 60% of ex-NFL players file for bankruptcy?

2) Decisions are a necessary part of life. It's called responsibility. No one knows what's best for everyone, but it's important to know what is best for yourself and have the freedom to achieve what they believe is best for themselves, granted they do not rob someone else of their right to the same freedom.

Communism made both men and women equal to dogs and rats, they were only equal in their misery. Read We The Living by Ayn Rand. It is fictional but heavily based on real experiences she had as a child/young adult in communist Russia. It's not too heavy on politics like Atlas Shrugged.

@91:

Agreed. What, then, is there to protect us from democracy gone made? As I'm sure you've encountered in earlier discussions many of the individuals who post to this forum are of the opinion that society determines rights, can a society that has no concept of rights be trusted to decide what they are?

In my view, it depends. I don't really have a big problem if people cannot objectively ground rights in the metaphysical sense. I do think, that people can becomes so relativistic that they have no framework upon which a conception of rights can be built. The fact that I believe that objective moral values, do indeed exist, means that I think it more likely than not that even relativists will be able to interact with them in a mostly effective way.

As to the question of what protects us from democracy gone bad? I personally think that we have two refuges. The first is the disestablishment right; that a society gone bad can be taken down as a right of the people. Secondly, I think that religious values that enlighten us, can be used to provide us with certainty of our personal value, wholely apart from the value judgement made by society.

@91:

Well said.

What if the majority decides to deny the right of disestablishment? What good are religious values in a society that prevents you from translating those values into action?

An objective basis for rights is necessary to make them concrete. Relativism necessarily devolves into emotionalism, when emotionalism rules, rights go out the window.

@JWC

I do not think there is a good answer to that question. If society takes your rights away wholesale and you are on the sad end of a rough majority, then, you are in a pretty bad situation. Sometimes all one has left, is the ability to be loyal and say no, like St. Thomas More did. Otherwise, one can move elsewhere, to where they will be more appreciated... There is a reason the United States got to have all those fantastic Jewish scientists.