Thread: Is Russia a democracy? Плюс то же о некоторых других странах

У меня вот как раз и был вопрос, что конкретно ты называешь "демократией"? Определение типа "всем и так понятно" меня не устраивает.

Если брать классическое определение, то это просто метод принятия решения. У нас может быть и демократическая диктатура, и демократчиеская монархия, и демократическая теократия.

Все дружно, честно выбрали себе диктатора, а потом строем и с песнями принялись исполнять его указания. Как в принципе изначально в Римской Республике и было. Диктатор избирался демократически (но уже и тут, блин, проблема; демократически - но среди определенного слоя населения только) для решения какой-нибудь задачи.

Но по твоему вопросу видно, что ты считаешь "демократию" некой независимой политической системой. А сейчас в мире на неё все тупо молятся как на священную корову. При этом при вопросе, что же они имеют ввиду под ней, зачастую ответы выглядят как: "Да ты что???", "Всем и так понятно" и т.д.

А я вот тупой и мне не понятно. Я не понимаю как можно говорить, что что-то чему соответствует (Россия демократии) не имея конкретных признаков явления.

Короче вопрос настолько левый, размытый и провокационный, что я устраняюсь от дальнейшего участия в этой теме. )

Originally Posted by Dmitry Khomitchuk

Как в принципе изначально в Римской Республике и было. Диктатор избирался демократически (но уже и тут, блин, проблема; демократически - но среди определенного слоя населения только) для решения какой-нибудь задачи.

Диктатора в Риме назначали в случае особой опасности для государства на срок не более полугода.

Originally Posted by Marcus

Диктатора в Риме назначали в случае особой опасности для государства на срок не более полугода.

Ironically, dictators these days try to make their rule last forever...

During the last elections day (our laws consider to conduct all the elections in one certain day of the year now) I was to vote for four times and each time there was a huge list of candidates. That day we elected: the city's mayor, deputies for the regional parlament (as party candidates), deputies for regional parlament (non-party candidates), deputies for the city's "kind of parlament".
So we may not be an ideal democracy, but surely there are plenty of elections to vote.

Russia has many good laws. But in real life...

"Будут с водкою дебаты, отвечай: нет, ребята-демократы, только чай!" © В. Высоцкий.
(желательно Ахмад и непременно горячий - это уже от меня)

Непонятно, что есть "демократические страны". Это самоназвание? Для меня демократическая страна (на данный исторический момент) - это страна с развитым местным самоуправлением (не фиктивным, а именно настоящим) и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства.

Наиболее полно этому критерию соответствует, например, Швейцария.

Все остальные европейские страны (включая США, как страну в целом европейской культуры, хоть и видоизмененной) в той или иной степени являются левацко-олигархическими мутантами, разжиревшими от грабежа колоний и/или набранных кредитов. Никакой демократией там и не пахнет.

Originally Posted by Paul G.

и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства.

Предполагаем, что доступ к принятию решений на уровне государства является ОПОСРЕДОВАННЫМ через выбранных представителей.

Originally Posted by Paul G.

и максимально непосредственным доступом граждан к принятию решений на уровне всего общества или государства.

Наиболее полно этому критерию соответствует, например, Швейцария

Каюсь. Про Швейцарию не был осведомлён. И что где-то есть непосредственный доступ.

Предлагаем считать, что наличие нескольких партий является обязательным элементом (т.е. если будет ОДНА партия, т.е. по определению это НЕдемократия)

А у древних греков были политические партии?

Originally Posted by alexsms

I will try to keep the position of the vector, the question was probably too simple, cos I am interested in what people think (mostly what non-Russians think, as I can generally anticipate what Russians could say): Do you think that Russia's democracy or not? - that's the implication...

Yes, Russia is a democracy. Russia has fair elections and the government listens to the people. In the US, if we don't like what the government is doing then we can protest and sign petitions. The same is true in Russia. In the US, we have left and right wing media. The same is true in Russia. In the US, people can tell the government what to do and they listen. The same is true in Russia.

