Democracy or Autocracy?

[Divinus Arma]

Rule of the people?

or Rule of the Few?



Keep in mind that Athens was partially destroted by its democracy when it undertook the Campaign in Sicily towards the end of the war with Sparta. Democracy has its flaws too.

So, rule by the ignorant and esily swayed masses, or rule by the educated upper classes?

Or somewhere in between, such as a qualifying citizenship based on education?

[AntiochusIII]

Erm...just wanted to point out that we've "developed" (i.e. compromised) our democracy into some kind of a Republic already, albeit with minor differences among different "democratic" countries. Athens was all about every citizen got the right to vote and to propose stuff in the "meeting." Therefore a few nutjobs (they were alive, they still are, and they will be alive in the future!) can provoke the entire citizen body into some stupid wars (sounds familiar.. nah.. wrong thread ) if they're skilled enough demagogues.

Autocracy, by the way, sucks. Why do we need hundreds of nobility to rule over us when one (i.e. a king in absolutism) is already troublesome enough to remove?

[Divinus Arma]

I chose the masses.

I am firmly against elitism.

The problem with "combination" is that the citizens may further restrict who is a citizen until it slides to autocracy. This happened in Athens briefly as the great Democracy was slowly overthrown and became an autocracy for a brief period. It slid further and further into fewer and fewer people in control.

[Divinus Arma]

Erm...just wanted to point out that we've "developed" (i.e. compromised) our democracy into some kind of a Republic already, albeit with minor differences among different "democratic" countries. Athens was all about every citizen got the right to vote and to propose stuff in the "meeting." Therefore a few nutjobs (they were alive, they still are, and they will be alive in the future!) can provoke the entire citizen body into some stupid wars (sounds familiar.. nah.. wrong thread ) if they're skilled enough demagogues.

Autocracy, by the way, sucks. Why do we need hundreds of nobility to rule over us when one (i.e. a king in absolutism) is already troublesome enough to remove?

In America we went with a Republic for a number of reasons:

(1) There was already very few people who quailfied to vote anyway: white male property owners.
(2) The logistics of travel made direct democracy nearly impossible.
(3) The framers wanted to avoid exactly what you point out: Charismatic leaders controlling the public.

The problem is that we have already ceded a huge amount of authority to the few. The Supreme Court has become a lwa making body when it decided for itself that it could undertake judicial review. The President can go to war with "a resolution authorizing force" instead of a congressional declaration of war.

Are we slipping away from democracy?

[JimBob]

Rule of the people, always the people. Besides the masses aren't always a rabble, they just get told that they are and believe it.

[AntiochusIII]

Ah, I see there's a poll set up. I vote for the people, then.

In America we went with a Republic for a number of reasons:

(1) There was already very few people who quailfied to vote anyway: white male property owners.
(2) The logistics of travel made direct democracy nearly impossible.
(3) The framers wanted to avoid exactly what you point out: Charismatic leaders controlling the public.

Yes. I am aware of the troubles too, especially concerning logistics.

The problem is that we have already ceded a huge amount of authority to the few. The Supreme Court has become a lwa making body when it decided for itself that it could undertake judicial review. The President can go to war with "a resolution authorizing force" instead of a congressional declaration of war.

Are we slipping away from democracy?

Those measures are there for mainly some of these reasons:

1. To counter the power of the mob. This is a Constitutional (or legal, depends on the country) counter against a possible "tyranny of the majority." Such measures, however, needs to be very carefully established as it can easily upsets a nation's balance of power.

2. For emergency measures when majority voting and other such administrative procedures becomes liabilities, such as cases that threaten a nation's security. This is an even harder issue than the counter-balance above.

[bmolsson]

This is actually a difficult question. In a homogen nation, surely democracy, but in several countries around the world, it's not possible.
Democracy is education and absence of fundamentalism in different forms. An open society require that the citizen not only have their rights, but also take their responsibilities. That is not the case in many countries today.
Furthermore, democracy also require a framwork protecting minorities. In the future when the few supports the majority, we might have a situation there the majority oppress the minority for it's own existence. When that happens, democracy or not, we are not better than any autocracy ever existed in history.

[Al Khalifah]

Power to the citizens. Those willing to work for their country should have the deciding say in how the country is run rather than those who just work for themselves.

Athens is definately the last choice there. It was far from being a fully empowered democracy, although those who were able to participate had far more say in matters than in many present day democracies.

