The Flaws of Democracy

[Exarch]

why is democracy considered to be so 'good' to the extent that we in the west wish to impose this primarily western doctrine to other nations?
superficially, everone can see that demoracy is a relatively good and benign thing, irrespective of whichever democracy-most everyone gets a vote and representation and a system of checks and balances exists.
However, i've noticed that a lot of democracies tend to be jsut as misinforming and cold as any other totalitarian government, especially after 9/11.
But my primary grievance in this thread is the fact that in most democracies today, so many lobby groups have more of a say in politics than you and/or i; effectively being able to get their wants over the majority wants; the ppl at PFANAC (Project for a New American Century) in the days of the early Bush administration is such an example. But that's jsut one example over many others, where cronyism amongst elected officials and large corporations/companies/outfits has perverted the whole idea of 'rule of the people, by the people, for the people'.
Democracies these days resemble more the oligarchies of ancient Greece than anything else-a trait not dissimilar to the PRC.

Discuss

[Tiberius Nero]

The way I see it the real advantage of democracy is the protection of personal freedom, which cannot really be maintained in an authoritarian regime. In principle I do not agree with everyone having voting rights or potentially being able to hold office, but one takes the good with the bad.

[Da Skinna]

Democracies invariably become plutocracies, like all governments, so A.)

and B.) democracy and what it stands for has to be constantly renewed and kept alive in the minds of all citizens, lest they become targets of exploitation.

[Sidmen]

Exarch, your problem with democracy seems to be misplaced. Your having a problem with the Republican part of our democracies, and the slow slide into an oligarchy that we're facing.

[wilting]

Democracy isn't the best form of Government because it 'represents the will of the people'. Its' the best form of Government because it goes hand in hand with long term stability and peace.

[Yorkshireman]

Gosh, not another thread to talk about the evil's of the US government ?

[Gaidin]

Democracy isn't the best form of Government because it 'represents the will of the people'. Its' the best form of Government because it goes hand in hand with long term stability and peace.

Until the voters realize they can ask the government for gifts and expect to get them. Then it goes to hell in a handbasket.

[Exarch]

Until the voters realize they can ask the government for gifts and expect to get them. Then it goes to hell in a handbasket.

unfortunately that's not always how things go to plan
politicians will lie and lie again to get their way.
we australians were unfortunate enoguh to have a of a PM who would lie to us again and again; he'd make promises, get elected on that platform, then turn around and break it saying they were 'non-core' promises.
wtf is a non-core promise?
http://www.urbandictionary.com/defin...n-core+promise
ladies and gentlmen,
john ing howard.

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

two party systems are circular, party A gets into power, eventually people become annoyed with the government of party A and elect party B, until they become tired of them and elect party A again, and so on for all eternity

Oh and the fact that you can only elect one or the other party is not democracy, it is oligarchy, there is not slide to oligarchy, two party states (and in most cases multi party states) are just oligarchies where the citizens get a choice between red and blue.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

why is democracy considered to be so 'good' to the extent that we in the west wish to impose this primarily western doctrine to other nations?

superficially, everone can see that demoracy is a relatively good and benign thing, irrespective of whichever democracy-most everyone gets a vote and representation and a system of checks and balances exists.
However, i've noticed that a lot of democracies tend to be jsut as misinforming and cold as any other totalitarian government, especially after 9/11.
But my primary grievance in this thread is the fact that in most democracies today, so many lobby groups have more of a say in politics than you and/or i; effectively being able to get their wants over the majority wants; Democracies these days resemble more the oligarchies of ancient Greece than anything else-a trait not dissimilar to the PRC.
Discuss

All civilization tends to praise itself as "superior" or better civilization then others. The Western civilization's current myth about being superior is democracy and human rights, but prior to this era it was art (subtle/primitve) or culture (hellenistic/barbarian) or religion (christian/pagan) etc. that made the feeling of superiority.

Democracy is not just a myth to describe our societies, it's a useful myth to keep everyone happy and give them the sense of power by giving selected choices to them. F.e. you can choose between parties and candidates but you can't really choose in which form of government do you want to live, and you can't choose your constitutional rights and obligations - even in a pesudo-direct democracy like Switzerland.

That's why revolutions and political landslides happen regularly - if you give the people the sense of power, they will really demand it, regardless of their (un)skill and (dis)ability to rule. In fact and in theory, people can't rule - the people as a whole can't rule themselves, it would mean that everybody rules everybody, which is of course a paradoixal contradiction. (Not to mention, that one must rule oneself properly, before ruling others.)

So there will always be a group of governors and a group of subjects - if we say we want to implement the rule of law to enhance democracy, that means that a selected elite must make laws first, but this process can't be controlled en masse by the public.

Another aspect: democracy is only possible in small city-states IMHO, where the "people" as people really can come together and discuss all matters of the polis, so everybody can a politician - in the word's true meaning - so everyone gets to say at least a word and be heard by others.

