The Holy Grail of Democracy

DanaC · 04-26-2004, 06:19 AM

I was uncertain whether to post this into the Politics forums or the Philosophy forum *smiles* really its political philosophy ....so I chose the latter.

With such a world focus on the war in Iraq and the more general media focus on the "democratisation" ( or lack thereof) of various Arab nation, discussion about democracy itself as a concept seems curiously absent from the media debate.

I have heard much from people who argue whether or not Islam is conducive to democracy. Some claim it is an inherently democratic religion others suggest it is in and of itself a block to democracy.

A very clever man once claimed that Democracy was the worst form of government...except for all the rest.

The western ideal is of a self determined, democratic, free market with enshrined civil liberties and at least lip service given to the idea of social equity.

But is that just a western construct? The natural result of the cultural decisions our nations have made over hundreds of years....Is what we have, the glorious result of human evolution and social development or is it just one way of doing things? Does the fact that we built much of our success on the backs of the unfree marr our freedom ? Do freedom and democracy equate?

Since we seem hell bent on converting as much of the world to parliamentary or congressional democracy as we can...It strikes me as only right that we wonder what it is we are trying to turn the world into.....and what other roads could we have take and could take now.?

russotto · 04-26-2004, 01:18 PM

Well, we've seen

1) Dictatorship -- strong man, direct rule. Tends to be rather harsh for the average Joe, very unstable when dictator dies. Power struggles often lead to violence.

2) Oligarchy -- rule by a few. Each usually has his own group of followers. Still tends to be harsh for the average Joe. Power struggles lead to more limited violence USUALLY, with a realignment of positions on the committee. However, a split within the committee leads to open warfare.

Most authoritarian regimes are some form of oligarchy, whether secular or religious.

3) Hierarchical government (e.g. feudal monarchy). Power devolves from some supreme authority, down to regional and local authorities. How harsh it is depends on where in the hierarchy you are, and most people are on the bottom. Much more stable than dictatorship or oligarchy. Weaknesses at the upper levels lead to violence at the lower levels.

Any other forms you'd propose as superior?

Beestie · 04-26-2004, 01:43 PM

Originally posted by DanaC

Quote:

Does the fact that we built much of our success on the backs of the unfree marr our freedom ?

What are you referring to here? Slavery? I don't really think America really owes its success or any major part thereof to slavery henious as it was.

Quote:

Since we seem hell bent on converting as much of the world to parliamentary or congressional democracy as we can...It strikes me as only right that we wonder what it is we are trying to turn the world into.....and what other roads could we have take and could take now.?

I think we are trying to turn the rest of the world into a democracy freindly to the United States. I can't really think of anything else.

The only interesting angle I can come up with that relates to your point is all the bitching I hear about there not being any democracies in the middle east. Well, I think things would get a lot worse if the majority of the middle east were democratic. For example, if Saudi Arabia and Pakistan were suddenly democratic, I think it would be worse for us - a lot worse.

If your post was a long version of "be careful what you wish for" then we agree on much.

xoxoxoBruce · 04-26-2004, 02:08 PM

We must convert the whole world to democracies for the convenience of big business. They already know how to control a democracy and they're tired of investing a fortune, only to have some commie or dictator seize their assets.

jaguar · 04-26-2004, 02:11 PM

After much consideration I've come to a very odd point of view. I do play, to a degree, devil's advocate on this.

In the end the people aren't fit to rule, they're stupid, shortsighted and immature, most are an utter waste of space. The illuminate had the right idea, a group, small, dispatched, intelligent fellows in positions of powers working together to influence, suggest and insinuate. A council of wise men working behind the scenes to maintain economic and political stability invisibly. The knights of templar had the right idea.

I also believe our technological advancement will lead to this happening sooner or later.

The challenge is of course, making sure it's the right people. There are natural factors at work. The top echelons of our society tend often to be self-cleansing (you would be amazed), there are many societies and alliances, particularly in europe that date back centuries but keeping the riffraff out is always difficult.

Clodfobble · 04-26-2004, 02:29 PM

In the end the people aren't fit to rule, they're stupid, shortsighted and immature, most are an utter waste of space.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that the people are most certainly fit to rule, especially on a smaller scale that leads directly up into a hierarchy, and they are in fact way, WAY better at knowing what's going on than some detached "intelligent" group that makes decisions for me because I'm too stupid to know what the best thing to do with my life is.

