Democracy Vs. democracy ?

[Gregoshi]

This is getting weirder - politics of a fictional (sorry KoA) kingdom. Fiction belongs in the Mead Hall and politics in the Backroom. Trying to determine what constitutes a democracy has not only derailed this thread, it also seems to be getting nowhere. Off topic, wrong forum and apparently going nowhere - not characteristics of a good thread.


I'm closing this thread.

[Gregoshi]

Upon further review at the request of some of the threads participants, I'm re-opening this thread. I was wrong in my judgement. There actually was a decent discussion going on amongst all the extraneous stuff.

[edyzmedieval]

You are half-wrong in your judgement...

They indeed switched to politics and even KoA politics!!!!!!!

[King of Atlantis]

Thanks for re-opining this thread, the mods here truly listen and will admit mistakes. Cheers to the great mods!

To make sure we stay on track.

Ceaser you dont count civil wars, but i see this area rather grayish,

For examlple would you count it war among democracies if the rebelling nation was reconized as a nation by th U.N and major powers. If so what if they are just reconized by the moajor powers or even one power. Then it would it even be a civil war or a war among nations.

Civil Wars are only civil wars if the rebel loses. If the american colonist had lost the american revolution would probably have just been considered a civil war.

[conon394]

Athens was a democracy in the eyes of the ancients

Actually Ceasar44 I would argue Athens meets all the items you mentioned in post # 135, I don’t think you need the caveat. The exclusion of women and slaves (or sundry other subject peoples) may not amount to the current definition. But I would point out the current definition has only been really true for some 40 years or so. By contrast the Athenian understanding of Universal Suffrage was pretty universal compared to the vast majority of recorded history.

On a different tact, Aristotle my have called Peisistratus and his rule a Democracy, but the Athenian democracy did not.

[King of Atlantis]

But I would point out the current definition has only been really true for some 40 years or so.

Thats the whole point. We are judging these places by modern democarcy. The concept of modern democracy will surley always change with the times, thus why it is so hard to find a modern democracy war. Cause a modern democracy is considered with all the ethics of our time. It would stand to reason that our view of the best government would not get inot wars with eachother, as any modern democracy considers another modern democracy to be "good".

[caesar44]

Well , King of Atlantis , you are so right and finally touched the whole point .
Democracies are "good" and dictatorships are "bad" . now the examples mentioned above are problematic just because of the definition issue .

about the civil wars , imo , a war between factions , like the American civil war or the Spanish civil war , are simply civil wars...now let say that the South won the American civil war , then you have 2 options - 1. the South taking the North 2. the south becomes an independent state . on both occasions it is still a civil war , in case 1 you get one country , in case 2 , any war that starts after the separation is a war between countries . about the UN , imo if that unbalanced body recognize a People as a country we have to live with it

[caesar44]

Actually Ceasar44 I would argue Athens meets all the items you mentioned in post # 135, I don’t think you need the caveat. The exclusion of women and slaves (or sundry other subject peoples) may not amount to the current definition. But I would point out the current definition has only been really true for some 40 years or so. By contrast the Athenian understanding of Universal Suffrage was pretty universal compared to the vast majority of recorded history.

On a different tact, Aristotle my have called Peisistratus and his rule a Democracy, but the Athenian democracy did not.

So , Athens was a democracy by who's definition , surely not by the modern one , so , again ?

[King of Atlantis]

If the south had won and i was sitting in florida at school, i would be taught that my nation had began when the south succeded. Thus by our historical acounts it would have been nation vs. nation. neither would fit the role of modern democrac, but i still think this could fit as a war betweendemocracies and any other civil war.

[conon394]

Again I don’t see any particular need for the ‘modern’ caveat.

Modern democracy can be characterized by the following institutions:

A constitution which limits the powers and controls the formal operation of government, whether written, unwritten or a combination of the two.
Election of public officials, conducted in a free and just manner
The right to vote and to stand for election (also see Universal suffrage)
Freedom of expression (speech, assembly, etc.)
Freedom of the press and access to alternative information sources
Freedom of association
Equality before the law and due process under the rule of law
Educated citizens informed of their rights and civic responsibilities
Some summarize the definition of democracy as being "majority rule with minority rights".