Some examples of "listening to the people":
When people in the US wanted the gays to have rights, the government gave them rights.
When people in Russia didn't want kids exposed to gay propaganda, the government passed a law to stop it. Why? Because the majority of the people didn't want that to be happening. The majority of the people is what democracy is all about.

I believe that if I was living in Russia right now, I would feel just as free and democratic as I feel living in the US. And I wouldn't have to face-palm when the president made a speech, lol.
A lot of people in the US argue that since gays don't have rights in Russia, then Russia isn't a democracy. That's not true. A lot of people in the US want pot to be legal and it's not. Does that mean that the US isn't a democracy?
If Russia isn't a democracy because of the gay issue, then the US isn't a democracy because of the pot issue.

People can argue all day about it but in the end, the US and Russia are both democracies.

But I also have 2 more questions.
1. Was the USSR a democracy?
I read a lot of the history about that. The people of Russia wanted to break away from the Tsars and build a form of government that would listen to the people and help them. It was called communism but it was a form of government that was created by the people. So maybe that was a type of democracy too. The Russian Federation is more democratic since it has free elections but I think any government that's created by the people, is still a type of democratic process.
Anyway, I'm really impressed with how democratic Russia is and I think we could learn a lot from President Putin. But don't forget, Russia has more than 1,000 years of experience. We only have about 200 and we're on a steep learning curve.

2. Is democracy important?
Well, if you look at US democracy, what do you see? I see a lot of freedom, security, and a happy life. I see friendly and helpful police who never harass me and a safe neighborhood. That's all I saw till I started reading the news feeds online.
Now what I see is really changing up how I feel about everything. I see police brutality, flash mobs, lots of people being killed without a good reason, economic disasters, a president that makes all the worst decisions, and tons of wars to protect National interests.
Okay, a dude at another forum calls me "rediculously sheltered". But that still doesn't explain why all that stuff is happening and why our National interests have to kill tons of people in countries all over the whole planet. I mean, if that's what democracy is all about then maybe it's not really that special!

So yeah, Russia is a democracy but it's tons more peaceful than American democracy. And President Putin is a democratic president but he's tons more intelligent than President Obama. Imo, we would have a better democracy if we had someone like President Putin in the White House.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

But I also have 2 more questions.
1. Was the USSR a democracy?

No. It was not. When the will of the people is hijacked and dominated by a few (or one party) and the application of law becomes arbitrary (no separation of powers) you do not have a functioning democracy. The happenings of the years 1925 - 1939 in particular illustrate that. Otherwise Maximilian Robespierre and his Jakobiners could equally claim to be operating in a democracy by argument of the preceeding events to get rid of the french monarch was an act of the will of the people.

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Russia has fair elections and the government listens to the people.

Xplode, many people doubt that the elections here are fair (the results might be real, but the way the election is organized is more than strange: usually there is just one candidate who has a real political 'value'). There is really a huge doubt both domestically and abroad.

Вот, что бы для меня было главным, если судить о демократии:

"Говорят, что об уровне цивилизованности общества можно судить по тому, как в нем относятся к детям и старикам. Именно сохранением этих ценностей, а не материально-техническим оснащением определяется будущее того или иного государства. Сегодня эта идиома несколько устарела и нуждается в дополнении. Потому как не только старики и дети нуждаются в особом отношении, но и еще одна многочисленная категория населения — инвалиды. ..."

Инвалиды никому не нужны?

Originally Posted by Lampada

Вот, что бы для меня было главным, если судить о демократии:

"Говорят, что об уровне цивилизованности общества можно судить по тому, как в нем относятся к детям и старикам. Именно сохранением этих ценностей, а не материально-техническим оснащением определяется будущее того или иного государства. Сегодня эта идиома несколько устарела и нуждается в дополнении. Потому как не только старики и дети нуждаются в особом отношении, но и еще одна многочисленная категория населения — инвалиды. ..."

Инвалиды никому не нужны?

I totally agree with Lampada. The best definition of what's a decent society, is in how it treats the weekest members of that society.
The elderly, the sick, the disabled, the pregnant, the new mothers/single mothers, minority groups etc.

