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.

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?

Originally Posted by LXNDR

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 Eric C.

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?

You both didn't read my message apparently. Those should be public tests (literally) with certificates. Some agency or research group can devise up these tests so that by passing them any able citizens could elect and be elected only if they are qualified. And who is the 'president's boss' when we talk of democracy? It's people, right? In fact I'm not only sugesting a one-time test but annual confirmation too. Having this system established we can be sure that our leaders are sane and prepared for the job and they are elected by sane and responsible people.

Originally Posted by Ramil

You both didn't read my message apparently. Those should be public tests (literally) with certificates. Some agency or research group can devise up these tests so that by passing them any able citizens could elect and be elected only if they are qualified. And who is the 'president's boss' when we talk of democracy? It's people, right? In fact I'm not only sugesting a one-time test but annual confirmation too. Having this system established we can be sure that our leaders are sane and prepared for the job and they are elected by sane and responsible people.

ok, but under true democracy these conditions and tests would have still to be approved by the majority of the voters on a referendum for example, otherwise that would not be a democracy
so i don't see how you can skip the 'stupid crowd' and stay democratic at the same time

and as a sidenote i don't think we should use limits of Greek democracy for justification of the idea of its unattainability in the modern conditions, we simply have to regard modern democracy as development of the ancient Greek democracy

Originally Posted by LXNDR

ok, but under true democracy these conditions and tests would have still to be approved by the majority of the voters on a referendum for example, otherwise that would not be a democracy

Why? Again, it has to do with ability. You don't approve driver's test system on a referendum, right? You don't approve doctors' licensing system on a referendum. It just has to be public that's all.

Originally Posted by LXNDR

and as a sidenote i don't think we should use limits of Greek democracy for justification of the idea of its unattainability in the modern conditions, we simply have to regard modern democracy as development of the ancient Greek democracy

Right, and I just described what changes I would like to see in it. Moreover, we could also skip the presidency at all. All major policies should be determined by direct voting of able citizens (thus, skipping the necessity of parliament at least). We now have the technology for direct democracy (without representatives).