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

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.

I think democracy has proved itself superior in many ways to all other forms of government. This can be seen both in their longevity (few, if any, stable democracies have stopped being democracies), and in comparative studies of popular well-being.

A key asset for the democratic state is also that people, even though many are indifferent, have far greater reasons to take politics seriously and figure out how stuff works. This is important both because people then educate themselves (and knowledge is the solution to many ailments inflicting nations) and because they have take other people's interest seriously - you cannot convince people to vote for you and support your politics unless they see it as being in line with their interest.

The importance of knowledge and thinking beyond your own narrow interests should not be underestimated, and democracies have these features built into their very framework in a way that other governance systems don't.

I agree with it-ogo and Ramil. Only meaningful questions could have meaningful answers.

What kind? Outline of democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I want to respect the arguments of intellectuals, so I'll try to approach this carefully. I voted for "believe" and I'll briefly explain why. It's not so much because I view democracy as being perfect, divine, ordained, etc. etc.. but rather it's because I fail to see the existence of a superior alternative. As concerns Communism: I've never met a person, from children to the elderly, who didn't understand the concept of Communism in its basic sixth-grade-reading-level description. It's a theory which is hard to debunk because it's as simple and seamless as the Western phrase "Share and share alike" or "waste not, want not." In one piece, it seems completely sensible. ... That being said, I am still waiting to be shown a decent example of Communism in action that does not degrade to a system of self-deceptive corruption. ... THAT being said - democracy is guilty of the same thing, that it tends to collapsure into self-deceptive corruption.

So all things considered, democracy is the best of the evils at hand, in MY opinion, because since it PRETENDS to put the people in control, it has the least amount of actual unshakable control over the populace and their reaction.. Censorship may choke the rebel and the outspeaker in ANY system, but in democracy, we're at least aloud to SHOUT about our complaints and our problems, without being shot or declared insane or, as I've been told happens in China, suddenly be "picked up" by government agents, never to be seen again.

I personally think there's more hell caused by governments because they are of completely different and incompatible structures to one another, than because any one system is wholly right or wrong.

Thanks for letting me share my opinion. Thanks to Hanna for the provocative question.

I believe that handful of successful monarchies can be humanistic due to sustaining on rich natural resources, that is not having to exploit people at all or too much for the sake of personal enrichment, which in turn pacifies the nation

I can understand the argument of communism vs. democracy, because communism intends to keep everybody even and make them contribute evenly, whereas democracy allows them to choose their own level of contribution and intends to pay them according to what they contribute. That's really more of a debate of personal motivations towards labor and riches than anything else. .... I DON'T understand how anybody would prefer Monarchy, though, because it's a complete acquiescence of man's individual authority over his environment, no apologies, no regards, no receipts and no returns. I fail to see how anybody besides the Monarch and his Besties could possibly benefit from that. In the old days, the "peasants" would support a Monarch only because he was freeing them from the hands of another, crueler Monarch, or from the hands of the Elite/Noble Classes, who were persecuting and abusing them at the time. If that's not the case, history tends to show that the "peasant" class was never even consulted in the change of regime, but just kind of plowed into place by infantries and cavalries, and cut down if they consented. From what little I know of Russia's history, I think there was a lot of this, the cutting down of the peasant class by the military.

kidkboom, communism as a political system is a democracy.

how anybody would prefer Monarchy, though, because it's a complete acquiescence of man's individual authority over his environment, no apologies, no regards, no receipts and no returns.

Im some 'democratic' countries this is also true. My opinion is - no democracy de facto exists and here's why:

