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

So what country does Eric live in, where he has seen proof of real democracy at work... ?

I remember experiencing a fairly democratic society back in the 1980s, long before I could vote. But nowadays there seems to be little point, although I still vote, just in case...

The idea of some kind of qualification requirement for people to be allowed to work makes sense.

The UK and (I think) the USA has this, although it's quite straightforward - you have to be registered at an address to vote. A lot of people don't want to register at an address for various reasons. In that case they can't vote. Also in the UK, prisoners are not allowed to vote while they are in prison - apparently this breaks some EU law though, so the UK will have to change this law so prisoners can vote.

I read that in the USA Christian protestants are very influential simply because they all register to vote, and they actually make the effort to go and cast a vote, because they are encouraged to, in Church. Since they vote based on Christian values more than anything else, they all tend to vote for whoever is more in favour of certain issues that are important from a Christian perspective.
It may seem silly, but the two acts of 1) registering, 2) actually getting off the sofa to cast your vote and 3) understanding how to fill in the ballot.... weeds out quite a lot of votes/people.

In Sweden, voting, like everything else is based on your personal ID number... so all you need is the creepy number (which everyone has) and then you can vote.

If you first had to answer 10 simple questions about basic political points, then that would probably lose another 75% of eligible voters.

If there was to be some kind of examination, then what kind of stuff should people be asked do you think?

Originally Posted by Hanna

If there was to be some kind of examination, then what kind of stuff should people be asked do you think?

For candidates it has to be a range variety of stuff including economics, sociology, politics, etc. Really when you're considering a candidate for the position of CEO of a large corporation, you're testing a candidate rather thoroughly, so why any idiot can become a president of the whole state?
For voters the only thing I can think of is the ablility to continue thinking critically under stress and the ability to sustain psychological pressure. Also the ability to recognize and analyze propaganda methods and tricks.

Originally Posted by Hanna

So what country does Eric live in, where he has seen proof of real democracy at work... ?

Neverland, apparently

Originally Posted by Hanna

So what country does Eric live in, where he has seen proof of real democracy at work... ?

I remember experiencing a fairly democratic society back in the 1980s, long before I could vote. But nowadays there seems to be little point, although I still vote, just in case...

The idea of some kind of qualification requirement for people to be allowed to work makes sense.

The UK and (I think) the USA has this, although it's quite straightforward - you have to be registered at an address to vote. A lot of people don't want to register at an address for various reasons. In that case they can't vote. Also in the UK, prisoners are not allowed to vote while they are in prison - apparently this breaks some EU law though, so the UK will have to change this law so prisoners can vote.

I read that in the USA Christian protestants are very influential simply because they all register to vote, and they actually make the effort to go and cast a vote, because they are encouraged to, in Church. Since they vote based on Christian values more than anything else, they all tend to vote for whoever is more in favour of certain issues that are important from a Christian perspective.
It may seem silly, but the two acts of 1) registering, 2) actually getting off the sofa to cast your vote and 3) understanding how to fill in the ballot.... weeds out quite a lot of votes/people.

In Sweden, voting, like everything else is based on your personal ID number... so all you need is the creepy number (which everyone has) and then you can vote.

If you first had to answer 10 simple questions about basic political points, then that would probably lose another 75% of eligible voters.

If there was to be some kind of examination, then what kind of stuff should people be asked do you think?

Very interesting information here! Something I'd never have known without getting to stay in Sweden for some time (never been there [yet])

You're right about the religious votes here, Hanna, but I have to add that every major religion seems to be able to summon up this sway.. At least on a local ballot/county/state level, it's pretty obvious on voting day.. [I have no reason to doubt that Prot.'s might get the best turnout, and especially on the West Coast these groups are everywhere.. as in every 3rd city block] .. as an example, all the voting I've ever done from Arizona was from a voting poll set up IN a church. (Denomination of the church I have no idea, I can't keep cultish idiosyncracies straight in my head, but suffice it to say they have a perpendicular cross sticking out the top of the building) .. Personally I think it's just slightly not so great an idea to galvanize political change behind the curtain of the altar, though, mostly because here in the US it's a big thing for us to keep church and state separate. In fact just this morning on the way to my desk I saw a television playing a news program, where Mitt Romney was in some sort of blue-and-white priestly outfit, looking like he was involved in some judeo-christian ritual or rite, while simultaneously giving a speech to the camera and some unseen mass of recipient onlookers behind the lens - I was truly creeped out. I'm intimidated anytime a "leader" or potential "leader" is involved in something religious.. Kind of a rats-under-your-collar Cardinal Richelieu feeling.. ))

But this is a good point in itself.. Part of the reason I vote for democracy over the other evils is because it allows a group of people (a club/group/special interest/company/cult/religion/etc) to field an army (in this sense, a group of voters) and take issue with the standing structures of control.

