Does Democracy In Real Life live Up To Your Expectations?

[Exarch]

I've often heard it said about socialism or communism, that they only work in 'theory'-that such utopian societies only work in a perfect world, but fail miserably in practice-in the real world;
Could one say the same for democracy?

first, let's define democracy. democracy is not just some vague term like 'freedom', you can just shout out to make yourself feel good about yourself, no, it has a meaning, and according to the trusty dictionary it is this:

government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system.

source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/democracy

sounds good and ideal, doesn't it?
but is it the reality?

seems to me that those who are rich and have powerful connections, and who have the support of major news networks will be the ones who gain public office and power. In the united states for eg, how many politicians or public servants (and i use the term quite loosely here) have been members of the clinton/bush/kennedy clan?
how is this any different from a feudal or plutarchic structure?

democracy means government where supreme power is vested by the people, not in a collective few.

it's with that in mind, that i cynically ignore all those jouranlists reporting from egypt/bahrain etc etc mentally :wub: over this ideal of democracy, as opposed to the reality of it.

so with those thoughts in mind, would you say that democracy in practice fails to live up to its ideals?

[Caelifer_1991]

Democracy means little without fair wealth distribution, political power is obviously translated to an extent through democracy but money is still the ultimate form of power around, and so with the rediculous extent of economic inequality in the US it's not much of a surprise that dynasties (effectively speaking) tend to emerge. Besides, democracy is basically a socialist ideal anyway, government based on the will of the people collectively? That's about as socialist in ideological terms as you can get, the US system is as such a half hearted attempt at that ideal, given the other, atleast social democratic economic policies that need to go with it, aswell as a lack of the lobbying and corporate funding that blights the US system.

[Exarch]

y'know, for all the talk a LOT of american politicians have about 'freedom' and 'democracy', i'd love for them to contribute an equal amount towards 'equality'

the divide between rich and poor in the united states has been growing

[Caelifer_1991]

Indeed, and the foundation of the supposed American freedoms are being worn away by the weakening of their democracy as a result, at the risk of sounding sensationalist: how long until the very freedoms themselves are in jeoperdy? Of course the rambling idiots that continue to support the Republicans (and those who are rich enough to be, pragmatically speaking in regards to their own personal interests, at least in the short term, justified in doing so) only continue to push the US in the wrong direction.

Of course when people are annoyed at government, the more emotionally centred (most people) among the population will either abstain or vote for the next competitor nearest their values that has a chance of winning, in a 2 party system as in the US, that basically means that politicians can put forward effectively whatever policies they choose (within reason, such are the benefits of what democracy there is there) in the understanding that they must only wait a couple of elections before getting voted in again anyway, having a wealth of parties to choose from is vitally important, which only goes to emphasise the importance of destroying lobbying and corporate influence.

[RomanSoldier9001]

Democracy never existed didnt existed back in Ancient Greece where it was critized by great intelectuals and minds of the time to name a few Plato Socrates Aristoteles etc and doesnt exist especealy now I mean all lobbies,political parties,pression groups and demagogues pretty much run and control the will of the people that have a ilusion of "having soberan power".

[Azog 150]

There is some very obvious and glaring holes thats for sure. But in my mind still better then living under some autocrat.

Its a work in progress, and there is a lot of work still to do. But what we have now is better then a lot of the viable alternatives.

Although s others have stated, true democracy, much like true Communism, is an impossibility on any large scale.

[phydeaux]

Democracy isn't about equal distribution of wealth, it is about allowing an individual to achieve what they want. It just so happens that when people get more it is easier to grow into more and more, but starting out with nothing is difficult. But everybody in the USA has the right to go to college to better themselves. The United States actually is a modern Republic, not a Democracy per se. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf

I had a friend from Syria who moved to the United States in the mid 80s. He told me 'You Americans are so lazy. I've been here for 5 years and I own 3 houses, and two businesses'. The problem with people now is that they feel they are owed something. It isn't a zero sum game here. Just because somebody has $20 million doesn't mean you can't have any yourself.

People in the USA expect to have cell phones, cable TV, new clothes, and nice cars...and only work 30 hours a week. Just because somebody has it better doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't still worse off than we are. The system of government in the United States has allowed the USA to become the most powerful, wealthy, and educated in the world, and we haven't had a total reform of government in the past 300 years.

[Caelifer_1991]

There is some very obvious and glaring holes thats for sure. But in my mind still better then living under some autocrat.

Its a work in progress, and there is a lot of work still to do. But what we have now is better then a lot of the viable alternatives.

Although s others have stated, true democracy, much like true Communism, is an impossibility on any large scale.

Maybe true, but just as with a graph of 1/x (in visual terms, if you consider the x axis to be the ideal of democracy), whilst never being fully attainable, it is possible to get increasingly near to it with the correct system and and economic policies, needless to say, the US is somewhat nearer to y=0 than say, the western EU.

