Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Marcus
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
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?
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by gRomoZeka
Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric C.
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?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
Neverland, apparently :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
I like this crisp summary and that is exactly what I believe when I feel positive about democracy.Quote:
Originally Posted by it-ogo
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ramil
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
Thanks, I had an intent look at your avatar Ramil.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by LXNDR
Very interesting information here! Something I'd never have known without getting to stay in Sweden for some time (never been there [yet])Quote:
Originally Posted by Hanna
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
What an excellent post and very interesting observations, Anixx!
I never thought about it so clearly but you explain it really well.
I do agree that the USSR was a democracy, of sorts. As far as I can recall in reading about it, there were plenty of things that regular people could influence on a local basis. But it was not sufficiently flexible, there was a clear limit for how much people could really change through democratic means and no transparent mechanism for dealing with problems or mistakes by officials, or abuse of power. And with the media not free to write what they wanted until "perestroika" it seems to me it must have been like a pressure cooker - when the lid was taken off, metaphorically, during perestroika, there was a small explosion and the whole system came tumbling down. Proof for the fact that it was not an "evil" state is the fact that it literally dissolved itself.... From the point of view of anyone interested in Political Science all this is incredibly fascinating.
Of course, I am aware that Americans are suspicious towards the state in a very unique way. I.e. the concept that if everyone owns weapons, then the state is kept under control and other similar ideas.
Peple in Britain too are suspicious, particularly in the sense that they want the state to have as little information and information about them as possible. When I first moved to the UK from Sweden, I found this very hard to understand - it seemed to me, that it would lead to chaos. For example - in Britain, people will not carry an ID card, and greatly resent that the state keeps information about them in order to be able keep track of pensions payment or any social security withdrawals. The individual is expected to look after himself, and the state is expected to leave him alone unless he is an obvious criminal or suspect of some extreme activities.
In Sweden on the other hand, the opinion is that the more the state looks after people, the better. In order to do this, they need to have as much information as possible on people, and always need to be able to tell one individual from another in records, so ID cards and numbers are an absolute must. To a foreigner arriving in Sweden all this is downright creepy. I get notices sent about everything I am supposed to do, based on my gender, age, marital status etc, etc. If I ignore it, there are reminders. Big brother always looks out for me, whether i want it or not. Any taxes or fees due are pretty much taken from my salary regardless without my involvement. In the UK you have to register to pay certain taxes because it would be unacceptable to people that the state should simply find out who you are and take the taxes due without your approal.
In the UK, the democratic system essentially means that there are 2 parties to choose from, and if you happen to live in a constituency where the majority of voters have a different political opinion than you, then "your" elected politician will be somebody from the opposing party and your vote will be wasted.
One trend in the UK is that the Conservative and Labour party are now very similar in their views on things. A bit like in the USA. My life did not change in the least when there was a transfer of power from Labour to Conservatives years ago. That makes me wonder - what is the point?
Sweden is more democratic than the UK, in the sense that all votes count, but the parties that exist (about 6 worth mentioning) are very close to each other in opinion, so the same trend has taken place. Another diffference witht he UK is that media is extremely hegemonous in Sweden. There is one semi-official position on all important question, and absolutely all papers stick to this, quite "voluntarily". The papers' views on things start moving very gradually and slowly, until they eventually shift, and by then the whole population is on board that there has been a change and most people agree with the new position. At the moment for example, media is starting to run scenarios about possible Nato membership, which has been 100% taboo until recently. I predict that 5-10 years from now, Sweden will be ready to apply for membership.