Take the definition you posted. First add perhaps at least one more line to cover the age of the democracy (or perhaps it’s stability or just is it at least 10 years old or some such). Now rate the Athenian democracy from 1 – 10 on those items. Aside from the problematic point of universal suffrage, I would suggest the Athenians score as high as any modern western democracy; higher in many cases, since for example the Athenian democracy had no state secrets, no classified documents etc.

Now on universal suffrage, from an absolute standpoint the Athenians take a hit due the fact women could not vote and they had slavery. I’m not sure why metrics are occasionally cited as another excluded group, since I am unaware of any modern democracy that allows resident foreigners to vote either. By the standards of the day, in contrast Athens was effectively radical (in reality the most radical) in the extent of its suffrage. It is also worth pointing out that Athens is one of the few Greek states that even had a formal recognition of women as citizens. But in any case, so give them half marks in the suffrage category. Seems to me you still end up with enough points to call them a democracy in a general sense.

[caesar44]

Again I don’t see any particular need for the ‘modern’ caveat.



Take the definition you posted. First add perhaps at least one more line to cover the age of the democracy (or perhaps it’s stability or just is it at least 10 years old or some such). Now rate the Athenian democracy from 1 – 10 on those items. Aside from the problematic point of universal suffrage, I would suggest the Athenians score as high as any modern western democracy; higher in many cases, since for example the Athenian democracy had no state secrets, no classified documents etc.

Now on universal suffrage, from an absolute standpoint the Athenians take a hit due the fact women could not vote and they had slavery. I’m not sure why metrics are occasionally cited as another excluded group, since I am unaware of any modern democracy that allows resident foreigners to vote either. By the standards of the day, in contrast Athens was effectively radical (in reality the most radical) in the extent of its suffrage. It is also worth pointing out that Athens is one of the few Greek states that even had a formal recognition of women as citizens. But in any case, so give them half marks in the suffrage category. Seems to me you still end up with enough points to call them a democracy in a general sense.

The Academy does not see Athens as a democracy by modern definitions , yet again , it was a democracy by ancient standards .
Let us focus on the main issue of democracy - elections .
Ancient Athens (in the 5' and 4' centuries bce) had a population of some 300,000 people .
who did not had the right to vote ?
1. Some 90,000 Douios (slaves)
2. Some 50,000 Metoikos (foreigners) , who lived in Athens but considered to be not "pure" Athenians
so , the "real" Athenian population = some 160,000 people , minus some 60,000 childrens = some 100,000 adults
3. Some 55,000 women

So , some 45,000 citizens minus 10,000 soldiers = 35,000 who had the option to vote ! that is less then 20% of the adults (some 200,000) .

conclusion : Athens was a democracy for its citizens but not for its residents

[conon394]

How about the US in 1790:

The Total population of the US in 1790:3,929,214
The non-Slave Total Population:3,172,006
White Male over 21 population: ~1,000,000-1,100,000 (est.)

So a maximum of about 25% of the population is allowed to vote. However when you consider property requirements, the figure is more likely to be only around 20%. Of course this assumes all voting eligible men vote, I think the second set of numbers below show that assumption is unwarranted.

Does the US in 2000 qualify?

The total resident population of the US in 2000: 281,421,906
The total citizen population eligible to vote in 2000: 186,366,000
The number of voters who participated in voting: 110, 826,000

In other words only about 39% of the population is allowed to or chooses to vote. 2000 was no anomaly; the pattern of only about half of the voting eligible population actually voting is stable from 2004 back to about the seventies. Go farther back and the voting eligible population drops by perhaps another ten percent through to the 1940’s.

Overall then the voting population of the US in general and on average amounts to something like 20% - 40% over a period of some 215 years, but has been generally considered a democracy. So yes the voting population in Athens is at the lower end of that scale, however the sortation/lot system at Athens, precluded the kind of political apathy that is allowed in the modern representative democracy.

I don’t agree that there is any kind of general academic consensus that ancient Athens was a democracy. Athens scores very high on every other criteria mentioned, but one. If a country has universal suffrage but fails as bad in some other area, say press freedom or more generally freedom of information, is it also excluded?