That said:

OUR VOTING SYSTEM IS A JOKE AND WILL ALWAYS BE UNTIL WE WAKE UP AND DO AWAY WITH THE FOOLISH TWO-PARTY SYSTEM!

Okay, just wanted to get that in there )

Have a good rest of your day ))

Hanna, this is a difficult question.

First of all, there is different understanding of democracy in different cultures.

In the West the existence of choice is empathized.

That said if there are two candidates with the same program and similar views in the ballot, it is said that there is democracy,
even if the people cannot affect the policy in any way after the election.

It is claimed by theorists that the very existence of an alternative makes the politicians to compete with each other and account for the demands of the people.
To promote competition the law usually limits the number of terms one person can occupy the office.

It also should be noted that in the West (especially in the USA) there is a strong feeling that the state is inevitably hostile toward the people, so that
the more the state power is restricted the more democratic and free the country is. Democracy is thus understood as a permanent struggle between the people
and the state for their rights. The more rights the people have against the state, the more restricted the state is, the more democracy there is.

Opposite understanding of democracy is characteristic for the former USSR and possibly for other countries. In these cultures democracy was understood
literally as the rule of the people and for the people. If so, it follows that democracy does not welcome competition and conflict of interest: if there are two hostile candidates,
who propose different policies, it follows that at least one of them does not represent the people (there cannot be two opposing
rules of people at the same time in one nation).

Alteration of candidates from this point of view is not positive: if the former official represented the people, and the new one
has opposing views, this means that the new one is against people. So the official should occupy the office as long as he/she is effective rather than step down
for the sake of alteration and competition. At the same time, the very idea of the rule of people requires that the candidate should be responsible before his electors
and could be fired quickly at any moment without complicated procedure as he depart from the wishes of the electors, becomes ineffective and conducts mistakes.

The idea of the rule of the people also requires that the officials and deputies should not be professional politicians as much as possible so that to represent the class
from which they were only temporarily taken.

In this point of view the state is not considered hostile to the people, just the opposite: as the state is considered democratic, and ruled by the people
and for the people, the people generally do not need their rights protected from the state as the state=the people. So the more power the state has, the more democracy there is as the state represents the people. Spheres which not affected by the state such as private life are inherently undemocratic by this definition.

I think the misunderstanding of the different views of democracy was the cause of some Cold War criticism of the opposing camp.

The Soviets said "Your state is hostile towards the people!", not understanding that the western concept of democracy considers the state inevitably hostile to the people
and puts emphasis on protection of the rights, while the Americans said "Your rights are not protected from the state!", without understanding that the Soviet theory
equated the state and the people so protecting the rights from the state looked like protecting people from the people. The West: "You have non-alternative elections!". The East: "Your elected representatives and officials cannot be revoked or otherwise affected!"


The West

* State is hostile to the people
* People need their rights protected from the state
* Political competition makes the state more people-friendly (democratic)
* The state is inherently anti-democratic
* The more spheres the state controls, the more anti-democratic the country is
because state control means restriction of human rights

The East

* State represents the people
* Those against the democratic state are against the people
* Political competition detriments the people's power
* The private sector is inherently anti-democratic
* The more spheres the state controls, the more democratic the country is
because the state is the only democratically controlled institution

...It is claimed by theorists that the very existence of an alternative makes the politicians to compete with each other and account for the demands of the people.

... It also should be noted that in the West (especially in the USA) there is a strong feeling that the state is inevitably hostile toward the people, so that
the more the state power is restricted the more democratic and free the country is. Democracy is thus understood as a permanent struggle between the people
and the state for their rights. The more rights the people have against the state, the more restricted the state is, the more democracy there is....


...The Soviets said "Your state is hostile towards the people!", not understanding that the western concept of democracy considers the state inevitably hostile to the people
and puts emphasis on protection of the rights, while the Americans said "Your rights are not protected from the state!",

The West

* State is hostile to the people
* People need their rights protected from the state
* Political competition makes the state more people-friendly (democratic)
* The state is inherently anti-democratic
* The more spheres the state controls, the more anti-democratic the country is
because state control means restriction of human rights

There are a number of issues with this content. Examples: origins and functions of FDA, EPA and some other sometimes useful agencies, see this, and other such things => FDA's Origin

By no means can it be concluded that citizens of the USA believe the 'state' is hostile to them in all respects.

Nor can it be concluded that competition between politicians in any way results in accountability, in any system. Nor can the opposite be concluded.

"the western concept of democracy considers the state inevitably hostile to the people..." this is incorrect.