What is democracy

[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?

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.

All systems have the unavoidable characteristic of being able to be overthrown by a sufficiently well motivated and numerous segment of the citizenry.

The difference with democracy isn't that it's easier for the people to depose an unpopular ruler; It's that they can do so without engaging in violence against him.

Thus democracy protects, not the people, but their unpopular rulers.

That's why Tsar Nicholas II ended up as a mutilated corpse buried in the Koptyaki forest, while Donald Trump ended up playing golf at Mar-a-Lago.

 

[Swammerdami]

Let me try to bring order out of chaos. First, let's obviate quibbling by defining democracy as representative democracy — a system where the people, or a largish portion of them, elect representatives to run the government.

And let's assert that there have been many successful governments, whether democratic or not. Egypt's Old Kingdom built the Pyramids. JFK and his successors landed men on the Moon (and brought them safely back to Earth). Defining success poses problems: Andrew Jackson helped a fledgling country grow by massacring Natives, but this was what the voters wanted and may have served "American interests."

If we require that government be benevolent and have "good morality" we can still find plenty of examples. The British government got better and better over the centuries, as its democratic system got stronger, until finally fizzling with Brexit. The American government was a beacon to the world but fizzled in 2016. There are plenty of fairly successful democracies in Europe which haven't "fizzled" ... yet. The recent book The Dawn of Everything has examples of successful New World governance.

Non-democracies can also succeed. Singaporeans largely admire their democratic government, despite its authoritarian bent. And Cyrus the Great of Persia ruled a non-democracy with such wisdom and benevolence that Thomas Jefferson admired him greatly.

So what is the thread about? OP hints at, while obfuscating, the apparent fact that Britain and the U.S. now seem to be run as idiotocracies. Have changes in technology, especially the rise of cable TV and social media, rendered democracy ineffective? With France recently rejecting a racist candidate, is idiotocracy primarily a problem with the Anglophonic democracies? These topics are discussed in much detail in magazines like The Atlantic and in other threads here.

What about an authoritarian government like China's? Or an authoritarian-democratic hybrid like Singapore? I think there is merit to having benevolent "wise men" exert authority. However it may be too late to save the crumbling Anglophone democracies this way: Stupidism is so entrenched, at least in America, that any "wise men" selected would likely be corrupt demagogues embracing their Stupidist supporters.

Another theme in OP, I think, is the power of "the Elite." We'd need another thread to even define "the Elite," but when a multi-billionaire can buy a major social media company with his pocket change, I can only roll my eyes in bewilderment at the QOPAnoners and other right-wingers who think this is how capitalism "should" work.

 

[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

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.

When did I argue against democracy or say something is wrong with it?

It's possible to criticise something that we like. It's a healthy and a good practice

 

[Jayjay]

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.

Correlation doesn't mean causation. A working democracy usually has rule of law and market economy, which spur economic activity. It doesn't have as much to do with people being able to vote for their representatives as it does with the system being predictable and "fair". China isn't a democracy, but it has a market economy (for the most part) and a well-oiled bureaucracy. One might even say that because China had such efficient bureaucrats, the narrative of democracy never had a chance to take root there.

I see democracy as a broader concept than just the current 20th century western concoction. I think it's a sliding scale of more participatory society versus a centralized one controlled by the few. We may pick some arbitrary point on the scale and say that all societies or organizations on one side of the scale are democracies, and others are not, but that's just a label. And we're ourselves nowhere near one end of the scale, every country in the world has room to improve.

I also see democracy as much more than just being able to vote. For voting to work, it requires rule of law (so that some powerful entities won't just cheat), free press, an educated population, low corruption, and sufficiently strong state monopoly on violence. The state needs to be somehow chained so it doesn't fall into the hands of a few dictators, so it's a balancing act.

 

[Thomas II]

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

All forms of government possess inherent dangers. Democracies enshrine individual liberties and freedom of information. Some people who enjoy democratic government use those freedoms to make the society less democratic.

 

[BH]

I always thought democracy was a way to let the public vent its frustrations out in elections, throwing politicians out in times of problems that probably could not be solved and replacing them with new politicians who couldnt do anything about them either but had to good fortune of working themselves out by the time of the next election.

Basically the Supreme Court and appellate courts are our version of Communist parties in communist countries. you can have elections but the communist party can ignore the results or overturn them. The courts here do that.

 

[SigmatheZeta]

Democracy is our alternative to tyranny. Abuse against ourselves is barely acceptable. Abuse by a tyrant cannot be tolerated. Better not to be abused at all, but if I cannot avoid getting abused, at least let me have a say in how it is to be done.

Those that would throw over democracy for being under the domination of people that are rich and powerful enough to do as they please to others, while being utterly shielded from the consequences, are fools. Democracy is imperfect, but your alternatives are to either put in a time-investment to teach people to deal with their own problems--which you will never do if you are a low-investment individual that would rather read a list of content-free quips than a book--or to truckle to whatever tyrant is able to seize power.

Democracy is better than tyranny. Neither is as good as a society where people have confidence in each other and in their power to solve their own problems.

 

[Jayjay]

Yanis Varoufakis, a lefty economist and a former Greek minister of finance, has similar ideas to the opening post: