Are humans capable of handling democracy?

[PanzerJaeger]

I can take myself as example. I am clearly smarter than the average joe (you might disagree, but humor me please), and I do believe I take more interest in politics than the average citizen. I read up, check sources and so on. But heck, I can in NO way in hell know if Sweden gains from being part of the EU, if social security is more important than more jobs and so on.

And if I cant say for sure, how would less able and interested people have a clue?

This is why there are no functioning democracies in the world, only republics. We elect people who make it their job to know the specificities of government. They give us a general outline of their politics by proclaiming allegiances such as liberal or conservative and by taking stances on hotbutton issues of the day, and from those indicators and others(speaking ability, real or perceived intelligence, charisma, ect.), we chose who we believe will do the best job. If said person does not deliver on what (s)he promised, or led us to believe, (s)he is voted out.

What nonsense. The main argument in favour of democracy - indeed, some would say the only one - is that it is preferable to the alternatives.

Not all the alternatives.

[Bijo]

Ah, democracy. I recall I used to criticize it to certain people years ago and they regarded me strangely thinking me a fool.

The question lingering in my fatigued brain is "What is flawed?" Democracy "works", and it is exactly doing what it is supposed to: to let silly ignorant humans decide whom they elect, and... well, etc., etc., etc. Let them "feel" as if they have something important to say, etc., while the schmucks are so foolish blah blah.

Then there is the possibility of "behind-the-scenes" activity which could "influence" execution of democracy. (Execution being equivocally utilized.) Agh, I will spend as little time on this topic as possible.

Short answer: democracy is a silly system but at least gives the people -- supposedly -- a chance to foolishly decide who is to rule.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Alright, here's my post for an alternative. Mind you, this is just a basic outline of an idea, and is not be terribly detailed.


My idea is that democracy needs to be balanced. With all the parties coming in and out, long-term plans especially are prone to change as a new party comes into power [1]. Also, as some have pointed out earlier, the people do not always turn out for a vote, Parliaments and Congresses can get lazy, etc [2]. Therefore, I looked at previous governments in history, and came up with a theory, which borrows not from any singular source, but from many. I call this Authoritarian Democracy.

Essentially, how Authoritarian Democracy would work, is that the government is divided roughly in half, with ratios differing depending on the needs of the country. On one hand, there is a monarch of some kind. This position is either elected by a certain group, such as the nobility, or is hereditary. However, there still remains the possibility of a monarch who is either weak or oppressive, so this must be counterbalanced.

This is how the other half comes in. A parliament is elected by the common people. Voting is obligatory, and not voting is punishable by arrest or a fine. This is to avoid only half the populace voting, which is a point where democracy in certain nations fails. The primary objective in this parliament is to counterbalance the monarch. Parties are elected in a free voting process. The monarch and his heirs may not vote, though certain nobles may.

Once the government has been elected, the monarch appoints a chancellor or representative in the parliament, who is allowed one vote in the parliament. The parties put forth legislation, and do all the things normal parties do. The monarch also puts forth legislation, usually through his representative, which can be voted through or revised by the parties. The monarch may declare war, etc., but this action must be approved by a vote in the parliament beforehand.

NOTE: This isn't finished, just a general idea. There are, of course, flaws, as with any plan and system of government. Please point them out so I can look it over.


[1] Example: Gun registry in Canada. Installed by Liberals, Conservatives gain power and plan to scrap it.
[2] Where Have All The Leaders Gone? by Lee Iaccoca

[Lord Winter]

I agree with preaty much what everyone has said about democracy so far, that it is the not the best but the one that obstructs human rights the least. Through history their have been good elightenent absolutist, such as Fredrick the great, but sadly these rulers are few. Mostly we end up with kings that are ethier tyrants or no better then what democray would throw at us. With democracy we at least have a choice between veiws rather then being stuck with the guy born in. You also have to look at the fact that their are no war's of succesion in democracy; we leave all our fighting at the ballot box.
However we do have problems in democracy. Most of these IMHO can be corrected by reforms not a new system. I'll call this system enlightened democray.

The first of many problem that has come to riddle modern democracies, the sheer amount of money needed to run. In the U.S. it cost about 10 million to run a successful campieng thus we can say reserving the spot to ethier the rich or those with corpreate backing. Obviously that means that we limit the pool of people from the average day to joe. Instead we are stuck with what many would call an upper class. To fix this we need to instate campigen finance limits, we should also have a government election fund which would be used to finance any campigen that can't afford money. Secondly we should clasify corpreate donations as bribery since that what it basicly is. This would hopefuly fix the far to large influence bessness's have on government.

The second thing that has to go is the exsitences of parties in politics. We all can see the bickering that occers everyday in washington. Many times party also try to force their view point on there members with threats of withdrawing leadership positions and party funding. The two party system also limits ideas by restricting the debate to only the two parties points of veiw.

[Adrian II]

This is why there are no functioning democracies in the world, only republics.

If we are going to be technical about this: I live in a constitutional monarchy, not a republic. Yet my country is a full-fledged democracy because we could, if we wanted, terminate the monarch's very limited powers tomorrow.

The point is that the concepts have been gradually changed and refined in modern history, roughly since 1648. Democracy in original Greek sense ('rule by the people') never existed, the res publica in the original Roman sense hardly resembled a modern republic, &cetera. Ancient society divided people into classes, most of whom were ineligible and/or not allowed to vote. The great merit of the Ancient Greek and Roman societies is that their ruling classes were the first to develop the principle of democracy among themselves. Slavery and conformism were rampant in Ancient society.

Equality and freedom of conscience however are thoroughly modern concepts. The essence of modern democracy is that people are free and equal in the exercise of their sovereignty, an idea that took hold with the French Revolution. It is of no consequence whether they elect their representatives directly or indirectly, or whether they allow traditional institutions like electors (U.S.), a King (The Netherlands), a Senate (Poland, Germany) or an aristocratic house of parliament (UK) to exist, as long as the supreme power in the state is vested in the nation.

I have to say I laughed our loud about some of the other comments in this thread. I love it when self-righteous brats fresh out of high school (or still in it) sound the deathknell of democracy on account of its 'fatal flaws'. I say you guys start paying taxes, raise your own family, get around and visit some really undemocratic countries, develop a taste for the freedom and privilege you are enjoying and for which the generation of my parents nearly all got themselves killed. Then maybe we will talk.

[Husar]

I have to say I laughed our loud about some of the other comments in this thread. I love it when self-righteous brats fresh out of high school (or still in it) sound the deathknell of democracy on account of its 'fatal flaws'. I say you guys start paying taxes, raise your own family, get around and visit some really undemocratic countries, develop a taste for the freedom and privilege you are enjoying and for which the generation of my parents nearly all got themselves killed. Then maybe we will talk.

That's discriminating against younger members.
You should learn to appreciate our future which is them.

[Papewaio]

Well as long as the youth legalise euthansia I will be able to handle their ascendancy.

[Cronos Impera]

The problem is that any kind of "Kratos" is bad in one way or the other.
In tyranny you obide by the rules of one guy, in oligarchy you obide by the rules of the few while in democracy you obide by the rules of the many.
Whenever you feel like it you can always gather people like you, buy land and proclaim yourself a brake-away state.It's as simple as this, you proclaim independence.

The problem with democracy is that democracy is only the prologue to tyranny and it all strats with the tension between needs and resources.
See, in the past communities ware small and self-sufficient. Local tribes needed few contacts with the outside world and lived happy short lives. But as their appetite for expansion and security grew so did the social issues.
If you want to see the purest form of democracy you can check up Survivor for a anthrophological study.Watching that show you'll notice that in real life conditions the weakest overthrow the strong and split power among themselves. That is natural selection apllied to an egalitarian society.
Liberty and equality meant something in the past when people ware few and hazards ware many. Liberty encouraged exploration and progress while equality encouraged a population boom. But all this changes now because people have become less usefull in the production of goods and one machine can replace a whole village.
All that had to be explored was explored, all resources that had to be found ware found and humanity is reaching the very limits of human knowledge.
Now, economic freedom has become the biggest threat to human survival.
The problem is this: There isn't a blade of grass that isn't owned by someone and the population grows. Soon there won't be enough resources for anyone and the democratic system will protect those who have the greatest fortunes and their fammilies. So it is either slavery or violence for those who have fewer and violance demands harsher rules and tyranny to control it.
Democracy just gets chocked by the growth of human populations.

[Adrian II]

Democracy just gets chocked by the growth of human populations.

You have a lot to prove if you want all that to stand up to scrutiny. Starting with the claim that equality, not industrialization and scientific progress, caused the population boom in today's world. Unless I am very much mistaken, population growth is largest in non-democratic societies.
Gee, I wonder why..

[Adrian II]

You should learn to appreciate our future which is them.

As long as my generation is in control we call the shots.

[Banquo's Ghost]

As long as my generation is in control we call the shots.

OMG. We're supposed to be in control? You mean all this is our responsibility?

[Adrian II]

OMG. We're supposed to be in control? You mean all this is our responsibility?

God yes...

[Husar]

As long as my generation is in control we call the shots.

There will be a time when this changes and you will be old and dependant on these kids.
Don't work against the hand that is supposed to feed you later.

Waving your underwear around won't help you then.

[Don Corleone]

There will be a time when this changes and you will be old and dependant on these kids.
Don't work against the hand that is supposed to feed you later.

Waving your underwear around won't help you then.

All Adrian did was hold them to the same standard we hold ourselves to. If they want to be treated like rational adults, they should act like rational adults. I think granting the younger generation a pass on whatever they want, because you're afraid of the care they'll provide for you in your older days is a serious mistake.

[Banquo's Ghost]

All Adrian did was hold them to the same standard we hold ourselves to. If they want to be treated like rational adults, they should act like rational adults. I think granting the younger generation a pass on whatever they want, because you're afraid of the care they'll provide for you in your older days is a serious mistake.

At the risk of derailing the thread further, there is no guarantee that once one is elderly, anyone will care at all.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

India grandmother 'dumped on tip'

Authorities in India's southern Tamil Nadu state plan legal action against the relatives of an elderly woman who was found abandoned on a rubbish tip.