[Exarch]

thanks for that insightful info, powerwizard,

@sidmen and yorkshiremaN
i must clarify that i'm not jsut talking about the US government, i was also referring to other western democracies like the current 2 party system in australia, and even a multi-party system, like the Weimar Republic.

my main problem with modern contemporary democracies is the persistent cronyism that frequently occurs whether or not the government is conservative or liberal.

my other problem with modern democracy is yes, the cultural superiority that leads to us expecting other foreign countries to practice democracy, while ironically ignoring the native cultures/customs which are incompatible with democracy.
eg some arab/muslim cultures which are exected to do away with their indigeneous ways like restricting womens' rights , because they're perceived as treating women horribly. i agree with human rights and uphold it, but i also believe that part of human rights means being able to preserve your own culture and practices.
These days it seems the desire to spread democracy the world over smacks of the colonialist mentality of the 19th century which sought to spread christianity and influence the world over, not unlike the Trotskyist ambition of spreading red revolution the world over.

and even in some democracies, the will of the majority is subverted via powerful lobby groups, and in the case of that berlusconi bloke who owned most of the media stations in italy, thereby awarding him the presidency, u have some media stations which throw objectivity to the wind and subtly influence the people by giving biased reporting about say a particular presidential candidate....
democracy, pah

[Archaalen]

The criticism of Two-Party systems as being oligarchic do not hold up for me, because Rubbish seems to think that political parties do not respond to changing times, and that the Democratic and Republican parties of the US have remained somehow the same entities since 1860, when this is patently untrue.
The Two-Party system does not really impose a specific ideology upon the populace of the US. Instead, the two parties now really represent empty shells into which individuals and organizations (churches, NGOs, single-issue pressure groups, unions, etc.) pour their issues and ideologies into (along with their money). Combine this with the tangle of local issues which each politician has to deal with for their constituencies, and what you honestly get is a system where ideology is muddled up and toned down in order to try and appeal to as many voters as possible. This is not an oligarchy, it is a deliberately-created mess that prevents major political changes from occurring quickly.

[Exarch]

i'm not criticizing the two party system or the multi party system, but rather, the cronyism that occurs after a politician gets voted in

[Senno]

The human x factor cannot be removed from any government.

Thus democracy is generally felt to be the best form of government.

I wish not to be ruled by a benevolent tyrant. What if tomorrow he is no longer benevolent?

[Exarch]

there is no good alternative but the thing with western democracies is that there's a tendency to impose democracy upon other nation-states-how very undemocratic

[Senno]

Quite the conundrum.

[Pontifex Maximus]

It allows immense freedom compared to (oh gee, let's think noutside the box) China. I think it's safe to assume from the world's history that people like freedom more than tyranny. The French revolution is a good example of this. Peopl wanted rights, rights that a king wouldn't give them. So there was a revolution and you know the rest.

Are you saying Exarch that you would rather not live in a democracy? If so, why?

However, i've noticed that a lot of democracies tend to be jsut as misinforming and cold as any other totalitarian government, especially after 9/11.

That's alot of speculation right there. The US wouldn't impose a law about the number of births a family is allowed.

Democracies these days resemble more the oligarchies of ancient Greece than anything else-a trait not dissimilar to the PRC.

How exactly? We elect our officials annually...it's representative...we have three branches...

I'm not following you.

If not democracy, what? (communism? pff)

[Exarch]

It allows immense freedom compared to (oh gee, let's think noutside the box) China. I think it's safe to assume from the world's history that people like freedom more than tyranny. The French revolution is a good example of this. Peopl wanted rights, rights that a king wouldn't give them. So there was a revolution and you know the rest.

Are you saying Exarch that you would rather not live in a democracy? If so, why?)

of course i enjoy living in a democracy; it's jsut that lot of democracies in this day and age exhibit a lot of trait synonamous with a lot of other totalitarian states.
eg:
US and UK rival China for government surveillance

and the propaganda factor where democratically elected governments will and have deliberately misinformed the public eg iraq war, news censorship in iraq, whether self censored or otherwise...

That's alot of speculation right there. The US wouldn't impose a law about the number of births a family is allowed.



How exactly? We elect our officials annually...it's representative...we have three branches...

I'm not following you.

If not democracy, what? (communism? pff

ok in most democracies, like USA and australia u have a lot of powerful lobby groups that fund (more or less bribe) local senators' campaigns into showing favouritism towards that particular lobby group, never mind what is best for the national interest.
how is this democracy when a small collective of ppl with the wealth and resources in which to effect their will, are allowed more influence in the senate/congress/parliament than you and i mere voters in the public?
sure we elect our officials but these campaign lobby groups will have more of a say in influencing any politicians' decision in respect to say corporate tax, environmental reforms or even foreign policy.
This is the oligarchism i was referring to. This is the flaw in modern democracy as i see it; the profound ability for lobbyists to have more of a say in the government that we, the people.

which brings me to ppl like rupert murdoch and ted turner and kerry packer.
These individuals own some of the biggest media stations in the world and can, in effect, give a biased slant to whatever current issue is deemed critical at the time.
anyone remember the jingoistic pieces and propaganda pieces spewing from CNN and Fox news in the lead up to the 2003 iraq war? and the relative quietness coming from iraq since '03-04?
compare this to say the naked raw journalism of a similar quagmire in vietnam, where we ordinary folk would be privy to such images as this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and even this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

and even this:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

so basically, i feel that for individuals to be able to influence whole masses of the population via their media stations and in effect enforce their own political views is highly undemocratic. CNN's motto is 'we report, you decide' but a more accurate term would be 'we report, you believe' as the chasers put it.
besides, the level of media attention in afghanistan is near non-existent...
but even with alla the military censorhip i was surprised the abu ghraib abuses became public; perhaps there is hope after all.....

[bushbush]

How exactly? We elect our officials annually...it's representative...we have three branches...

I'm not following you.

If not democracy, what? (communism? pff)

some parts of democracy, especially American democracy, does make the whole process very undemocratic (albeit more participatory), examples are the court, the interest groups (bias towards rich and powerful ones), and religious groups.

[Evil Maniac From Mars]

The French revolution is a good example of this. Peopl wanted rights, rights that a king wouldn't give them. So there was a revolution and you know the rest.

I'd say rampant umemployment, little money, and a massive debt may have contributed just a little, but continue.