If you make universal suffrage across the polity an absolute requirement you reduce the sample set of democracies to such a tiny slice of time and place there is no useful sample of data to use in order to answer the question (do democracies fight each other).

[caesar44]

Read my post again , I have never said who voted , I said who had the option to vote !!!
You included the childrens in the total number of citizens , aren't ya ? , none the less 186 m' of 281 m' is still 66% ha ?
Indeed USoA in 1790 was a democracy for the white men , there is a debate on that ?

[conon394]

True, I used total population, but your calculation on Athens is as I noted rather odd as well. Why exclude 10,000 soldiers?

I take the thrust of your post and the comment on America in 1790 to suggest they were not democracies because that did not have modern universal suffrage, even if they had very broad suffrage (in there own time broader than any other state). If you use the same absolute reasoning with the other items you posted as defining a democracy you are left with only the western style post WW2 democracies. Technically, then you were correct in your original post, but It seems to me that factors such as the cold war, and nuclear weapons are more likely to explain the recent lack of wars between democracies.

[caesar44]

You are correct .
so , by a not modern definition , there were some wars between democracies , like the war betweens Athens and Syracuse etc' .
About 1790' USoA , it was a democracy for the ruling class , they voted , they had civil rights etc' but we have to agree on the "fact" that you can't call yourself a democracy when so and so % of the populace does not have any , that is , any rights .
Again , take Israel , 20% of its citizens are Arabs or Palestinians , if the Jews will take their citizenship , I assure you that all the Western world will cry out against it and maybe would declare war on Israel , is it going to be a war between democracies ?

[Stefan the Berserker]

USA vs CSA

USA vs Great Britain I
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Revolutionary_War

USA vs Great Britain II
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_1812

Texas vs Mexico
Texas vs USA
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas

USA vs Spain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish-American_War

[conon394]

Yes I think it would be.

But basically I’ll just reiterate: you have set the rules so stringent that in effect you are always right, because you can disqualify basically every state one way or another.

It’s seems to me by your definition the US is still not a democracy, as it does not have universal suffrage. Felons, prisoners, and resident aliens can’t vote. Significant populations like Puerto Rico, the D.C. and places like American Samoa have less than fully voting rights. There are arbitrary age and origin limits on holding various offices.

More importantly I think you brush off the systemic failure of (on average over the period when the US has technically had “Modern Universal Suffrage”) over half of the voting eligible population to vote. The trend is long term and essentially unchanging. I suspect if I did and search and the US Census website for a breakdown of who votes in the US I would find that it is largely the poor and the young and the non-whites who comprise a large amount of the non-voters. Are you really suggesting the political establishment and its elites do not realize who actually votes, and responds in reality to what they think the mass of non-voters might vote for? The US is still in effect a democracy for only half of it population.

How many points away from 100% are you allowing, is that the only criteria. As I pointed out yes Athens and a low level of sufferage (well only when compared to democries of the last 100 years or so), but in reality should score higher than a modern democracy in things like freedom of information. What’s more important 60% suffrage, but ill informed and apathetic or 30- 40% suffrage with free information and a high level of political involvement?

[Idomeneas]

Sparta was a republic not a demcracy and that why they fought. The Spartains and most Greeks dispised democracy as the will of the mob. In fact I believe thats what it means. It was the begging of the war between Republicans vs Democrats. Its still going on today.

ΔΗΜΟΣ+ΚΡΑΤΟΣ= ΔΗΜΟΚΡΑΤΙΑ

people+power = people's power(authority)

[Soulforged]

Idomeneas is right the etimology says it all...or not? The truth is that if you read authors that are truly compromised with democracy and not demagogy to mantain the state, say that a real democracy has never exited really, you can call them as Jefferson did (poliarchy) or formal democracy, because there wasn't any real power of the people behind the representants never. The only way to achive such level of civilization is to madure completely as a human and be concient of all things that matter to at least discuss politcs, when that happens (well is a little complicated you can see Bakunin, Marx, Lenin) then no actual State is needed anymore.

