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

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

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.

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.

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 Crocodile

No, it was the "sausage" l

you should have gone to Germany then!
and I thought you might not be a sausage fan at all!

Originally Posted by kidkboom

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. ...

Something tends to get out of hand every time a country tries to implement socialism or communism. I I think a few places in South America might be allright at it, and have most of the population behind them. But it doesn't help them that they are subject to just about every attempt at sabotaging for them, short of a war.

Losing faith in socialism as an ideal is almost like losing a religious faith I think.
Same for losing faith in democracy, which is supposed to be another great concept.

But losing faith in Capitalism is almost like a relief, because it's not a very appealing concept to start with.

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 don't like the gulf states and particularly not Saudi Arabia. I don't know much about Brunei.

But I can think of one non-democracy that I think is quite allright - Singapore.

I am not mad about China at all, but i don't think that people there would be better of were the country to become a democracy. Quite the opposite, probably.

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

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

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 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.

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

No, because democracy does not exist and cannot exist.

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.

Originally Posted by Marcus

No, because democracy does not exist and cannot exist.

If you say so...

Originally Posted by Hanna

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

Democracy is a Greek word. The ideal of original democracy is a society where each citizen has at least 3 slaves.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

Democracy is a Greek word. The ideal of original democracy is a society where each citizen has at least 3 slaves.

nowadays we only can afford one, pitty

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 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.