Not sure how Russia compares to all of this. One thing that is obvious is that people's faith in democracy is really low - much lower than in any "Western" country where everyone has grown up to believe that democracy is always a good thing. It seems people are used to carrying ID cards and the state having information about them. Still, you don't trust the state much, do you? I also get the impression that being "democratic" according to the Western definition is simply not something that most Russians find particularly desirable. I get the impression that you want rather strong, honest and effective leadership. Edinaya Rossia seems to fit the first of these criteria, at least. I could not say about the others. I am also impressed at the level of political involvement and discussions online about politics. Much more, and and a much higher level than in the USA it seems. In England, people can't even be bothered to talk about it, and in Sweden 95% of people have the same opinion about everything, so a debate is pointless, or it turns into a game of the majority telling off the 5% with the different opinion.
One of the things I have grasped while being on MR, is that Edinaya Rossia is not necessarily playing 100% according to the democratic rules anymore - and this to me is worrying. At least in the USSR times, you knew what you had - a relatively predictable system that changed slowly, that everybody was famililar with, including its limitations. Likewise the ideology and values of this party were well known to everyone.
But what you have now, a sort of modern, potentially "fake" democracy that is not offering the social protection and stability that Communism did. And now there are plenty of reports that media is not free either, in that some topics are not Ok to investigate too closely. Or is this a false rumour? Obviously a smart and well educated person might have a better lifestyle in this system than he would have had in the USSR. But what about everyone else - those who don't live in one of the larger cities and isn't able to take advantage of the growing economy, surely that is the majority of the population of Russia? Is this current system benefiting them at all?
I am also interested in the Ukraine and Belarus and I think that the people there are very up to date on what is going on in Russia, and affected by it. I don't know if democracy is the best type of government for these CIS countries, including Russia... and in that case, what type of government would be best. But I hope that something will happen so that people will feel more pleased with their politicians and regain national pride and prosperity.
One thing with that is that the word "democracy" completely changed its meaning in Russian after the breakup of the USSR. If you asked somebody in the USSR about his attitude towards democracy, the response most likely would be positive. But if you ask it now, you may receive a very negative answer.Quote:
One thing that is obvious is that people's faith in democracy is really low - much lower than in any "Western" country where everyone has grown up to believe that democracy is always a good thing. It seems people are used to carrying ID cards and the state having information about them. Still, you don't trust the state much, do you?
This is because just before the breakup of the USSR and sometime after that the power in Russia was taken by people who called themselves "democrats" and who conducted very devastating and extremely unpopular policies. For example, the Russian president Boris Yeltsin was called "democrat" in the media even though he conducted an anti-constitutional coup and ordered tanks to shoot on the Russian Supreme Council (with about 500 people killed).
He did so because he wanted to appoint another highly unpopular "democrat", Yegor Gaidar to the office of prime minister, and the Supreme Council did not allow for that.
In modern Russia anybody who is conducting pro-USA policy calls himself "democrat".
That said if you ask somebody in Russia about democracy, bear in mind that "democracy" currently means for a Russian not "people's rule" but the "rule or democrats" = pro-USA rule. If you ask about people's rule, the response would be most likely positive.
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 OriginQuote:
...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
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.
@Seraph, it is not true for ALL Americans, of course. I think Anixx just wanted to get a point across. But quite a fair share of Americans hold this view, don't they? Republicans, "tea-party" supporters, evangelical Christians, survivalists, and many others.. They think that people should take care of themselves, pay for just about every service they want to use, and that the state should do very little apart from uphold law and order.
Several Americans participating here, have expressed this type of viewpoint.
I mean, there is the rather common view in the USA that it is a good idea for civilians to have weapons at home, partly for the reason that if the public is armed, then the state always needs to be careful, because the citizens are ready to take to arms if things develop in a way that they are not happy with...
If this is not extreme suspicion against the state, I don't know what is!
I think this viewpoint is fallacious, and that the powers to be really concerned about today, are large multinational corporations that influence nation states... Not the states themselves. I believe that modern states to a large degree are more or less tools of "the capital". (I am aware this makes me sound like a communist, I am not, really, and I never voted for the communists..) But it seems that more and more, states are becoming puppets in the hands of corporate lobbyists, financial organisations and corporations that create jobs, own land and sponsor media that support their positions.