What is democracy

[DrZoidberg]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

He claims liberal democracy of the 20th century is dead. No longer have the urban elites all power and the keys to the kingdom. Now when Facebook, Instagram and Tictoc spreads news, rather than newspapers. Knowing stuff matters less than being able to create a catchy meme. He calls it "Sensocracy". The engine for political change is today to rile up people's feelings about stuff, which is hard for any current tiny elite to control. An elite that can control this will form eventually. But we're not there yet. It will be "the age of the influencers". It's not that politics in the past hasn't been about steering people's emotions. But previously it was controlled by politicans. They would stir the pot to get people upset about things with the message being, "be upset about this thing and if you vote for me I will fix it". Today's politicians aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Newspapers aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Trump didn't create the conspiracy theories that served him. Biden didn't create the woke narratives that he's cashing in on. This isn't demagoguery. Q-anon benefitted no one and no group. Green fascism hurts it's supporters more than the people they're attacking against.

He hasn't placed the old and the new way in a hierarchy. As if one is better than the other. Both systems concentrate power unfairly in one small group over others.

 

[steve_bank]

No one is in control of the narrative unless you are in NK, China or Russia.

Different factions in our liberal democracy compete to sway people's thinking. No one ever said it was to be fair and balanced,

And to say it yet again, the USA is not a democracy it is a democratic republic. Liberal democracy means govt protection of the common human rights that evolved in western systems as opposed to conservative authoritarian systems like Russia and China. Righys of the individual over the rights of the group or those in political power

The idea that on the scale of the USA we can b stable without some kind of 'leading' is similar to the Libertarian fantasies. In fact we are descending into factionalism and political divisions unable to reach a political consensus.

 

[Jayjay]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

Hardly. Not only is that a poor definition for democracy (Russia or Turkey would qualify), but I don't see either urbanization, mass-media, or nation states going away anytime soon.

 

[Derec]

Mandatory Mencken:

 

[DrZoidberg]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

Hardly. Not only is that a poor definition for democracy (Russia or Turkey would qualify), but I don't see either urbanization, mass-media, or nation states going away anytime soon.

It's obviously not a full definition. for brevity I left out what I thought was obvious context. Sorry about the lack of clarity. The conversation is on how democracy in recent years has changed, in the west.

He also didn't claim urbanization will disappear. Only that the near total power of the urban elites will disappear. And that's, pretty much, already happened. If you want power today you don't go to the big city, you go to the Internet, from anywhere. Powerful people today meet and conspire just as much in cities as they do over the Internet. Likewise. Mass-media in the 1980's had collectively near total power over the narrative and public discourse. Working class press was middle-class people LARPing being poor. Today mass-media is just one of many sources where we get our information. Just this forum has helped to inform me (I think) on par with what I learn from newspapers. He's also not claiming nation states are going away.

 

[Swammerdami]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

Very cynical, but not "delightfully" so. And how can it be true, when every syllable is idiotic?

Just for starters your "friend" needs to learn the difference between a DEFINITION of democracy and a DESCRIPTION of present-day democracies. Quibbling perhaps, but it's rather desperate to listen to the babblings of someone who doesn't know the definition of "definition."

No longer have the urban elites all power and the keys to the kingdom.

Are we so eager for alliteration that we describe democracy as kingdom?

Now when Facebook, Instagram and Tictoc spreads news, rather than newspapers. Knowing stuff matters less than being able to create a catchy meme.

Correct. But even people who don't know the definition of "definition" knew this much already.

He calls it "Sensocracy".

Is there any reason to find that word invention other than idiotic?

The engine for political change is today to rile up people's feelings about stuff, which is hard for any current tiny elite to control. An elite that can control this will form eventually. But we're not there yet. It will be "the age of the influencers". It's not that politics in the past hasn't been about steering people's emotions. But previously it was controlled by politicans. They would stir the pot to get people upset about things with the message being, "be upset about this thing and if you vote for me I will fix it". Today's politicians aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Newspapers aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Trump didn't create the conspiracy theories that served him.

