I'd like to introduce this simple question (simple in form) and I suspect the answers might be unexpected. I hope this could be a kind of a poll (YES/NO or YES, but.. NO, but style) with comments; I also hope the answers are based on reasoning rather than pure emotions.
The first question is what is DEMOCRACY?
The word democracy, is of course Greek as the concept of democracy (of course women, poor people and slaves didn't have the right to vote thenOriginally Posted by Dmitry Khomitchuk
), and derives from the words = Δήμος (demos) + Κρατεί (kratei). "Demos" means people and "kratei" means rule, so it is the political system that people rule. On this initial definition in ancient Greece all the decisions were taken with consensus (i.e. the 100% of all residents of Athens should agree in order for a decision to be made, at that time about 5,000 people!). Based on this definition no country has a real democracy. Because consensus is impossible to achieved all the time the system of majority was introduced again for the first time in Greece. Putin if I am correct is now the majority in Russia, so democracy based on the definition of majority works in Russian. However, based on John Stuart Mill, who is the father of political liberalism, the majority should never depress the minorities ("tyranny of the majority"). Based on the second definition Russia is one of the most failed democracies on planet (... you don't want me to mention examples). In contemporary Greece we have a different problem now "tyranny of the minority" where few leftist groups block any attempt of reformation.
Чем больше слов, тем меньше они стоят.
Endorsed.The word democracy, is of course Greek as the concept of democracy (of course women, poor people and slaves didn't have the right to vote then
Now I'd like to know which democracy isn't a failed one. They all fall short of their idealistic mission, don't they?
In the majority of social science departments of universities of Europe the "model of Scandinavian countries" is taught as that which is more closed to what we call "functional, prosperus and liberal democracy". The universities of USA I am sure that they promote the political system USA as the most successful democracy, because of the system of "checks and balances*" (the French philosopher Voltaire will certainly agree that USA has one of the most rightful democracies based on this criterion). My personal opinion and I think that majority of the social scientists will agree is that education and active political participation are the two factors than can ensure the proper functionality of a real democracy.
* The denial of the Parliament of USA (Congress) to approve the budget is one good recent example
Ok. Thanks for your interest, Dmitry.
The assumption is 'democracy' in its modern sense (as system and form of government, I was thinking it was not necessary to elaborate on that, but perhaps we could somewhere digress and suggest the criteria if necessary); let's assume that no reference to Ancient Greece and 'literal rule of people' is required, let's focus on the MODERN idea.
Let's assume that the English sentence 'Is Russia a democracy?' = the Russian sentence 'Считаете ли вы, что в России демократия?'. And let's assume this translation is valid. I've suggested the Russian translation for clarification of the English sentence.
So the question is also Считаете ли вы, что в России демократия?
I would be happy, Dmitry, if you could define Belarus as well, but for the moment let's focus on RUSSIA.
Not just democracy, but sovereign democracy.
We might discuss it later. It seems to be a newly coined term.
There is no such thing as a perfect democracy.
The actual democratic system in Russia, according to many, is is superior to that in plain "first past the post" democracies such as the UK and USA. It's more modern, taking into account 20th century research in political science, while the UK system for instance, is ancient, and geared towards a society that existed 300 years ago.
The question is whether the system is adhered to, how much corruption there is in the system, and whether the population of Russia at large, cares about any of this.
There are various levels of corruption in most democracies, whether it is legitimate, legal through lobbying, or illegal through bribes.
Then, there is the matter of who votes, and how.
If under 70% actually vote, is the decision legitimate?
Should everybody be forced to vote, like in Australia?
Should only people with a permanent, registered address be allowed to vote, like in the UK? Should prisoners be prevented from voting, as happens in the UK?
What if a country has a substantial population of non-citizens?
What about people who are too uneducated and frankly, stupid, to make an informed choice? People who choose to "sell" their vote?
So, my question would be; is Russia democratic, in comparison to what country?
..in comparison to the USA? To the USSR? EU? or the Greek ideal?
The concept of democracy as per Greek political philosophers was only intended to be applied in small city-states, and given to free men (as opposed to slaves, women). That's all they ever envisaged. Nobody had any notion of applying it to a geographically large country, or a country with a huge population with varying levels of interests and education.
Any definition of democracy since then, is just a local interpretation/adaptation of what democracy could/should be, according to constitution writers.
If election themselves are proof of democracy - well any country might hold them, and they might offer multiple choices and secrecy of the ballot, without being perceived as democracies.
Afghanistan is a "democracy", instated by none less than the USA. Iraq too.....
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.
as for your comparison introduction, Hanna, here are the brief comments:
in comparison to the USA? - NO
To the USSR? - YES
EU? - NO
or the Greek ideal? - The assumption in the beginning was that the modern sense of the word is considered. Thanks for reminding of the 'city-states' and further implication that the Ancient Greece idea was local and practical for governing of a city-state not a country (my suggestion was that we don't need the true and pure original Hellenic meaning, and apply the modern meaning, which is still not defined explicitly here, but for now let's see what people think if the question remains as it is).
Это-то и настораживает, что ответы должны быть краткими (для нажатия кнопки "пуск" другого и не нужно), а демократия остаётся необсуждаемым идеалом (как христианство в средние века).
Если же предлагается просто игра в четыре слова (Россия, демократия, да, нет), то это не интересно.
НЕ должны,
Любые ответы могут быть интересны участникам.
I don't think Russia is less democratic than any of those examples, with the exception, maybe, of the USSR.
There are some VERY serious issues with the democracy in the EU, which is mainly run by the Commission, a meritocracy (not elected) which is very much an "old-boys" club from various networks and groups with political power across the continent. The Parliament is democratic but does not have a lot of power, less than half of Europeans even vote in the election, or understand how it works.
Additionally; the EU was set up as a free-trade area, not as a democratic "state", although that's what it's now merging into.
The Commission is very heavily lobbied by corporate interests, with unlimited funds (=corruption with a thin veneer of respectability). I actually have old friends who work at various bureacracy jobs in Brussels and everyone, even the insiders and believers in the EU as a concept (which includes myself) are well aware of the disturbing lack of democracy - open to abuse.
The United States as a democracy suffers from some very major flaws as a credible democracy, as no doubts all educated and open-eyed Americans are aware. Some of these are similar to the EU. Since the thread is about Russia, let's not get into it, but like I said: It's well known within the subject of Political Science, just for starters.
I would hold up SWITZERLAND as a country that is very close to the democratic ideal. If you are interested, I can explain why. It is probably the most "democratic" country in Europe, at least, for a number of reasons.
Russia and the USA / EU simply have different issues as democracies.
While Russia has more obvious corruption, the same thing occurs in Western Countries under the guise of "Corporate hospitality", lobbying etc.
Same-same, no difference...
As soon as you get rid of open corruption, and widespread contempt for democracy, that seems to exist in Russia, you'll be no worse at all than any other so called democracy.
In terms of police brutality etc - I don't see you being much worse off than people in the US, UK. Just look at Occupy movement how it was treated, terror laws, NSA spying, Wikileaks persecution, and the clank-down on any anti-globalist demonstration or movement. They kick drunks too (I've seen police in two Western countries do it) and sometimes beat up arrested people, although it's getting less common.
So my answer is that Russia is only very marginally less democratic than the countries you mentioned, if at all.
The issue I would have, is with corruption/bribes as a threat to democracy.
India, the world's largest democracy has the same problem, and countless others. So Russia is not alone and there is no need to judge yourself harshly about it. Just try to stop corruption...
In terms of foreign policy, I am having increasing respect for Russia as a moderate force - recently did a fantastic job with Syria.
Thanks for the offer, Hanna. Please explain why this country if you can.
Этот вопрос по своей структуре и последствиям похож на вопрос, решаемый в своё время святой инквизицией: "являются ли индейцы божьими тварями?".Is Russia a democracy?
Вроде чистая философия и любознательность, а на самом деле имелось в виду "можно ли их убивать?".
Поэтому я готов впрячься в эту дискуссию, сразу изменив её вектор, задав другие (отчасти риторические) вопросы:
- Является ли демократия идеалом, на который надо молиться?
- Является ли борьба (интересов, групп, партий) основой демократии?
- Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием?
- Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы?
Над этими вопросами думали в России уже сто лет назад. И соборность рассматривалась как альтернатива демократии. Но император был поклонником Запада (как многие наши императоры). Поэтому в качестве пути был выбран парламент и борьба партий. И привело это всё к самоуничтожению. У нас в обществе и сейчас уровень взаимной ненависти зашкаливает. Поэтому я боюсь наступать на эти западные грабли под названием демократия.
Попробую сохранить первоначальный вектор.
Формальная структура такая же, как в вопросе об индейцах, т.е. "Является ли Россия демократическим государством" (in English 'democracy' в данном случае = русск. "демократическое государство")
Последствия создаем мы с вами, как участники дискуссии (т.е. заранее они НЕ заданы).
- Является ли демократия идеалом, на который надо молиться? - Считаем, что это многосторонее явление (для кого-то это может быть идеалом, для кого-то нет). Молиться предложим ч/к-либо другому.
- Является ли борьба (интересов, групп, партий) основой демократии? - Считаем, что это её обязательный элемент, при условии, что это борьба без применения насилия.
- Отличаются ли страны с продвинутой демократией миролюбием? - Пока что сложно определить (можно сравнить разные страны). Неплохо бы также выяснить, является ли "миролюбие" (и по отношению к кому) обязательным условием демократии.
- Известны ли людям другие основы совместного существования, кроме борьбы? - Очевидно, известны. Вопрос, кажется, более философский, чем практический. Можно ли принять, что "вся жизнь всех людей в любое время в любом обществе - всегда борьба"?
Это отталкивает. К примеру, не все исходят из того, что семья, коллектив, природа - это неизбежная борьба, победа сильного над слабым и т.д.
Сильно заморачиваться не стоит. Древние греки воевали, современная Америка воюет. Этого достаточно, чтобы сделать вывод: демократия не гарантирует миролюбия во внешней политике.
Борьба - не очень эффективный способ жить, так как много сил уходит впустую. Очевидно, что чем меньше борьбы, тем эффективнее можно работать, созидать, управлять. Демократические страны любят снимать фильмы про то, как львы в саванне пожирают буйволов, но это не единственный способ существования.
Предлагаем считать, что наличие нескольких партий является обязательным элементом (т.е. если будет ОДНА партия, т.е. по определению это НЕдемократия). При этом должна быть политическая борьба между ними (т.е. считаем, что борьба между партиями не приравнивается борьбе сильного со слабым в природе).
Да, у нас есть презрение к демократии. Но я бы обобщил: у нас есть презрение, нигилизм, отрицание к любому предложению, к любому инструменту, к любому способу организации чего-либо.
Ханна, спасибо на добром слове. У меня такое ощущение, что шведы - наши люди.
Но такая система (в основе которой лежит борьба) имеет недостатки:
- на борьбу тратятся энергия и время.
- борьба не исключает, а даже подразумевает ложь и прочие нечестные приёмы.
- борьба приводи к компромиссам и половинчатым решениям, что снижает эффективность управления.
- борьба выносит наверх карьеристов, а не созидателей.
- борьба может уничтожить общество (революция и гражданская война).
Вывод совершенно логичный.
Posting Permissions
Russian Lessons | Russian Tests and Quizzes | Russian Vocabulary |
53Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote