Is democracy for ancient Greeks?

[Upxl]

Give me you’re views of the best form of government.

Is democracy really the best solution?
Should their be vote right or vote duty?

Is democracy really the best solution?
I must say I don’t trust democracy all that much.
Letting the masses control everything just doesn’t seem right.
We’ve seen how easily the poor saps can get manipulated
I know power is corrupting, but wouldn’t we be better of with a combination of a good old classic despotism with a bit more democratic oompfhs mixed in?

Should their be vote right or vote duty?
Letting people vote is one thing but here we have the vote duty!
So this means that every election everybody must get up out of bed go to the vote booth and cast their vote.
I find this very dangerous cause you get these; Aaaarghhh I’l make them pay for getting me out of bed fore a reason I don’t care nor know anything about.
So these guys go to the booth and vote for a more “extreme” option.
Now they say that at least you know what the countries state of mind is when everybody’s got to vote.
But how many people would vote for a more descent option if they just had some basic knowledge on the subject.


The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter.
Winston Churchill

[Rodion Romanovich]

The problem with totalitarian rule is that you put all eggs in one basket. Sooner or later you'll be unlucky that a maniac comes to power, as history has shown. It's completely impossible to prevent that. Usually these maniacs are even from the same group/family as the clever rulers that you had installing the dictatorship regime. Also, the last two occasions when democracy was abolished, it lead to the mass murder of 50 million people both times. Remember that it wasn't democracy that caused the massmurders carried out by nazis, it was the totalitarian rule. They abolished democracy because they knew they would lose the next election if they did those things in a democratic society. Propaganda against democracy is much more dangerous than whatever propaganda you can show in a democratic country. Remember that Hitler didn't get elected by speaking of "let's cause the death of 50 million people and exterminate completely innocent people to give my psycho deputies something to do!", but he got elected for wanting to improve economy, give the Wehrmacht back it's prestige, and turn a poor post world war one Germany that could nearly be considered a Developing Country rather than an Industrialized Country into a strong Industrialized Country. There would be revenge for Versailles, and there would be better economy. Not until he had abolished democracy did he start with the really mad propaganda. Because of Gestapo and other very illegal and anti-democratic organizations, it was possible for the nazis to make most people too scared of protesting, and they also used the important method of making all opposition think that they were the only ones to be against the massmurder. Remember that none of this would have been possible if democracy had been maintained - then ww2 could have ended after Fall Gelb (invasion of France) and before the first real execution camps had been taken into action. There would still have been suffering for innocent in labor camps, but it would have been possible to stop before it got to massive executions. Of course we'd like to know how to stop labor camps and so on, even that is too far, but we can at least see that we could have avoided the worst stuff if only democracy had remained, and we can see that despotism didn't avoid it - but only made it worse. So had democracy remained it would not only have benefitted the victims of the nazis, but also the German people. It would have solved about 90% of the problems caused at the time. For solving the remaining 10%, we shouldn't look for despotism, but for complementary methods to strengthen the safety of democracy. We can see the same thing in modern USA - there are horrible camps at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, but because some remnants of democracy still remain, we're not seeing mass-execution camps. What do you think would happen if democracy disappeared completely?

Democracy that's ruled by the masses, such as the modern democracy, seems to mostly prevent wars rather than the other way around.

Oligarcy or republican rule, i.e. a small number having most of the power, seems to sooner or later make the power end up in the hands of merchants, who support war for economical reasons.

I often see people calling totalitarian states democracies in order to blame democracy for violence, and calling oligarchies democracies to blame democracy for the violence. If you look at details you see that it was however the despotic elements of these countries that caused all the violence. For example in republican Rome right before the Punic wars when they went from a defensive to an offensive strategy, the "people" happened to be the merchants and other people with private interests, not the average peasants.

The average voter might not know differential calculus and philosophy, but the average voter is usually quite peaceful. The warmongering and pro-violence attitudes more often stem from a small number of people who consider themselves clever because they know differential calculus (but seldom philosophy and ethics). If the nation can protect itself from those people, and allow the masses to have enough influence, war and general violence is avoided.

Conclusion: what we need to do is solve the small flaws of current democratic systems, not go back to despotism. Despotism would not solve the problems current democracy has, but instead make them worse. We already have many good ideas of how to solve most of the problems a democracy can have, but there are no ideas on how one could solve the problems of despotism by anything else than rebellion and installation of democratic rule.

By the way, if you want a good argument against despotism, search for threads with titles such as "what would you do if you ruled the world" and so on They should be quite convincing.

[Cronos Impera]

Democracy works best when the number of voters is small and people get more influience. In Ancient Greece there ware few voters in Athens ( all could fit in the Agora) and there was something we call direct democracy.
Today however the growing population makes democracy almost impossible to enforce. In China and other huge superstates it will be impossible to centralize all votes ( there are 1000000000 votes if Beijing allows universal sufferage). Sadly democracy was made for small city-states not great modern nations.
Population booms and freedom don't go hand in hand, that's the aufull truth.
USA, an avarage democratic nation slowly destroys democracy, it wasn't meant for America as the bipartidic system fails to cover the entire spectrum of political life ( the socialist and conservative forces aren't represented in the Congress as both republican and democratic parties are liberal).
In large states there is need for an authoritarian rule to drive things in the right direction ( democracy in large nations only slows decision making, paralysing the gouverment system)

Constitutional Monarchy is the solution

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well let's consider, Constitutional Monarchy is right out because that is all your eggs are in one basket. Fine if the basket is Augustus, not so fine if its Caligula.

An Oligarchy works, so long as the Oligarchs worry about the poluace. Democracy, as has been noted, only works when everyone can actually get involved. Currently we have an elceted Oligarchy in the West, its probably about as good as it will ever get.

[lancelot]

I tend to go with the following view...and Im speaking from a UK perspective here.

The current form of democracy here is- selfish, money orientated and not representative. The idea is we elect MPs to represent us but in fact it seems we elect MPs who seem to prosecute their own agendas under the mantle of public support. (eg- how many wanted war with iraq?)

Such high salaries make the job about money, not genuine concern for the betterment of the nation. I would make MPs relatively lowly paid- at least then you can argue they are doing it for love rather than money.

There should not be an automatic right to vote. It is too important to give to everybody, including those who know nothing of politics. A basic test should have to be passed at school.

How can geography or religious education but not even the most basic of politics be on a school curiculum?

I use this very simple analogy. Am I allowed to fly a plane or mange a football team? Answer-NO. Why not? Because I dont know squat about it and I think we can all agree, that is how it should be. So why should someone with no knowledge of politics be allowed to vote? TBH, I dont see why someone who has no knowledge of the subject should ba able to have an influence over my life.

In this current climate, I favour an elected, non-inheritence based dictator with a core of advisors with an ultimate loyalty to the nation rather than the figurehead, with the power to remove said figurehead, if he starts going batty.

This is not to say I despise Republicanism or democracy, as I said I think society and the system today is selfish. Until we reach a more 'star trek' type of democracy which is really about and WANTS to be about the wishes of the people, I cant support our democracy today.

[Duke Malcolm]

IIn this current climate, I favour an elected, non-inheritence based dictator with a core of advisors with an ultimate loyalty to the nation rather than the figurehead, with the power to remove said figurehead, if he starts going batty.

That reminds me of kings of days gone by, who were elected by the nobles.
That would be the best system, so there is enough challenging of the wo/man, but manipulating the public will not get things done unless it was for the election of the wo/man himself...

[Upxl]

I tend to go with the following view...and Im speaking from a UK perspective here.

The current form of democracy here is- selfish, money orientated and not representative. The idea is we elect MPs to represent us but in fact it seems we elect MPs who seem to prosecute their own agendas under the mantle of public support. (eg- how many wanted war with iraq?)

Such high salaries make the job about money, not genuine concern for the betterment of the nation. I would make MPs relatively lowly paid- at least then you can argue they are doing it for love rather than money.

There should not be an automatic right to vote. It is too important to give to everybody, including those who know nothing of politics. A basic test should have to be passed at school.

How can geography or religious education but not even the most basic of politics be on a school curiculum?

I use this very simple analogy. Am I allowed to fly a plane or mange a football team? Answer-NO. Why not? Because I dont know squat about it and I think we can all agree, that is how it should be. So why should someone with no knowledge of politics be allowed to vote? TBH, I dont see why someone who has no knowledge of the subject should ba able to have an influence over my life.

Well said,
I'm going to use that example in coming arguments.

As for the test I cant say I agree.
I know allot of politics but then I'm real bad with names.
Besides “Name the first female minister of the labour party” is a dim-witted kind off question that will certainly be in that test.

If you have the liberty and not the duty to vote, I think people not interested will automatically not vote.

[Haudegen]

IIn this current climate, I favour an elected, non-inheritence based dictator with a core of advisors with an ultimate loyalty to the nation rather than the figurehead, with the power to remove said figurehead, if he starts going batty.