I find it ironic that your "behind closed doors" council of wise men seems to actually be very similar to what the US has now. Whether or not they have the right ideas, tw's so-called "vulcans" are the top echelons of society where money and education are concerned, and they do seem to be attempting to control economic and political instability without letting the population know what's going on. Last I checked, you weren't too keen on the way the US was being run, were you? The problem isn't keeping the riffraff out, it's keeping the corruption out, which has nothing to do with a small controlling group and everything to do with people running their own lives.

jaguar · 04-26-2004, 02:54 PM

Running their own lives is one thing, running government is another entirely. People without a grip on ecnomics theory or policy, history or social theory voting on issues they simply have a limited at bestunderstanding of, the result is bottom-of-the-barrel politics, pandering to people and short-term governmental thinking. Not exactly pretty and in the long term, disasterous.

By riffraff I implied corrupt individuals. There are many that use their power for good ends. Of course your definition of good is always up for debate but one need only look at a man like George Soros for example, to see what can be done.

DanaC · 04-26-2004, 05:08 PM

*Smiles* To some extent I agree with you Jaguar. There are times I hold my head in frustration as I watch the British tabloid press push the anti-europe or anti-asylum agenda and then next I know theres this huge public outcry and a wave of anti European sentiment or demands for tougher asylum laws. I dont know if tabloid papers play much of a role in the US but theyre a pain in the neck over here ....They do have a major effect on the voting public. There used to be a maxim that whoever the Sun supported was the likely next winner. ....and an anti European sentiment began to grow soon after certain media magnates staked their flags to the Anti campaigns. Its frustrating because it ends up with ordinary workingclass people fighting for the vested interests of the people that sit at the top.

That said.....I do believe that given a truly democratic system and more importantly access to that democratic system in some meaningful way most of us can be trusted most of the time not to be complete dipshits about it.

elSicomoro · 04-26-2004, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beestie
What are you referring to here? Slavery? I don't really think America really owes its success or any major part thereof to slavery henious as it was.

Please tell me that you're joking.

richlevy · 04-26-2004, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beestie
[What are you referring to here? Slavery? I don't really think America really owes its success or any major part thereof to slavery henious as it was.

That's going to come as a big surprise to anyone from a formerly Confederate state, most of which complained that the abolishment of slavery would destroy their economies.

This chart has the 1860 Population of the United States. Note that %12 of the total US population were slaves. Concentrated in the South, they were more than %50 of the population of some states. This means they were largely responsible for the economy of the South, which provided food and raw materials to the North as well as international trade.

Troubleshooter · 04-26-2004, 09:54 PM

During its time, slavery was a vital component of southern prosperity, but even had things turned out other than they did, slavery would have gone away in time. Industrial innovation would have done slavery a staggering blow eventually.

Slavery is something of a cultural commonality. Not universal, but pretty damn close.

richlevy · 04-26-2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Troubleshooter
During its time, slavery was a vital component of southern prosperity, but even had things turned out other than they did, slavery would have gone away in time. Industrial innovation would have done slavery a staggering blow eventually.

Slavery is something of a cultural commonality. Not universal, but pretty damn close.

Are you saying that slavery (and exploitation) are automatically abolished by mechanization? Look at the illegal and legal immigrants in this country, not to mention prison labor.

Better tools do not always make free men.

DanaC · 04-27-2004, 03:50 AM

I actually was not referring necessarily to slavery. Though obviously that crossed my mind. That was soimething which the democracy of America was built upon. I am thinking more widely of the way the current "democratic" states of the western world are built upon and continue to be built upon the backs of less free people's. For instance......There are approximately half a million children working as child slaves in the production of Cocoa for the sweet treats we westerners so enjoy...

.Now that we feel ourselves above the dirty jobs we employ others to do them for us....at the very loweest rates we can get away with....consequently so many of our luxury goods are made with little nimble fingers that anyone looking at our society from the vantage point of history may form a very different picture of our western "freedom" than we might.

The economic imperatives of capitalism require that there be a large wash of people at the bottom, bearing the weight of the world.

Added to that is the tendency of the western world to accept all manner of inequity for other countries, all with our support as long as it is politically expedient to us ( Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Palestine)

I havent even touched on that ol'chestnut of cultural imperialism. I imagine many of you Americans hold in mind an image of America as the young and feisty nation that stuck one in the eye of the old British empire. But those days are long long gone. America is the new Rome. For many of us outside America there is no doubt in our minds we are living in an American Hegemony. It doesnt feel so oppressive to us English after all we share a language.....But if I was a banana grower in the carribean or a Palestinian in Gaza, or an Argentinian buisinessman....I may not feel so free of the American cultural whip.

Undertoad · 04-27-2004, 06:18 AM

Slavery and repression are automatically abolished by automation because it creates different economic conditions. When slavery existed, 50% of the people were needed to work on farms just to feed everyone. Today less than 2% of people work on farms.