[Gemenii XIII]

[QUOTE=sharrukin]American Revolution, 1775-1783 Britain vs America; The Americans wanted the civil rights granted native-born Englishmen such as representation in parliament and due process of law. The Americans clearly saw English liberty as a role model.

The american revolution America vs Britain (1775-1783) was a civil war not a war between two states seperate democratic states.

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Gemenii XIII]

American Revolution, 1775-1783 Britain vs America; The Americans wanted the civil rights granted native-born Englishmen such as representation in parliament and due process of law. The Americans clearly saw English liberty as a role model.

The american revolution America vs Britain (1775-1783) was a civil war not a war between two states seperate democratic states.

Told them...they won't listen...
And I thought Britain in 1775 was not a democracy (monarchy with out election etc')

[conon394]

And I thought Britain in 1775 was not a democracy (monarchy with out election etc')

That not correct the ‘glorious revolution’ and Cromwell had effectively established England as a constitutional monarchy. Parliament was supreme.

So any answer to my question: At what percentage shy of 100% do you draw the line on suffrage and democracy, and is that your only criteria?

[Soulforged]

Sufrage and parlament don't form a democracy. Any representative system fails at "represent" because they are imfluenced by great groups of pressure and are formed with elites. If you want real democracy then read for example Catoriadis (he gives a very doable way to achieve it). But anyway is you are talking about formal democracy then i would say that the WWII is democracy vs. democracy, but i repeat this type of democracy is wiped out of it's content, it's just a "fachade", that's what make some tiranical governments to perform as good as "democratic" elected governments, if there is no content there's no sense...

[Duke Malcolm]

Were the cod wars in the 1980s not between democracies? (Iceland vs UK)


If the US in its birth was a democracy, then surely Britain and England have been
since the House of Commons was established?

Also, it was previously said that Pakistan never was a democracy. This is wrong. After Partition in 1947, it was a democracy for some time, as was India and wasn't there a war between them then? Pakistan is also a democracy now.

[caesar44]

That not correct the ‘glorious revolution’ and Cromwell had effectively established England as a constitutional monarchy. Parliament was supreme.

So any answer to my question: At what percentage shy of 100% do you draw the line on suffrage and democracy, and is that your only criteria?

conon394 ,
Parliament was not elected until 1832 !!!
Percentage ? all , that is , all the citizens .
Criteria ? did not read my posts ? there are many (mentioned above) .

[caesar44]

hhhmmmm.... aaaahh...yes.....just wanted my 700 (sorry)

[Duke Malcolm]

Parliament was not elected until 1832 !!!
Percentage ? all , that is , all the citizens .
Criteria ? did not read my posts ? there are many (mentioned above) .

The House of Commons has always been elected.

So if a democracy requires all citizens to vote surely that means that no country was a democracy before women could vote in the early 20th century?

[conon394]

caesar44

[QUOTE] Percentage ? all , that is , all the citizens .
Criteria ? did not read my posts ? there are many (mentioned above)[/QUOTE}

Then your original post is correct because there are simply no democracies.

Referring back to post #135, are you as absolute on all the other points, not just the suffrage point.

[caesar44]

The House of Commons has always been elected.

???Elected by??? the first parl' that was elected by the commons was that of 1832 , it is a fact !


So if a democracy requires all citizens to vote surely that means that no country was a democracy before women could vote in the early 20th century?

Well ? it is not my criteria...

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=conon394]caesar44

Percentage ? all , that is , all the citizens .
Criteria ? did not read my posts ? there are many (mentioned above)[/QUOTE}

Then your original post is correct because there are simply no democracies.

Referring back to post #135, are you as absolute on all the other points, not just the suffrage point.

No democracies ? what can I say ? I tend to belive that the Western world countries are democracies , almost by any standard
You see , conon394 , I have used others definitions just to let us see that a true democracy is not based on the formalistic (and most important) process of elections .
The point is , that Liberal democracies like Britain , USoA etc' don't makes war on each other . in an ancient Athenian termination even old South Africa was a democracy because of the fact that the ruling class was ruling the community , simple as that . they voted , they choose their leaders and the hell with the 40,000,000 blacks . (sorry for my English)