What´s the difference to a democracy then? Replace "dictator" with "president" and "advisors" with "party-functionaries".

IIn this current climate, I favour an elected, non-inheritence based president with a core of party-functionaries with an ultimate loyalty to the nation rather than the figurehead, with the power to remove said figurehead, if he starts going batty.

If these party functionaries however have an ultimate loyalty to the nation could be doubted. I´m not sure if evolution will allow the development of such altruistic beings

But in an ideal democracy it should be like that.

[Moros]

Well said,
I'm going to use that example in coming arguments.

As for the test I cant say I agree.
I know allot of politics but then I'm real bad with names.
Besides “Name the first female minister of the labour party” is a dim-witted kind off question that will certainly be in that test.

If you have the liberty and not the duty to vote, I think people not interested will automatically not vote.

yes, forcing poeple to vote, like in Belgium, is a bad thing. But if people wouldn't be forced the problem remains.

I wonder if it's smart to let only "smart" people to participate. As those are the most dangerous ones. Letting only "the dumb" rule would be even more sane.
If there should really be a group of people who would only be able to vote it should be the people who thrust nobody.

Democracy isn't perfect, no way of reign will ever be. Yes, enlightened despotism is perhaps the best solution but only if you have a intellegent man who cares about his people and country more then about himself. Those are rare and you'll soon have a monster on your throne.


Anyway I'd like to end with this:
Democracy consists of choosing your dictators, after they've told you what you think it is you want to hear.
Alan Coren

[Kraxis]

As I have argued before, we don't have democracy as the people doesn't rule (don't you begin talking about 'true' democracy, it should just be called democracy!). We have something that could be called constitutional popular oligarchy or something like that.
The politicians are the oligarchs. They have their own little assembly where they make the decisions for the country. Are they 'the people' as meant in the word 'democracy'? Or are they more similar to the 'the few' as meant in the word 'oligarchy'? Well, I'll let you think about that for a moment.

That said I don't think we have much option right now, and I think it is important to use the few times we do have an impact on the decisionmaking. I just don't agree with the label 'Democracy' for our systems.

[Upxl]

Not that they have no right.
Maybe just someone telling them what’s best for them.


I'm just a little worried about the evolution of things here.

[Viking]

Should their be vote right or vote duty?
Letting people vote is one thing but here we have the vote duty!
So this means that every election everybody must get up out of bed go to the vote booth and cast their vote.

How does that work? Does the vote-police some and pull you out of your bed?

[Moros]

How does that work? Does the vote-police some and pull you out of your bed?

No you have to pay if you don't vote. and if you might keep not voting they might increase the punishment or something.

[Viking]

No you have to pay if you don't vote. and if you might keep not voting they might increase the punishment or something.

[QwertyMIDX]

Democracy works best when the number of voters is small and people get more influience. In Ancient Greece there ware few voters in Athens ( all could fit in the Agora) and there was something we call direct democracy.[/B]

There were a lot more votes who had the right to vote than who could fit on the Pnyx hill (where they actually went to vote). Modern estimates of how many people could fit range a bit based on whether you believe that sat or stood but around 6000 is the maximum number. Considering that every male citizen in ALL of Attic could vote, it's pretty clear that the number who could vote in any single assembly was significantly less than everying, and in fact was not even a majority. The hoplite class of Attica alone varied from about 30,000 to 9,000 over the course of the 5th and 4th centuries, all of these men would be able to vote, and that doesn't even count the highest classes and the masses of poorer voters.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I'd like an improvement on the current system where we only elected people who would do a good job. Most of the problems are with the media and the way elections are run.

[A.Saturnus]

Democracy is based on the idea that stupidity is preferable over malevolence. We don't have democracy because it finds the best solutions to our problems, but because it avoids the worst.

[Avicenna]

Democracy never and probably never will exist. Neither has communism, which many people don't seem to know. Quite simply, both are impossible to put to practice effectively.

The closest ever realisation of democracy was in ancient Greece, notably in Athens. All male adult citizens were allowed to vote, and met quite regularly. This isn't true democracy, because in the end it is usually down to the few powerful figures who control our lives and not the masses. Even the one vote every four years in America takes ages to produce a result. Even in Athens, women, slaves and foreigners were not allowed to participate in the running of the government. Now, most countries have quite insignificant cities that have a larger population than Athens. If democracy were truly to be realised, countries would probably find it difficult to decide on anything. Now, the democracy that exists every few years during a vote is enough.

The current way of most developed countries running is fine.

[Kraxis]

Democracy never and probably never will exist. Neither has communism, which many people don't seem to know. Quite simply, both are impossible to put to practice effectively.

A kindred spirit!!! I'm so happy! I usually get a lot of flak when I tell people that we don't have democracy.

[Moros]

Democracy is based on the idea that stupidity is preferable over malevolence. We don't have democracy because it finds the best solutions to our problems, but because it avoids the worst.

that really nails it.
one for the sig.

[Upxl]

And who should say what's best? You? Some other arbitrarily appointed "Smart Guy"?

Simple,

We take away the son of one of the elite members of the org.
Then for his entire life we educate it.
Teaching the moral's and ethics, the cant's and do's, economics,agriculture...
We stuff he's brain full with human rights and the mistakes off history.
(or we could just let hem read all the posts in the monastery).

And every nation will educate the young apprentice.

Let the Americans teach hem to be patriotic.
The English the value of king and country.
The French how to say croissant.
The Japanese how to look cross-eyed
The Germans how to turn sausages.
And we'll make hem real smart.

[A.Saturnus]

that really nails it.
one for the sig.

Hehe, I actually had the thought in mind to provide sig-material when I wrote that.

[Moros]

Hehe, I actually had the thought in mind to provide sig-material when I wrote that.

you didn't steal, someone's quote did you ~:p

[Somebody Else]

Someone once said...

Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others. *Churchill as well, so I'm told*

Churchill: 'The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.'

Personally, I agree that we don't have a democracy anywhere in the world - and nor should we, I think - after all, some people are going to be better at leading than others. Just as some are better at sports, or cooking, or writing, or whatever. Certain people have certain talents and they should put them to use.

An argument for democracy is that it minimizes bad policy making. But it does work the other way, it also minimizes good policy making. It is a system of government that relies on inertia. No change, for good or bad, will come rapidly. For that, a more focussed government is required. But people are too scared that it could go wrong to allow that anymore.

Example. Hitler - bad case study I know. Good points - revitalised the German economy. Bad points, we all know.
Example. Augustus - better case. Ended a long period of strife in the Roman empire, increased standards of living throughout. Major change of government from oligarchic rule to dictatorial.
Example. 5th century Athens after Pericles died. Went from a strong position in the Peloponnesian war to, well, losing it through a whole load of contradictory policies.

Bored now. Work to do.

[mystic brew]

in fact, Churchill was also the one who said "democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried"!

[Kraxis]

Didn't he also say: "We only have democracy because we haven't found anything better."

[Moros]

Example. Hitler - bad case study I know. Good points - revitalised the German economy. Bad points, we all know.

You can't forget Hitler just used the depression to gain votes 'n stuff. And he didn't improve the economy that much compared to a lot of countries. Yeah, Germany had a decent, or even more than decent economy, but they that since the second industrial revolution. Most other countrys' economics grow after the depression so I don't think that that was such a big achievement anyway.

[Somebody Else]

You can't forget Hitler just used the depression to gain votes 'n stuff. And he didn't improve the economy that much compared to a lot of countries. Yeah, Germany had a decent, or even more than decent economy, but they that since the second industrial revolution. Most other countrys' economics grow after the depression so I don't think that that was such a big achievement anyway.

As I said, bad case study. Not getting into it, too much of a can of worms.

[Lord Winter]

The problem with democracy is the two party system. There is no breaking party lines, no out of the box ideas. If we could compromise it would be easier. But the fact is no one wants to admit anything is wrong, or if they do its usually the other party's fault. Recently Howard Dean came forward saying the democrats will vote down any budget which adds to the deficit. Yet at the same time they don't want to cut anything or raise taxes. Why? Because it would look bad with the American people.
What we need more is a leader who doesnt care about what the people want but what the people need, and with democracy that's almost impossible because in the end what wins elections is promises of tax cuts and government money going to the people were it could be spent in a better way.

[Banquo's Ghost]

The problem with democracy is the two party system. There is no breaking party lines, no out of the box ideas. If we could compromise it would be easier. But the fact is no one wants to admit anything is wrong, or if they do its usually the other party's fault.

I've always thought that any two-party system (indeed any party system) would be improved by secret ballots. Elected representatives are currently 'whipped' or organised by their party to follow the public line. Rarely do you get people breaking ranks because their prospects for advancement or support may be lost.

If all debates in the House/Chamber were followed by a secret ballot, representatives could vote according to their conscience, or the quality of the arguments, or along party advice - but the party leaders would have no way of knowing past the final result.

You lose the recorded accountability to the voters, but that is a long gone concept anyway.

Might improve the quality of debate?