[Samurai Waki]

The Proletariat shall rise up and vanquish the Tsarist Regime! I'm all for power of the masses.

[bmolsson]

Power to the citizens. Those willing to work for their country should have the deciding say in how the country is run rather than those who just work for themselves.

How about the citizens that DON'T want to work at all ?

[Lazul]

How about the citizens that DON'T want to work at all ?

well they better do something or ells they starve

[Aenlic]

Now you're getting off-track from politics into economics when you're discussing work.

For a really complete examination of how complete democracy might function as well as a frank discussion of concerns such as people who wish not to contribute to the political process or to work, I highly recommend Peter Kropotkin's The Conquest of Bread.

[Al Khalifah]

It's hardly possible to discuss politics without discussing economics. The two are one and the same, linked in so many ways. A country's economic situation often has direct control of its politcs, while the same is true in reverse.

[bmolsson]

well they better do something or ells they starve

Not at all. They start a party and all not wanting to work at all will soon end up in majority position and tell everyone that works to pay more taxes. They will invent progressive tax and make bullshit stories that "they can afford" and "they should have solidarity"........

[Duke Malcolm]

I had to vote Gah. The Estates of the Scottish Parliament is quite an ingenius plan for government, however. Landowners and lords, representatives of the kirk, burgh commissioners. It is estimated that 2000-3000 people could take a seat, but only about 200 ever did.

This sort of make up would be the best, I say. The great unwashed masses are uneducated and too easily influenced by the media.

[Sjakihata]

Those with the proper knowledge of governance.

[doc_bean]

Autocracy can be both the best form of government and the worst, it all depends on who's in charge. That's why I chose democracy, it's largely inefficient, complicated and inherently conservative (even when changes have to be made to assure the wellbeing of the people) but it's still the best thing we've got.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

Republic.

Votership should be fairly restricted however. I tend to agree with some of Heinlein's models.

1. Votership restricted to those who have served a term of federal service -- but current federal service employees may not vote.

2. A significant but not exhorbitant poll tax and quiz requiring the voter to display some basic knowledge of the sciences, current issues in that election, and/or their own form of government. If you pass, you get a full refund and the right to vote in that election. If you fail, they keep the poll tax and you don't vote.

Restrictions based upon wealth, age, gender, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, height, weight, size of coupling appartus or whatnot can only be discriminatory in a perjorative sense.

I suspect none of these will ever come to fruition, so I favor the system of which I am a part over other republican forms -- its the best I can see.

Seamus

[PanzerJaeger]

The ruling class should be the military, who cooperate with industrialists for the betterment of the nation.

[Lazul]

Not at all. They start a party and all not wanting to work at all will soon end up in majority position and tell everyone that works to pay more taxes. They will invent progressive tax and make bullshit stories that "they can afford" and "they should have solidarity"........

wow, you really dont have high thoughts of the masses do you? you know, every human has a self-preservation urge inside them.

[Lazul]

The ruling class should be the military, who cooperate with industrialists for the betterment of the nation.

sieg heil?............. sorry couldnt resist saying that


Anyway man, you really are anti-intellectual arent you?

[Adrian II]

Gah of course. The masses should not rule, they should be ruled by their elected representatives. All other options mentioned above have been tried and ended in failure. Democracy is the most peaceful, dynamic and creative form of rule.

[bmolsson]

wow, you really dont have high thoughts of the masses do you? you know, every human has a self-preservation urge inside them.

Well, it's not so much my thoughts as reality. Just look at the French.....

[Grey_Fox]

Democracy (in it's current form) has not been around long enough to judge whether it is successful or not.

[Lazul]

Well, it's not so much my thoughts as reality. Just look at the French.....

Ouch, how evil of you. *looks around for French people* Well they havent attacked you yet!

[yesdachi]

I am definitely a proponent of democracy but I really dislike the idea of everyone being equal. They are not.

I chose the Combination option but I think an uncorruptable Republic would be an excellent choice. A completely impossible one but excellent.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Neither.
Rule of Me.

[AntiochusIII]

Neither.
Rule of Me.

How predictable.

Real evil geniuses like me hide behind the stage and pull the strings from the shadow!

[Divinus Arma]

The ruling class should be the military, who cooperate with industrialists for the betterment of the nation.

And are you in the miitary, or do you plan to be?