Chinnammal Palaniappan, who is thought to be 75, told locals who found her she was driven miles from home in a cattle feed cart and dumped by family members.

She is in the care of local officials while they try to trace her relatives.

Tamil Nadu state Social Welfare Minister Dr Poongothai told the BBC she was "horrified" at the news.

There was no anger in her, only a flood of sorrow as she begged us to take her back to her daughter.

"Once we know who the family members are we are going to take legal action against them," Dr Poongothai told the BBC Tamil service.

She said she believed the woman was partially deaf and had not been fed properly for three days.

"She is under the custody of the state at the moment, and she is being looked after. The police are trying to talk to her."

Locals in Erode district of the state told the AFP news agency of their horror at finding the ill woman lying amidst rotting garbage.

"We heard some moaning from the dump yard and when we went over we were shocked to find an old shrivelled woman lying in filth," housewife P Mohanasundari said.

She and her husband took the woman home and fed her before alerting charity workers.

"Chinnammal broke down recalling how her grandsons put her in their motorcart, which they used for transporting cattle feed, and drove a long distance before dumping her in garbage," Mohanasundari told AFP.

She said the grandmother had recalled how her daughter told her grandsons to leave her far away, so she would not be able to find her way home.

"There was no anger in her, only a flood of sorrow as she begged us to take her back to her daughter," Mohanasundari said.

Elderly people have traditionally been looked after by their families in India, although this is starting to change with the pressures of modern life.

Dr Poongothai conceded that social change was making old people more vulnerable.

But she said the law was clear and if children did not take responsibility for looking after their old parents they could be in breach of the domestic violence act and prosecuted.

[Husar]

All Adrian did was hold them to the same standard we hold ourselves to. If they want to be treated like rational adults, they should act like rational adults. I think granting the younger generation a pass on whatever they want, because you're afraid of the care they'll provide for you in your older days is a serious mistake.

Well, I wasn't really serious(I was hoping the underwear comment would be sufficient as a hint), I think like Adrian sometimes even though I'm only 21 myself.
I deliberately left out the fact that children more or less owe to care for their parents since these people also spent a lot of money raising their children. So I won't dump my dad somewhere in the russian steppes once he is old, don't worry.

[HoreTore]

I have to say I laughed our loud about some of the other comments in this thread. I love it when self-righteous brats fresh out of high school (or still in it) sound the deathknell of democracy on account of its 'fatal flaws'. I say you guys start paying taxes, raise your own family, get around and visit some really undemocratic countries, develop a taste for the freedom and privilege you are enjoying and for which the generation of my parents nearly all got themselves killed. Then maybe we will talk.

Yeah, like the horrible and oppressive dictatorship of Lichtenstein, and the good, democratic Nazi-germany....

Face it, democracy isn't the thing giving you freedom, free speech and a respect for human rights is. Whether you're in a democracy or not doesn't really matter.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Face it, democracy isn't the thing giving you freedom, free speech and a respect for human rights is. Whether you're in a democracy or not doesn't really matter.

I'm interested.

Which dictatorship has maintained free speech and a respect for human rights for 200 years or more? Which was the dictatorship that enshrined the concepts heretoforementioned? How many dictatorships which usurped a previous democracy improved the implementation of those concepts?

[HoreTore]

I'm interested.

Which dictatorship has maintained free speech and a respect for human rights for 200 years or more? Which was the dictatorship that enshrined the concepts heretoforementioned? How many dictatorships which usurped a previous democracy improved the implementation of those concepts?

Lichtenstein is a dictatorship, you know ;)

[Bijo]

Are humans capable of handling democracy?

Answer: yes. Explanation: it requires not much to minimally partake in it.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Lichtenstein is a dictatorship, you know ;)

Well, most people know of my ongoing crusade to expose the imperial ambitions of the Stealth Nations led by the Liechtenstein Lizard Alliance and their lederhosen-clad hordes, but just for reference purposes, the public face of the country is:

According to the Constitution, Liechtenstein is a “constitutional hereditary monarchy on a democratic and parliamentary basis.”

So I'm still waiting for your answer, I guess.

[HoreTore]

Well, most people know of my ongoing crusade to expose the imperial ambitions of the Stealth Nations led by the Liechtenstein Lizard Alliance and their lederhosen-clad hordes, but just for reference purposes, the public face of the country is:



So I'm still waiting for your answer, I guess.

Well, their prince has more power than our King, and I consider the power he has to be the most a hereditary ruler should have, which is, well, nothing...

But I'll give you that one, it was a stretch. However, Hitler was lawfully elected in a democracy...

[Adrian II]

Lichtenstein is a dictatorship, you know ;)

Banquo's Ghost gave you the nice reply, here is my nasty version. Pacifists are among the sloppiest thinkers I have encountered in my many years of travel, reading, activism, journalism and political debate. And I have discovered why that is: they put their own conscience before anything else, particularly facts, logic and efficiency.

[Fragony]

Hmmm sounds familiar.