What killed my childhood belief in socialism, was seeing on TV, in the 90s, how retarded and handicapped people were treated in some socialist countries.
Obviously, the same thing kills anyone's faith in capitalism - since the treatment is directly related to how much money the handicapped person's family is able and willing to spend on his care.

Democracy is an abstract, subjective and much abused concept.

The proof is in the pudding as we say in England. It's not how you vote -- it's whether you can sleep safely at night, knowing you will have somewhere to live, heat, water, food, an education, healthcare as needed and that you can walk safely without fear of being attacked, and be safe in your home. Also that you can sleep soundly, knowing that you will not be visited in the middle of the night by some state security agent because you said the wrong thing to the wrong person - and that there is a unbiased process to follow, should you be accused of a crime.

Another threat to democracy is media. The owners of mass media channels has the power to affect what the majority thinks.
If all media is privately owned and controlled, it's an enemy of democracy, since it will consciously or unconsciously support the objective of its wealthy owners, with the means to distribute and promote itself and win over any grassroots publication by regular citizens.
If all media is tightly controlled by the state, there is a risk that criticism is stifled and nobody watches the leaders on behalf of the people.
Some kind of blend, or state subsidies to citizen driven media is needed - or as in our age; access to free and uncensored internet.


On SWISS democracy, in response to Alex' question:

They have a system called "Direct Democracy" Direct democracy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Direct democracy (also known as pure democracy)[1] is a form of democracy in which people decide (e.g. vote on, form consensus on, etc.) policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then decide policy initiatives.[2] Depending on the particular system in use, it might entail passing executive decisions, the use of sortition, making laws, directly electing or dismissing officials and conducting trials. Two leading forms of direct democracy are participatory democracy and deliberative democracy.

As a result, the country is set up like people want it, and people have their say about practical matters, like "Should there be a road here?", "Who should be allowed to immigrate to our country?", "Are companies allowed to do xyz?" If enough people support it, they will have a referendum about anything. Too much lobbying about a certain position is not allowed - people are supposed to make up their minds based on facts and their personal feeling, not some ad campaign.

The job of the government is just to mildly steer things, and implement the results of the people's votes.

They also have a lot of LOCAL democracy, in that people can control what's going to happen in their immediate surroundings, such as what types of schools should be available and how much spending they think public transport needs.

And isn't it interesting that this most democratic country is also the richest in Europe, despite having NO coast, no oil or significant natural resources, and also being split into 3 different language groups, yet never having quarrels about it. They also never participate in wars, instigate them, and manage to keep at peace with everyone.

Originally Posted by Hanna

split into 3 different language groups...

You meant 4 Hanna. Right?
And thanks for shedding light on the matter. (Wiki says direct democracy there exists in several cantons).

When talking about democracy, the two decisive factors to me are:

- lack of absolute power within limited groups of people; the more people taking part in making important decisions, the better; it's not by a long shot democracy when there's a "tsar"/"emperor"/"president" (whatever you call it) who's making all the decisions and to whose will everyone's serving; it's not democracy either when there's a parliament whose representatives mostly belong to one party, and all they do is sign off whatever their bosses decide; so here - a real multi-partial system and a lot of people involved in long discussions before any important law comes out, and not a one limited group being able to get any decision passed that only they would benefit from; no need to mention, not a single man having any hypothetical power at all;

- the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"; overall, when someone talks about "the interests of society", I think they're being hypocritical, because there's no society other than that consisting of individuals; if you want to make society happy - make every individual happy, that's it; in my view, any application of collectivism is incompatible with democracy, because it says everyone has to be unhappy so that the "group"/"society" etc. on the whole will be happy; but that's nothing but an oxymoron.

