Thread: Bерите в демократию? / Do you believe in Democracy?

Is Democracy a religion to be believed in?

Originally Posted by Sir Winston Leonard Spencer Churchill

"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."

Pretty much sums it up as far as I'm concerned. Under any system there will always be a bunch of bastards at the top table. Democracy just ensures that no particular set of bastards ever gets too comfortable there.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Is Democracy a religion to be believed in?

Снежный человек - это религия? Нет. Но в него можно верить или не верить.
Для многих демократия - это именно религия.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Is Democracy a religion to be believed in?

Originally Posted by Marcus

Снежный человек - это религия? Нет. Но в него можно верить или не верить.
Для многих демократия - это именно религия.

this is minute difference as god was witnessed by selected few just like the Big Foot and there's no independent credible 100% reliable evidence of their existence, so the notion of belief equally applies to both

for those who never lived under democracy it maybe hard to comprehend that it's really possible, but you don't have to rely on hearsay as in the case of god and the Big Foot, you can see it in action with your own eyes and feel on your own flesh

yeah it's not perfect but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Is Democracy a religion to be believed in?

In the minds words of many politicians - it is. As well as in the minds of many non-politicians. This propaganda trick is called 'substitution of notions'. Today, 'no democracy' means 'evil, not right, wrong'

Originally Posted by Ramil

In the minds words of many politicians - it is. As well as in the minds of many non-politicians. This propaganda trick is called 'substitution of notions'. Today, 'no democracy' means 'evil, not right, wrong'

No, I don't think so. I think it's generally believed that oppression and violence by the state are "evil, not right, wrong", and that democracy is (and has historically been) the best method of preventing such. No substitutions of notions necessary.

Originally Posted by zedeeyen

No, I don't think so. I think it's generally believed that oppression and violence by the state are "evil, not right, wrong", and that democracy is (and has historically been) the best method of preventing such. No substitutions of notions necessary.

You don't see anything wrong with 'no democracy = oppression and violence' do you? And of course, where democracy is there's no place for oprression and violence...

Originally Posted by Ramil

You don't see anything wrong with 'no democracy = oppression and violence' do you? And of course, where democracy is there's no place for oprression and violence...

I didn't say that [no democracy = oppression and violence] or that [democracy = no oppression and violence]. I said that "I think it's generally believed... that democracy is (and has historically been) the best method of preventing such".

Saying that something is the least-worst option does not imply that it is the only one, or that it is a sufficient condition on its own.

Originally Posted by Ramil

In the minds words of many politicians - it is. As well as in the minds of many non-politicians. This propaganda trick is called 'substitution of notions'. Today, 'no democracy' means 'evil, not right, wrong'

it's just political correctness

but lack of democracy indeed means lack of many personal freedoms, if the nation is ok with such state of affairs fine

still almost nobody emigrates from the West to non-democratic countries however prosperous they are, not in masses for certain, why? If we discount various bureaucratic barriers and personal issues it's simply because under relatively healthy democracy you enjoy both personal freedoms and economic prosperity, who in his right mind would give up on that?

Originally Posted by LXNDR

it's just political correctness

but lack of democracy indeed means lack of many personal freedoms, if the nation is ok with such state of affairs fine

Democracy doesn't automatically provide personal freedoms, etc. Democracy in its classic definition only declares that all people can participate in forming of the national policy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not say that there must be any personal freedoms except that everyone can elect and be elected.
All other 'implied' meanings are attributed to democracy by illiterate politicians and their even more illiterate followers.

still almost nobody emigrates from the West to non-democratic countries however prosperous they are, not in masses for certain, why?