Democracy is an egalitarian form of government, still - there are categories who are limited in their rights and don't vote (children). One can argue that a child cannot make decisions and cannot take responcibility for his or her actions. That is probably true, but consider this situation: in my country one can elect and be elected at the minimum age of 18. Today is the election day and this brilliant person is turning 18 only tomorrow. No voting right for him. Another situation - a person is 25 years old but he is mentally underdeveloped due to some illness. He can vote allright but he doesn't even understands the importance and the meaning of this action. Why we prefer his vote and reject the vote of the younger one?
There's more. It is a sad truth that through usage of trickstery, sophistry, outright lies and other propaganda tricks one wealthy or powerful (or both) evil man can win the mood of the crowd and make them vote for him. You can be optimistic about that but the average IQ of any population of any country is probably somewhere between 30 and 40. Democracy allows this 'stupidity rules' principle. In fact democracy encourages this principle.
More of that - even though democracy declares 'the equality of rights' we all know that the rich and powerfull will always have more rights and personal freedoms than the others. This is not a fault of democracy per se, but democracy leads the ordinary people to believe that they have equal rights with the rich while the rich quietly laugh at the 'plebs' and continue doing what they like.
I could continue... to cut it short - democracy is a show, some trick that makes the population think 'they're free and equal'. It is an instrument to remove the psychological discomfort that occurs when one realizes that there's still aristocraty and the rich and the powerful who decide the fates of ordinary people.

No one is more of a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Originally Posted by Ramil

kidkboom, communism as a political system is a democracy.



Im some 'democratic' countries this is also true. My opinion is - no democracy de facto exists and here's why:

Democracy is an egalitarian form of government, still - there are categories who are limited in their rights and don't vote (children). One can argue that a child cannot make decisions and cannot take responcibility for his or her actions. That is probably true, but consider this situation: in my country one can elect and be elected at the minimum age of 18. Today is the election day and this brilliant person is turning 18 only tomorrow. No voting right for him. Another situation - a person is 25 years old but he is mentally underdeveloped due to some illness. He can vote allright but he doesn't even understands the importance and the meaning of this action. Why we prefer his vote and reject the vote of the younger one?
There's more. It is a sad truth that through usage of trickstery, sophistry, outright lies and other propaganda tricks one wealthy or powerful (or both) evil man can win the mood of the crowd and make them vote for him. You can be optimistic about that but the average IQ of any population of any country is probably somewhere between 30 and 40. Democracy allows this 'stupidity rules' principle. In fact democracy encourages this principle.
More of that - even though democracy declares 'the equality of rights' we all know that the rich and powerfull will always have more rights and personal freedoms than the others. This is not a fault of democracy per se, but democracy leads the ordinary people to believe that they have equal rights with the rich while the rich quietly laugh at the 'plebs' and continue doing what they like.
I could continue... to cut it short - democracy is a show, some trick that makes the population think 'they're free and equal'. It is an instrument to remove the psychological discomfort that occurs when one realizes that there's still aristocraty and the rich and the powerful who decide the fates of ordinary people.

No one is more of a slave than he who thinks himself free without being so.
-- Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Ramil,

You made several good points concerning some shortcomings of democracy. Yet, I’m not quite sure that I fully grasp in what way any form of power other than democracy (monarchy, dictatorship or others ) is better off in comparison with democracy in the issues you mentioned above . Could you please elucidate the issue and maybe point out the specific benefits for common people that drastically surpass the benefits of democracy? What are those areas where democracy seriously legs behind compared with Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, etc.?

Originally Posted by diogen_

Ramil,

You made several good points concerning some shortcomings of democracy. Yet, I’m not quite sure that I fully grasp in what way any form of power other than democracy (monarchy, dictatorship or others ) is better off in comparison with democracy in the issues you mentioned above . Could you please elucidate the issue and maybe point out the specific benefits for common people that drastically surpass the benefits of democracy? What are those areas where democracy seriously legs behind compared with Brunei, Oman, Qatar and Saudi Arabia, etc.?

LMAO, look closely at my avatar. Do you have any further questions?

Originally Posted by Ramil

LMAO, look closely at my avatar. Do you have any further questions?

Thanks, I had an intent look at your avatar Ramil.
But I still don't have any clue how I can ‘tie’ your avatar with the post I quoted and another one about the gulf monarchies . Coud you please elaborate this a little bit further and answer my former question?

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

Would you say that the United Kingdom, USA, Germany and France respectively..... are democracies?

No, because democracy does not exist and cannot exist.

Originally Posted by Marcus

No, because democracy does not exist and cannot exist.

If you say so...

Originally Posted by Marcus

No, because democracy does not exist and cannot exist.