The contrast is completely wrong-headed. Centuries ago politicians exaggerated real fears and delusions. And they do that today as well.

Biden didn't create the woke narratives that he's cashing in on.

Biden, Trump? Same-Same. Your friend is a real deep thinker. ROTFLMAO

This isn't demagoguery. Q-anon benefitted no one and no group. Green fascism hurts it's supporters more than the people they're attacking against.

Q-Anon helps Trump and his ilk hugely. And the bizarre phrase "green fascism" punctuates your friend's stupidity perfectly!

Hope this helps.

 

[DrZoidberg]

No one is in control of the narrative unless you are in NK, China or Russia.

Groups can control it. In the 1980'ies unless you were urban and middle-class, belonging to an intellectual elite, you had no chance in hell to write in a newspaper. They collectively controlled the narrative. They made what was important to their group, important for everybody. They made sure politicians solved their problems first. Today they have to compete for attention with any moron with a keyboard.

But it's not like these intellectual middle-class urbanites were conspiring for this. It was the effect of the technological limitations of mass media. Getting news out fastest was the game, and they had to do whatever they could to shave off any minute that would hamper speed. That meant selecting people with the education to produce accurate news fast, ie intellectual middle-class. The Internet changed this.

What we're doing on this forum is in effect crowd sourcing sociology. In the Ukraine war thread we're crowd sourcing Ukraine war reporting.

Different factions in our liberal democracy compete to sway people's thinking. No one ever said it was to be fair and balanced,

I'm not sure why you said this. Why did you say this? What is this a comment on, against or for? What does it have to do with the OP?

The point of democracy isn't to make it fair. It's to make a system that works the best for society as a whole. Let's not be naive. Unless a political system maximizes wealth generation, it will become weak and lose power, and if it loses power it loses influence and will over time be supplanted by other systems, that work better. If we create the world's more fair system, unless it also makes us wealthy, it's doomed.

And to say it yet again, the USA is not a democracy it is a democratic republic. Liberal democracy means govt protection of the common human rights that evolved in western systems as opposed to conservative authoritarian systems like Russia and China. Righys of the individual over the rights of the group or those in political power

This is nit-picking and wrong. USA is an extremely well functioning liberal democracy. The electoral system doesn't change that. What matters is how it's actually working and if people feel empowered. If people can't be bothered to vote, because it doesn't matter, then it's not a liberal democracy. But people are. People's opinion about the US president actually matters.

Liberal Democracy was a product of 18'th century France and was the product of the clash between the ruling system that had worked in Feudal Europe and which was increasingly dysfunctional in an industrial economy.

You're talking about a much later, 20'th century, development. This requires an essay. But in hindsight I think it's safe to say that utopian collectivism and totalitarian ideology was an attempt to recreate the agrarian mindset (where your farm and your close community) will dictate what you do and what you value. Everybody lived on a knife's edge and had to give up their individuality for the sake of the needs of their farming community. As these people migrated to the cities, for work, they wanted the same kind of clarity and simple rules to follow. It's hard to overstate how insecure the rapid industrialization and rapid urbanization of the 19'th and 20'th century made people. It was extremely stressful to be poor in a way it had never been before in human history. In earlier times demographic shifts of this proportion would lead to a collapse of institution and most people dying. But this time the poor destitute people refused to die (because of an abundance of food).

The full story is of course many times more complicated than this. But I think this is a good short version.

The idea that on the scale of the USA we can b stable without some kind of 'leading' is similar to the Libertarian fantasies. In fact we are descending into factionalism and political divisions unable to reach a political consensus.

Again, I don't know why you said this? What is this a comment on?

I think political extremism, factionalism and an inability to reach a political consensus fits my friends narrative of sensocracy. If feelings are more important for politics then cognitive biases are more important. So we're more likely to have a political narrative characterized by black-and-white thinking where we demonize all those who don't agree with us. This fits the current situation. No?

 

[Swammerdami]

Biden didn't create the woke narratives that he's cashing in on.

This one of your friend's nuggets shows that he's ignorant about American politics, ignorant about wokeism, and ignorant about Joe Biden. (See what I mean about every syllable being idiotic?)