So, looking at Russia, I think it certainly has made big progress building up democracy compared to what it looked like 30-40 years ago, but I have to say there are still tons of work in that direction. One negative side in my opinion is, it seems the quest for democracy slowed down a bit at the beginning of the 2000s. But I guess everything's in the hands of Russians, we have yet to see them notice what way they had taken, and turn up to the right one.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

- the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"

it's an interesting point. I'd like to add here that it's impossible to satisfy ALL the people. So there is always some percentage who are not satisfied. And this situation is quite natural.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

it's not by a long shot democracy when there's a "tsar"/"emperor"/"president" (whatever you call it) who's making all the decisions

Президент США может начать войну сам, не дожидаясь поддержки парламента. Но все называют США демократией.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

it's not democracy either when there's a parliament whose representatives mostly belong to one party

В США по сути всего две партии, и по принципиальным вопросам они неразличимы. Особенно по вопросам внешней политики, войны и мира. Ваши две партии - это как наши Путин и Медведев: формально они сменяют друг друга, но реально власть не меняется.

Originally Posted by Eric C.

the interests of an individual being superior to the interests of "society"

То есть в демократическом государстве дезертиров, не желающих жертвовать собой ради суверенитета страны, не расстреливают?
Если бы это было так, то такая страна не смогла бы существовать, так как её завоевали бы соседние страны.

Originally Posted by alexsms

Имеется в виду борьба интересов в политике, а не физическая борьба при революции. Которая не приводит к уничтожению или унижению кого-либо. Например, такая борьба, при которой возможно было бы не расстреливать побеждённую сторону или тех, кто её символизирует (царя, его детей).

Если мы говорим, что в основе нашей жизни лежит борьба (раз мы выбрали демократию), то нужно быть морально готовым к тому, что это будет не только джентльменское выяснение отношений, но и деревенские разборки с кольями и топорами.
Когда мы говорим, что в основе нашей экономики лежит принцип "обогащайтесь" (раз мы выбрали капитализм), то нужно быть морально готовым к тому, что эта идеология проникнет в сознание всех: не только предпринимателей, но и врачей, учителей, чиновников, полиции, военных.
Ибо слаб человек есть.

Originally Posted by iCake

Демократия - власть народа...

... над здравым смыслом?
Если в бюджете нет денег, то что народ собрался делить?

Originally Posted by UhOhXplode

Was the USSR a democracy?

Сложный вопрос.
1. Власть одной партии была узаконена в Конституции.
2. Голосование было, но без альтернативы. Кандидат в депутаты был один. Смысл голосования был в том, что народ, как носитель власти и суверенитета, уполномачивал данных депутатов представлять их в парламенте. Поэтому ощущение важности события у избирателей было. День выборов ощущался как важное событие и как государственный праздник.
3. Партия была одна, но она была массовой (19 миллионов человек = 10% взрослого населения страны). Поэтому можно сказать, что она в значительной мере представляла народ. Кроме того, в партию невозможно было попасть без рекомендации трудового коллектива (а там было много беспартийных).
4. Дискуссии велись, но только в рамках партии. За её границы дискуссии не выходили.

Таким образом, народ был представлен во власти. Но механизм этого представления был оригинальным. Я бы не назвал его классической демократией.

Democracy means the rule, or power, of [the majority of] people. It's neither more nor less than a dictatorship of the majority, or the "mob".

Given 20th and 21st-century political developments, I do not hold "democracies" in high regard, and sincerely hope that Russia is not one.

Talking about the Soviet Union one should clearly understand that its state structure wasn't invariable throughout the Soviet period. Mainly there were two long periods: the first, dating from the middle of the 20's till 1953 was a period of the Stalin's cult of personality and the second from that date up to the break-down in 1991 was a period of "partocracy" or the rule of the Communist Party beurocracy.
Another thing one should clearly understand is that the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was not a usual political party, it was a huge political and economic organization which had penetrated all and every living cell of the Soviet society. Every labour collective in the Soviet Union had its own party cell. Every district of a city, every city, every region of the country, every republic had their party organizations. It was almost impossible to make a career for those who were not members of the party. So every key position in the society were occupied by communists. The communists in the local organizations or in labour collective organizations were actually quite ordinary people, they didn't differ from their co-workers or neighbors. The question is: "was there inner-party democracy or not?" I think, yes, there was some inner-party democracy although there was a strict party discipline.
So, when you ask, was there democracy in the Soviet Union, I say, yes, in the last 3 or 4 decades of its history there was a sort of democracy, but it was not a representative democracy usual for the West, it was a democracy for the most active layer of population connected however to all other people.