Don't mix it up with communism which truly cannot. The people CAN control the authorities, and when they do, it's democracy. I'd even put it the following way: when the government makes the people scare, it's dictatorship; when the people make the government scare, it's democracy.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

The people CAN control the authorities, and when they do, it's democracy. I'd even put it the following way: when the government makes the people scare, it dictatorship; when the people make the government scare, it's democracy.

The problem is people CAN'T truly control the authorities. The can sway it sometimes but only to a certain extent, and never in something that is crucial to the said authorities. The difference between democracy and dictatorship is that democracy foolls people with an illusion of control (and boasts endlessly about it), and dictatorship does not bother with such niceties. But if you dig deeper, it's pretty much the same, and the USA is almost as much a police state as any so called dictatorship - in some cases even more due to the better financing of controlling and "security" organizations.

Originally Posted by gRomoZeka

The problem is people CAN'T truly control the authorities. The can sway it sometimes but only to a certain extent, and never in something that is crucial to the said authorities. The difference between democracy and dictatorship is that democracy foolls people with an illusion of control (and boasts endlessly about it), and dictatorship does not bother with such niceties. But if you dig deeper, it's pretty much the same, and the USA is almost as much a police state as any so called dictatorship - in some cases even more due to the better financing of controlling and "security" organizations.

At a deeper level than propaganda the strong point of contemporary Democracy TM is recognized as a system of checks and balances, which provides an effective mechanism of the rotation of personalities in power and allows to avoid avalanche-like accumulation of errors by one person or small group of persons (which is typical for not so well balanced systems).

Originally Posted by it-ogo

At a deeper level than propaganda the strong point of contemporary Democracy TM is recognized as a system of checks and balances, which provides an effective mechanism of the rotation of personalities in power and allows to avoid avalanche-like accumulation of errors by one person or small group of persons (which is typical for not so well balanced systems).

The problem with the system of balances is the fact that it's been very thoroughly researched during the years it's been in effect. Every system (including this one) has its weak points and therefore politicians and government officials and, of course, judges know them perfectly and have a workaround around nearly all restrictions.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

At a deeper level than propaganda the strong point of contemporary Democracy TM is recognized as a system of checks and balances, which provides an effective mechanism of the rotation of personalities in power and allows to avoid avalanche-like accumulation of errors by one person or small group of persons (which is typical for not so well balanced systems).

I like this crisp summary and that is exactly what I believe when I feel positive about democracy.

If the process that it-ogo describes could be "boxed-in" and completely "protected" from outside contamination, then probably would be ok, I think.

But capital enters into this equation in the form of media and sponsorship and essentially poisons the process from one angle.
And the simplemindedness of the voters ruins it from another angle. It is absolutely not a joke that some parties with handsome leaders get more votes, for example.

Perhaps the solution might be some kind of "neutral" body that watches over the democratic process, regulates it and punishes those who don't stick to certain rules.

Election campaigns ought to be finananced out of equally large pots for all parties with no opportunities for any party to have a superior or more impressive campaign due to having more rich sponsors.

It should be completely banned to focus on the personality of the party leader - after all, it's an ideology and a political party that is being assessed, not the looks, background or reputation of the leader.

I do not approve of th idea of having a special democratic "quota" for women in the parliament and party positions (Sweden has this) is ridiculous. The gender of the person does not make them any more or less qualified. Sure, she is more likely to look after womens rights, but if women have 50% of the votes this should take care of womens rights without manipulating the system and queuejumping unqualified women into a position in the parliament or a ministerial post.

I like the idea that I just came up with, of a neutral overseeing body that stricly controlled the fairness of the political campaigns and the political process in general. They would have to have lots of power, but only for this particular task, nothing else.

The members of this body should be paid very high salaries so they are not susceptible to any kind of manipulation, and serve for a given length of time - say 5-10 years. The challenge would be how to appoint them. Perhaps there could simply be some kind of extremely challenging entry examination that only the cleverest and most well-read would pass, and then pick the oldest applicants who pass the test, or the ones with the highest score.

Well it existed in Ancient Greece!
They had a system of adult free men casting votes on local matters, and they called this democracy.
So that was the name of it!

But whether this system can be stretched to work as intended for an entire country, in modern times is a different story.