Economists (and a quick look around at the reality) will tell you that both the richer and the poorer nation are improved by trade. The nations that the US was trading with in this way 30-40 years ago, are now amongst the richest nations of the world. Nothing else in centuries of history put them in that position. If they felt oppressed at the time it was good they shut up about it because the rising economic tides floated their boats right out of extreme poverty. If you want people not to starve, get the US to oppress them culturally and with trade. Here's the biggest example in a graphic I created two years ago, and if you don't get it after staring at this for a while, you'll never get it. Which side of the line is the oppression on again?

elSicomoro · 04-27-2004, 08:49 AM

A few folks I know think that photo is a fake.

04-26-2004, 06:19 AM	#1
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	The Holy Grail of Democracy I was uncertain whether to post this into the Politics forums or the Philosophy forum smiles really its political philosophy ....so I chose the latter. With such a world focus on the war in Iraq and the more general media focus on the "democratisation" ( or lack thereof) of various Arab nation, discussion about democracy itself as a concept seems curiously absent from the media debate. I have heard much from people who argue whether or not Islam is conducive to democracy. Some claim it is an inherently democratic religion others suggest it is in and of itself a block to democracy. A very clever man once claimed that Democracy was the worst form of government...except for all the rest. The western ideal is of a self determined, democratic, free market with enshrined civil liberties and at least lip service given to the idea of social equity. But is that just a western construct? The natural result of the cultural decisions our nations have made over hundreds of years....Is what we have, the glorious result of human evolution and social development or is it just one way of doing things? Does the fact that we built much of our success on the backs of the unfree marr our freedom ? Do freedom and democracy equate? Since we seem hell bent on converting as much of the world to parliamentary or congressional democracy as we can...It strikes me as only right that we wonder what it is we are trying to turn the world into.....and what other roads could we have take and could take now.?

04-26-2004, 02:08 PM	#4
xoxoxoBruce The future is unwritten Join Date: Oct 2002 Posts: 71,105	We must convert the whole world to democracies for the convenience of big business. They already know how to control a democracy and they're tired of investing a fortune, only to have some commie or dictator seize their assets. __________________ The descent of man ~ Nixon, Friedman, Reagan, Trump.

04-26-2004, 02:11 PM	#5
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	After much consideration I've come to a very odd point of view. I do play, to a degree, devil's advocate on this. In the end the people aren't fit to rule, they're stupid, shortsighted and immature, most are an utter waste of space. The illuminate had the right idea, a group, small, dispatched, intelligent fellows in positions of powers working together to influence, suggest and insinuate. A council of wise men working behind the scenes to maintain economic and political stability invisibly. The knights of templar had the right idea. I also believe our technological advancement will lead to this happening sooner or later. The challenge is of course, making sure it's the right people. There are natural factors at work. The top echelons of our society tend often to be self-cleansing (you would be amazed), there are many societies and alliances, particularly in europe that date back centuries but keeping the riffraff out is always difficult. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain Last edited by jaguar; 04-26-2004 at 02:13 PM.

04-26-2004, 02:54 PM	#7
jaguar whig Join Date: Apr 2001 Posts: 5,075	Running their own lives is one thing, running government is another entirely. People without a grip on ecnomics theory or policy, history or social theory voting on issues they simply have a limited at bestunderstanding of, the result is bottom-of-the-barrel politics, pandering to people and short-term governmental thinking. Not exactly pretty and in the long term, disasterous. By riffraff I implied corrupt individuals. There are many that use their power for good ends. Of course your definition of good is always up for debate but one need only look at a man like George Soros for example, to see what can be done. __________________ Good friends, good books and a sleepy conscience: this is the ideal life. - Twain

04-26-2004, 09:54 PM	#11
Troubleshooter The urban Jane Goodall Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Florida Posts: 3,012	During its time, slavery was a vital component of southern prosperity, but even had things turned out other than they did, slavery would have gone away in time. Industrial innovation would have done slavery a staggering blow eventually. Slavery is something of a cultural commonality. Not universal, but pretty damn close. __________________ I have gained this from philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. - Aristotle

04-26-2004, 01:18 PM	#2
russotto Professor Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 1,788	Well, we've seen 1) Dictatorship -- strong man, direct rule. Tends to be rather harsh for the average Joe, very unstable when dictator dies. Power struggles often lead to violence. 2) Oligarchy -- rule by a few. Each usually has his own group of followers. Still tends to be harsh for the average Joe. Power struggles lead to more limited violence USUALLY, with a realignment of positions on the committee. However, a split within the committee leads to open warfare. Most authoritarian regimes are some form of oligarchy, whether secular or religious. 3) Hierarchical government (e.g. feudal monarchy). Power devolves from some supreme authority, down to regional and local authorities. How harsh it is depends on where in the hierarchy you are, and most people are on the bottom. Much more stable than dictatorship or oligarchy. Weaknesses at the upper levels lead to violence at the lower levels. Any other forms you'd propose as superior?