Nobody susceptible to "wokeism" — whatever your friend thinks that means — was going to vote Republican. And Biden cashing in on "wokeism"? ROTFLMAO. Biden did well at the polls in part due to his persona as an unwoke oldster!

 

[DrZoidberg]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

Very cynical, but not "delightfully" so. And how can it be true, when every syllable is idiotic?

Just for starters your "friend" needs to learn the difference between a DEFINITION of democracy and a DESCRIPTION of present-day democracies. Quibbling perhaps, but it's rather desperate to listen to the babblings of someone who doesn't know the definition of "definition."

To defend my friend. I used the word "definition". He didn't. My bad.

No longer have the urban elites all power and the keys to the kingdom.

Are we so eager for alliteration that we describe democracy as kingdom?

Yes.

He calls it "Sensocracy".

Is there any reason to find that word invention other than idiotic?

I like it.

The engine for political change is today to rile up people's feelings about stuff, which is hard for any current tiny elite to control. An elite that can control this will form eventually. But we're not there yet. It will be "the age of the influencers". It's not that politics in the past hasn't been about steering people's emotions. But previously it was controlled by politicans. They would stir the pot to get people upset about things with the message being, "be upset about this thing and if you vote for me I will fix it". Today's politicians aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Newspapers aren't in control of the narrative anymore. They're reactive. Trump didn't create the conspiracy theories that served him.

The contrast is completely wrong-headed. Centuries ago politicians exaggerated real fears and delusions. And they do that today as well.

Sure. But once a politician was in office they could mostly just ignore what they'd promised. They could get on with ruling the nation. Today they need to actually do good on all the shit they said on campaign.

Whether you think this is good or bad is another matter.

Biden didn't create the woke narratives that he's cashing in on.

Biden, Trump? Same-Same. Your friend is a real deep thinker. ROTFLMAO

Again, that's me. Not my friend. My point of contrasting them was that I don't want this to be a left/right thing. I think this is something that characterizes the entire political spectrum.

This isn't demagoguery. Q-anon benefitted no one and no group. Green fascism hurts it's supporters more than the people they're attacking against.

Q-Anon helps Trump and his ilk hugely. And the bizarre phrase "green fascism" punctuates your friend's stupidity perfectly!

Hope this helps.

Trump doesn't control Q-Anon. Q-Anon is it's own thing. He figured out how to cash in on it. But he didn't control them. Trump liked anyone who liked him. Q-Anon liked Trump, so Trump liked them. A perfect of Sensocracy in action. Trump is a child. The perfect example of White Privilige in action.

I think Green Fascism is a great term. I don't know how it is where you live, but in Scandinavia the extreme rhetoric and sheer degree of intolerance found in the Green Movement is scary. During the Covid pandemic the shit some people said about anti-vaxxers and how they wanted to treat them terrifies me. The way we treat smokers today, is equally horrifying. We have a new neo-fascistic streak across Europe today and it can be found in both left and the right. Young people today don't value freedom as much as I did when I was young. For kids today being right is more important than choosing your own path. And, of course, they know what other people need, more than they do.

 

[rousseau]

In a conversation with a friend he defined democracy as such.

"Democracy is just a word for an urban, massmedia-driven, nation-state form of power splitting. Rendered obsolete by digital sensocracy."

Delightfully cynical. But is it true?

I'd argue that democracy is more about power limitation, than power splitting. It reins in absolutism, and limits the ability of leaders to make bad decisions. This is in contrast to autocracy where there is no way to stop an ineffective leader from making bad decisions.

The media is just an adjunct to this, and has to be considered when a particular party tries to win an election.

Basically, it's a step beyond intergenerational leadership, and it doesn't sound like your friend really understands this.

 

[Tigers!]

I've always wondered if it is better to think of democracy as a means rather than an end in itself.
For example democracy gives us the opportunity to choose between 1-N political options. But democracy of itself cannot tell us which is the better or best option.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I've always wondered if it is better to think of democracy as a means rather than an end in itself.
For example democracy gives us the opportunity to choose between 1-N political options. But democracy of itself cannot tell us which is the better or best option.