Simply because people prefer to emigrate to more prosperous countries than their own and nobody wishes to emigrate to less wealthy countries. And don't even try to give all credit for the well-being of 'the West' to the fact they have seemingly 'democratic' political systems. There are other democracies as well (Pakistan, Lebannon, Mexico... lol even Greece - the most 'prosperous' country in the EU) and they're not going to be any wealthier than they are now in the nearest future. Economic well-being of the country has nothing to do with democracy.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Democracy doesn't automatically provide personal freedoms, etc. Democracy in its classic definition only declares that all people can participate in forming of the national policy. That's all. Nothing more, nothing less. It does not say that there must be any personal freedoms except that everyone can elect and be elected.
All other 'implied' meanings are attributed to democracy by illiterate politicians and their even more illiterate followers.

and it's enough to have formed humanistic socially oriented national policy if that's what the majority wants and what the politicians are able to provide
under other types of political system what the majority wants isn't taken into consideration

Originally Posted by Ramil

Simply because people prefer to emigrate to more prosperous countries than their own and nobody wishes to emigrate to less wealthy countries. And don't even try to give all credit for the well-being of 'the West' to the fact they have seemingly 'democratic' political systems. There are other democracies as well (Pakistan, Lebannon, Mexico... lol even Greece - the most 'prosperous' country in the EU) and they're not going to be any wealthier than they are now in the nearest future. Economic well-being of the country has nothing to do with democracy.

and i don't, in my post i didn't conditioned one by the other i just combined them, clearly if there weren't any undemocratic countries as wealthy as the Western or wealthier yet my argument about emigration from the West wouldn't make sense

Originally Posted by LXNDR

and it's enough to have formed humanistic socially oriented national policy if that's what the majority wants and what the politicians are able to provide under other types of political system what the majority wants isn't taken into consideration

Unfortunately, taking many 'democratic' countries as an example I see that this is usually not enough to form 'humanistic socially oriented national policy'. Nearly every country in the world is a democracy now, but where do we see 'humanistic and socially oriented national policy'? Only in a select few (the most wealthy ones).
Let's then take Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabya - the absolute monarchies. In many ways, these 'dictatorships' provide better and more humanistic national policies than their democratic counterparts.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Unfortunately, taking many 'democratic' countries as an example I see that this is usually not enough to form 'humanistic socially oriented national policy'. Nearly every country in the world is a democracy now, but where do we see 'humanistic and socially oriented national policy'? Only in a select few (the most wealthy ones).
Let's then take Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabya - the absolute monarchies. In many ways, these 'dictatorships' provide better and more humanistic national policies than their democratic counterparts.

I'd be interested to hear how you've rated Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia as being in possession of humanistic national policies. I am not being facetious; I'm very curious to hear the details of your assessment. The principles of monarchy have been examined many times in literature, of which dissertations my favorite is Machiavelli's; I've not read one that does not dismiss the general populace, PARTICULARLY the poorer sections of these populae (commonly called "peasants" in these older texts), as being little more than a movable, pliable, and penultimately enslaved resource among many on the chess-board of the Monarch. How the position of this Monarch could be swayed, autonomously or by outside forces, to represent support of the "humanistic" and "social" segments of societal thought, I fail to understand.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Simply because people prefer to emigrate to more prosperous countries than their own and nobody wishes to emigrate to less wealthy countries. And don't even try to give all credit for the well-being of 'the West' to the fact they have seemingly 'democratic' political systems. There are other democracies as well (Pakistan, Lebannon, Mexico... lol even Greece - the most 'prosperous' country in the EU) and they're not going to be any wealthier than they are now in the nearest future. Economic well-being of the country has nothing to do with democracy.

There is a lot of propaganda against those countries that are considered "evil dictatorships".
I think a manual worker might be just as well off in certain "communist" countries for example, more prestige and better opportunities for their children etc, than they'd get in many democratic countries. (But there are two sides to the coin and Communists do not exactly treat the bourgeousie with respect....) Nevertheless there were some examples of American soldiers who became committed communists after having been captured by the enemy during America's wars in the 50s and 60s. Some of them stayed on in Asia etc and found that their life was no worse than it had been in the USA and decided to stay put rather than go home. In order to explain this to families etc - the concept of "brainwashing" was invented. I saw a rather good documentary about this, called "They chose China".

And I personally think that democracy is a bit of an illusion.
Any country can call itself a democracy and apply some more or less valid logic to support this.
Likewise any country can be accused of being a dictatorship, and facts to support this could be found.

I don't think democracy as invented by the Greek was ever intended to be applied to an entire country. The ancient Greeks applied it to cities only, and not everyone was entitled to vote - only those that were considered to be able to cast an informed vote.

I think democracy toay is simply a really clever marketing trick to make people believe that their opinion count, when really it doesn't in the least. Countries are essentially run by financial interests...

The quote by Goethe in one of Ramil's posts is very relevant, I think.

What's most important in a society is the ability to better one's lot in life, to get good education and medical care - and for there to be a justice system that is reasonably fair, well functioning and predictable. There should also be solid protection for the weakest people in society. I am not at all convinced that a democracy is always the best way of providing such a society for citizens.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

I'm a little surprised that so many people voted for believing in democracy. I personally think very little of it.

I don't think anyone who is American would dream of voting for anything other than "believe in democracy". Same with most Europeans, although opinions are a bit more widely spread in Europe, there are many more socialists, anarchists and people who are just super conservative and want some kind of monarchy.

As for ex USSR people - I think democracy simply has not proven itself to you... and it is completely understandable that you have no faith in it. Whether it has not worked because it is flawed, or because of local circumstances, or people sabotaging it... I would not claim to know.

@ the people who do not believe in democracy:
Would you say that the United Kingdom, USA, Germany and France respectively..... are democracies?

Personally I think that Germany (primarily) and France are closer to the democratic ideal than the UK and the USA. Israel is another country that seems quite democratic to me, quite a lot of different types of parties and groups are represented. The EU is very undemocratic. This cannot be denied basically - even the biggest EU supporters admit it.

Originally Posted by Hanna

I don't think democracy as invented by the Greek was ever intended to be applied to an entire country. The ancient Greeks applied it to cities only, and not everyone was entitled to vote - only those that were considered to be able to cast an informed vote[/B].

Yes, democracy could work if only not everyone is allowed to vote. That's very simple. This has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with ability. One should have to pass certain tests (like the one you pass before aquiring a driver's permit) in order to prove that he's able to make important and responsible decisions and only after that this person should be allowed to vote. The same thing (with even more strict tests) should be applied to candidates. Any official, any minister and certainly the president should prove they're able for the job. Being a president is a job. You must interview a candidate and be sure he's able and don't trust a decision made by a stupid crowd. Such decisions should be made not by blind and stupid chance that elections provide, but in the process when certain able people should choose between certain able candidates. That's how it should work.

Originally Posted by Ramil

Being a president is a job. You must interview a candidate and be sure he's able and don't trust a decision made by a stupid crowd. Such decisions should be made not by blind and stupid chance that elections provide, but in the process when certain able people should choose between certain able candidates. That's how it should work.

can you tell who this YOU is? it must be someone with the authority higher than the President's if it's him/her/them who entrusts him this job. It could be the 'stupid crowd' like in most modern democracies, but you dismiss it. Who is this then? Aristocrats? Who are in turn appointed by whom?

Originally Posted by Ramil

Yes, democracy could work if only not everyone is allowed to vote. That's very simple. This has nothing to do with equality, it has to do with ability. One should have to pass certain tests (like the one you pass before aquiring a driver's permit) in order to prove that he's able to make important and responsible decisions and only after that this person should be allowed to vote. The same thing (with even more strict tests) should be applied to candidates. Any official, any minister and certainly the president should prove they're able for the job. Being a president is a job. You must interview a candidate and be sure he's able and don't trust a decision made by a stupid crowd. Such decisions should be made not by blind and stupid chance that elections provide, but in the process when certain able people should choose between certain able candidates. That's how it should work.

Very interesting point. You do realize such interviewing implies there will have to be a "president's boss"? So, my questions for now are, who will be holding such a post, how will they be hired, and what will they be doing after the president gets elected?