04-26-2004, 02:29 PM	#6
Clodfobble UNDER CONDITIONAL MITIGATION Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Austin, TX Posts: 20,012	In the end the people aren't fit to rule, they're stupid, shortsighted and immature, most are an utter waste of space. I couldn't disagree more. I think that the people are most certainly fit to rule, especially on a smaller scale that leads directly up into a hierarchy, and they are in fact way, WAY better at knowing what's going on than some detached "intelligent" group that makes decisions for me because I'm too stupid to know what the best thing to do with my life is. I find it ironic that your "behind closed doors" council of wise men seems to actually be very similar to what the US has now. Whether or not they have the right ideas, tw's so-called "vulcans" are the top echelons of society where money and education are concerned, and they do seem to be attempting to control economic and political instability without letting the population know what's going on. Last I checked, you weren't too keen on the way the US was being run, were you? The problem isn't keeping the riffraff out, it's keeping the corruption out, which has nothing to do with a small controlling group and everything to do with people running their own lives.

04-26-2004, 05:08 PM	#8
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	Smiles To some extent I agree with you Jaguar. There are times I hold my head in frustration as I watch the British tabloid press push the anti-europe or anti-asylum agenda and then next I know theres this huge public outcry and a wave of anti European sentiment or demands for tougher asylum laws. I dont know if tabloid papers play much of a role in the US but theyre a pain in the neck over here ....They do have a major effect on the voting public. There used to be a maxim that whoever the Sun supported was the likely next winner. ....and an anti European sentiment began to grow soon after certain media magnates staked their flags to the Anti campaigns. Its frustrating because it ends up with ordinary workingclass people fighting for the vested interests of the people that sit at the top. That said.....I do believe that given a truly democratic system and more importantly access to that democratic system in some meaningful way most of us can be trusted most of the time not to be complete dipshits about it.

04-27-2004, 03:50 AM	#13
DanaC We have to go back, Kate! Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Yorkshire Posts: 25,964	I actually was not referring necessarily to slavery. Though obviously that crossed my mind. That was soimething which the democracy of America was built upon. I am thinking more widely of the way the current "democratic" states of the western world are built upon and continue to be built upon the backs of less free people's. For instance......There are approximately half a million children working as child slaves in the production of Cocoa for the sweet treats we westerners so enjoy... .Now that we feel ourselves above the dirty jobs we employ others to do them for us....at the very loweest rates we can get away with....consequently so many of our luxury goods are made with little nimble fingers that anyone looking at our society from the vantage point of history may form a very different picture of our western "freedom" than we might. The economic imperatives of capitalism require that there be a large wash of people at the bottom, bearing the weight of the world. Added to that is the tendency of the western world to accept all manner of inequity for other countries, all with our support as long as it is politically expedient to us ( Saudi Arabia, Kashmir, Palestine) I havent even touched on that ol'chestnut of cultural imperialism. I imagine many of you Americans hold in mind an image of America as the young and feisty nation that stuck one in the eye of the old British empire. But those days are long long gone. America is the new Rome. For many of us outside America there is no doubt in our minds we are living in an American Hegemony. It doesnt feel so oppressive to us English after all we share a language.....But if I was a banana grower in the carribean or a Palestinian in Gaza, or an Argentinian buisinessman....I may not feel so free of the American cultural whip.

04-27-2004, 06:18 AM	#14
Undertoad Radical Centrist Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Cottage of Prussia Posts: 31,423	Slavery and repression are automatically abolished by automation because it creates different economic conditions. When slavery existed, 50% of the people were needed to work on farms just to feed everyone. Today less than 2% of people work on farms. Economists (and a quick look around at the reality) will tell you that both the richer and the poorer nation are improved by trade. The nations that the US was trading with in this way 30-40 years ago, are now amongst the richest nations of the world. Nothing else in centuries of history put them in that position. If they felt oppressed at the time it was good they shut up about it because the rising economic tides floated their boats right out of extreme poverty. If you want people not to starve, get the US to oppress them culturally and with trade. Here's the biggest example in a graphic I created two years ago, and if you don't get it after staring at this for a while, you'll never get it. Which side of the line is the oppression on again?

04-27-2004, 08:49 AM	#15
elSicomoro Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jan 2001 Posts: 12,486	A few folks I know think that photo is a fake. Last edited by elSicomoro; 04-27-2004 at 08:53 AM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)