Yeah. The best governmental system is a competent, benevolent dictatorship.

It's just impossible to accomplish it, even if you somehow manage to set it up in the first place what happens with succession?

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite. Either by being included into it or by being born into it. But they always need to cater to the needs of that elite, or they have no hope in hell of gaining power. Democracy will always be rigged for one specific group.

The democratic narrative means that the elite in power have to constantly keep the theatre of equality and equal opportunity going. But it's obviously complete bullshit.

It's the same story if you want to make a career in a company. The company is controlled by a tiny elite who cling to power, and if you want to ascend the corporate ladder, you need to play the game and gain entry into that elite.

The ONLY reason democracy is the ruling system in the rich part of the world, is because it works. For whatever reason, it encourages well oiled bureaucracies, low corruption, and efficient markets. If it didn't work, we wouldn't care how fair it was.

The story of power to the people and equality for all, is just a story. It's a narrative. It's a nice narrative. It engages people and makes people care about their country. But it's just a story. It's about as true as the Bible is.

 

[Swammerdami]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite.

So if we want a political system which empowers the people we should NOT pick democracy. What should we pick? Oligarchy?

 

[rousseau]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite. Either by being included into it or by being born into it. But they always need to cater to the needs of that elite, or they have no hope in hell of gaining power. Democracy will always be rigged for one specific group.

The democratic narrative means that the elite in power have to constantly keep the theatre of equality and equal opportunity going. But it's obviously complete bullshit.

It's the same story if you want to make a career in a company. The company is controlled by a tiny elite who cling to power, and if you want to ascend the corporate ladder, you need to play the game and gain entry into that elite.

The ONLY reason democracy is the ruling system in the rich part of the world, is because it works. For whatever reason, it encourages well oiled bureaucracies, low corruption, and efficient markets. If it didn't work, we wouldn't care how fair it was.

The story of power to the people and equality for all, is just a story. It's a narrative. It's a nice narrative. It engages people and makes people care about their country. But it's just a story. It's about as true as the Bible is.

That's exactly why democracy is so effective, because it effectively stops the elite from acquiring absolute and arbitrary power, and, on some level, forces them to actually serve the community they lead, thereby 'empowering' the people.

 

[DrZoidberg]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite.

So if we want a political system which empowers the people we should NOT pick democracy. What should we pick? Oligarchy?

I think we're shit out of luck. Humans are greedy, short sighted and are eminently exploitable by sociopaths. I think we should assume that whatever system we pick, the top guy will end up being a psychopath or narcissist. So we need to plan for that. The nice thing about liberal democracy is that it's designed to prevent the top guy from doing too much damage, and will soon be removed.

I think our goal has to be on picking a system that works. That's more important than any pipe dream ideals. We can't really afford to be naïve. Look at what happened in USA with a bunch of morons storming the capitol. The Americans voted a guy into power, who didn't even believe in the system he was in charge of. Very little is needed to fuck it all up.

I think democracy is an awful system of government. But it is the least bad. The ONLY thing it has going for it is that all the others are worse.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
-Churchill

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite. Either by being included into it or by being born into it. But they always need to cater to the needs of that elite, or they have no hope in hell of gaining power. Democracy will always be rigged for one specific group.

The democratic narrative means that the elite in power have to constantly keep the theatre of equality and equal opportunity going. But it's obviously complete bullshit.

It's the same story if you want to make a career in a company. The company is controlled by a tiny elite who cling to power, and if you want to ascend the corporate ladder, you need to play the game and gain entry into that elite.

The ONLY reason democracy is the ruling system in the rich part of the world, is because it works. For whatever reason, it encourages well oiled bureaucracies, low corruption, and efficient markets. If it didn't work, we wouldn't care how fair it was.

The story of power to the people and equality for all, is just a story. It's a narrative. It's a nice narrative. It engages people and makes people care about their country. But it's just a story. It's about as true as the Bible is.

That's exactly why democracy is so effective, because it effectively stops the elite from acquiring absolute and arbitrary power, and, on some level, forces them to actually serve the community they lead, thereby 'empowering' the people.

Exactly! But it is a myth. That elite is still self serving. Just less self-serving than elites in non-democratic countries.

My friends insight (I think) is identifying how the Internet has shifted which elite has power. Its not more democratic or better now. Its just a new elite taking over increasing amounts of power. Eventually the old elite will have adapted or be supplanted. Just like the old aristocracy. Plenty of those are still rich and powerful. A lot of them aren't

 

[rousseau]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite.

So if we want a political system which empowers the people we should NOT pick democracy. What should we pick? Oligarchy?

I think we're shit out of luck. Humans are greedy, short sighted and are eminently exploitable by sociopaths. I think we should assume that whatever system we pick, the top guy will end up being a psychopath or narcissist. So we need to plan for that. The nice thing about liberal democracy is that it's designed to prevent the top guy from doing too much damage, and will soon be removed.

I think our goal has to be on picking a system that works. That's more important than any pipe dream ideals. We can't really afford to be naïve. Look at what happened in USA with a bunch of morons storming the capitol. The Americans voted a guy into power, who didn't even believe in the system he was in charge of. Very little is needed to fuck it all up.

I think democracy is an awful system of government. But it is the least bad. The ONLY thing it has going for it is that all the others are worse.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
-Churchill

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite. Either by being included into it or by being born into it. But they always need to cater to the needs of that elite, or they have no hope in hell of gaining power. Democracy will always be rigged for one specific group.

The democratic narrative means that the elite in power have to constantly keep the theatre of equality and equal opportunity going. But it's obviously complete bullshit.

It's the same story if you want to make a career in a company. The company is controlled by a tiny elite who cling to power, and if you want to ascend the corporate ladder, you need to play the game and gain entry into that elite.

The ONLY reason democracy is the ruling system in the rich part of the world, is because it works. For whatever reason, it encourages well oiled bureaucracies, low corruption, and efficient markets. If it didn't work, we wouldn't care how fair it was.

The story of power to the people and equality for all, is just a story. It's a narrative. It's a nice narrative. It engages people and makes people care about their country. But it's just a story. It's about as true as the Bible is.

That's exactly why democracy is so effective, because it effectively stops the elite from acquiring absolute and arbitrary power, and, on some level, forces them to actually serve the community they lead, thereby 'empowering' the people.

Exactly! But it is a myth. That elite is still self serving. Just less self-serving than elites in non-democratic countries.

My friends insight (I think) is identifying how the Internet has shifted which elite has power. Its not more democratic or better now. Its just a new elite taking over increasing amounts of power. Eventually the old elite will have adapted or be supplanted. Just like the old aristocracy. Plenty of those are still rich and powerful. A lot of them aren't

Well, everyone is self-serving, so I don't know that it's fair to expect those on the top of the hierarchy to be any less so. Maybe the popular image of democracy is a bit off-base, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with it (democracy), just that people don't really understand it.

And really, I would argue that this is true of most aspects of culture - that the masses don't really grasp much of what's going on around them. They become immersed in culture, but aren't great at looking inward at it.

 

[bilby]

I've always wondered if it is better to think of democracy as a means rather than an end in itself.
For example democracy gives us the opportunity to choose between 1-N political options. But democracy of itself cannot tell us which is the better or best option.

Yeah. The best governmental system is a competent, benevolent dictatorship.

It's just impossible to accomplish it, even if you somehow manage to set it up in the first place what happens with succession?

It's been accomplished several times throughout history, and has often lasted several days before collapsing into self-serving corruption and cronyism.

 

[bilby]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite.

So if we want a political system which empowers the people we should NOT pick democracy. What should we pick? Oligarchy?

That does seem to be the norm.

Government of the people, by the people, must inevitably founder on the practicalities of keeping the entire population both informed and engaged. The "Western Democracies" resolve this by having the electorate delegate power to a tiny number* of representatives, who are necessarily self-selected weirdos who (unlike the vast majority) actually give a crap - usually because they can see personal benefit in doing so, rather than from any idea of selfless service.

Normal human beings don't care to scrutinise para 385, s.142A of the Agricultural Production (Turnip, Carrot and Root Vegetables) Act to ensure that it most effectively meets the broadest interests of all constituents. But you can find a handful of people who will do it in return for the expectation of a kickback from the Turnip Growers Federation.

Politicians are simply not like the rest of us, so getting upset that they don't adequately represent our views is more than a little silly.

Perhaps we should randomly select citizens to be representatives whether they like it or not, like Jury Service but without the loopholes that allow people to duck out of their responsibility.

It would certainly achieve a more representative set of representatives than holding elections amongst the minuscule number of citizens who are mad enough to want the job.


At the national level:
USA 535 out of 330 million, 0.00016%
UK 650 out of 67 million, 0.00097%
Australia 227 out of 26 million, 0.00087%

 

[Jarhyn]

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite.

So if we want a political system which empowers the people we should NOT pick democracy. What should we pick? Oligarchy?

I think we're shit out of luck. Humans are greedy, short sighted and are eminently exploitable by sociopaths. I think we should assume that whatever system we pick, the top guy will end up being a psychopath or narcissist. So we need to plan for that. The nice thing about liberal democracy is that it's designed to prevent the top guy from doing too much damage, and will soon be removed.

I think our goal has to be on picking a system that works. That's more important than any pipe dream ideals. We can't really afford to be naïve. Look at what happened in USA with a bunch of morons storming the capitol. The Americans voted a guy into power, who didn't even believe in the system he was in charge of. Very little is needed to fuck it all up.

I think democracy is an awful system of government. But it is the least bad. The ONLY thing it has going for it is that all the others are worse.

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time"
-Churchill

I think seeing democracy as people being empowered is completely backward and wrong. Whoever manages to take control in a democratic nation does so because they belong to an elite. Either by being included into it or by being born into it. But they always need to cater to the needs of that elite, or they have no hope in hell of gaining power. Democracy will always be rigged for one specific group.

The democratic narrative means that the elite in power have to constantly keep the theatre of equality and equal opportunity going. But it's obviously complete bullshit.

It's the same story if you want to make a career in a company. The company is controlled by a tiny elite who cling to power, and if you want to ascend the corporate ladder, you need to play the game and gain entry into that elite.

The ONLY reason democracy is the ruling system in the rich part of the world, is because it works. For whatever reason, it encourages well oiled bureaucracies, low corruption, and efficient markets. If it didn't work, we wouldn't care how fair it was.

The story of power to the people and equality for all, is just a story. It's a narrative. It's a nice narrative. It engages people and makes people care about their country. But it's just a story. It's about as true as the Bible is.

That's exactly why democracy is so effective, because it effectively stops the elite from acquiring absolute and arbitrary power, and, on some level, forces them to actually serve the community they lead, thereby 'empowering' the people.

Exactly! But it is a myth. That elite is still self serving. Just less self-serving than elites in non-democratic countries.

My friends insight (I think) is identifying how the Internet has shifted which elite has power. Its not more democratic or better now. Its just a new elite taking over increasing amounts of power. Eventually the old elite will have adapted or be supplanted. Just like the old aristocracy. Plenty of those are still rich and powerful. A lot of them aren't

Well, everyone is self-serving, so I don't know that it's fair to expect those on the top of the hierarchy to be any less so. Maybe the popular image of democracy is a bit off-base, but that doesn't necessarily mean there is anything wrong with it (democracy), just that people don't really understand it.

And really, I would argue that this is true of most aspects of culture - that the masses don't really grasp much of what's going on around them. They become immersed in culture, but aren't great at looking inward at it.

It is entirely fair to expect everyone who self serves to at least only serve self insofar as it is compatible with identical self service by others who serve themselves. We democratize which self services everybody, and nobody, may pursue, and what bodies are empowered by public trust to restrict such pursuits within fixed bounds, formed by philosophical recognition of services it is recognized are inappropriate to ever restrict.

Democracy forms a threat of general strike and an information of rights of the people to overthrow it, should it fail to heed it's constitution, at least in the US model.