[Caelifer_1991]

Democracy isn't about equal distribution of wealth, it is about allowing an individual to achieve what they want. It just so happens that when people get more it is easier to grow into more and more, but starting out with nothing is difficult. But everybody in the USA has the right to go to college to better themselves. The United States actually is a modern Republic, not a Democracy per se. Accurately defined, a democracy is a form of government in which the people decide policy matters directly--through town hall meetings or by voting on ballot initiatives and referendums. A republic, on the other hand, is a system in which the people choose representatives who, in turn, make policy decisions on their behalf

I had a friend from Syria who moved to the United States in the mid 80s. He told me 'You Americans are so lazy. I've been here for 5 years and I own 3 houses, and two businesses'. The problem with people now is that they feel they are owed something. It isn't a zero sum game here. Just because somebody has $20 million doesn't mean you can't have any yourself.

People in the USA expect to have cell phones, cable TV, new clothes, and nice cars...and only work 30 hours a week. Just because somebody has it better doesn't mean that the rest of the world isn't still worse off than we are. The system of government in the United States has allowed the USA to become the most powerful, wealthy, and educated in the world, and we haven't had a total reform of government in the past 300 years.

If the number of jobs are limited at any given time, and one person's opportunity is increased through anything other than merit, it must come at the expense of someone else regardless of merit: that's what we see in the US. Yes it's possible to make it to the top from the very bottom (I hope it still is) but only for a person that does exceptionally better than someone who grew up in a more privileged environment who themselves must do exceptionally well to achieve the same. As such you could say that for a particularly exceptional person, they could make it to any position within society, but the real question is whether the average person has the same ability as another average person to make it to the same level in society, that is clearly not the case, and it is the most relevent fact, given that most people are infact, average. Lost skills are still lost skills whether it be by a person who is exceptional, slightly above average, or merely somewhere around average, if people can't reach their potential the number of political elites will favour the... favoured, those who grew up in economic privilege (regardless of the odd exceptional individual), thus creating a bias towards other socioeconomic groups and only increasing the problem over time. A well balanced political system (which the US is not) can buffer this, but only without a lack of other influences such as lobbying and corporate influence, which the US is rife with.

Pulling single examples of social mobility within a system is almost meaningless, other than to show the potential extremes (potentially...) of social mobility in exceptional circumstances or otherwise within the system. The numbers of such examples as an average within the population, across all socioeconomic backgrounds and circumstances and across a large enough sample of the population to nullify intervening variables (preferably the entire population) are relevent however.

As for the US being the most wealthy in the world, that depends on the socioeconomic group you look at; and educated? Are you in' serious?

Edit: Excuse the double post.

[phydeaux]

If the number of jobs are limited at any given time, and one person's opportunity is increased through anything other than merit, it must come at the expense of someone else regardless of merit: that's what we see in the US. Yes it's possible to make it to the top (I hope it still is) but only for a person that does exceptionally better than someone who grew up in more a priveleged environment who themselves must do exceptionally well to achieve the same. As such you could say that for a particularly exceptional person, they could make it to any position within society, but the real question is whether the average person has the same ability as another average person to make it to the same level in society, that is clearly not the case, and it is the most relevent fact, given that most people are infact, average. Lost skills are still lost skills whether it be by a person who is exceptional, slightly above average, or merely somewhere around average, if people can't reach their potential the number of politcal elites will favour the... favoured, those who grew up in economic privelege (regardless of the odd exceptional individual), thus creating a bias towards such a socioeconomic group and only increasing the problem over time. A well balanced political system (which the US is not) can buffer this, but only without a lack of other influences such as lobbying and corporate influence, which the US is rife with.

As for the US being the most wealthy in the world, that depends on the socioeconomic group you look at; and educated? Are you in' serious?

Edit: Excuse the double post.

The number of jobs isn't limited. A person may be limited in their ability, need, or desire to get a job but there are plenty of jobs available. But I do agree with you to a point, it will eventually come down to a competition. But your definition of being favored does not hold up at all. A requirement for a job may be a BS in a particular field, but most Fortune 500 companies have HR departments that have to adhere to some semblance of law, or be sued. That isn't to say that there isn't some form of favoritism that goes on from time to time, but if you were raised in L.A. went to college and got decent grades, there is no reason that you couldn't succeed in the USA.

It sounds overly simplistic, and don't mean to be. But there are over 300 leaders in governments throughout the world that have been educated in the United States. I don't think any other country can make such a claim. Sure there are great schools outside of the US, but those might be considered Elite, as opposed University Of Illinois or Iowa.

I'd be curious though, what political system would do what you propose, and what country is it currently working in?

[Eskali]

The number of jobs isn't limited. A person may be limited in their ability, need, or desire to get a job but there are plenty of jobs available. But I do agree with you to a point, it will eventually come down to a competition. But your definition of being favored does not hold up at all. A requirement for a job may be a BS in a particular field, but most Fortune 500 companies have HR departments that have to adhere to some semblance of law, or be sued. That isn't to say that there isn't some form of favoritism that goes on from time to time, but if you were raised in L.A. went to college and got decent grades, there is no reason that you couldn't succeed in the USA.

It sounds overly simplistic, and don't mean to be. But there are over 300 leaders in governments throughout the world that have been educated in the United States. I don't think any other country can make such a claim. Sure there are great schools outside of the US, but those might be considered Elite, as opposed University Of Illinois or Iowa.

I'd be curious though, what political system would do what you propose, and what country is it currently working in?

No country has a decent democratic system, if there was, you'd know about it because their living standards and wealth distubution would be far superior to everyone else's.

[Eskali]

Hell no, its a system whereby the rich get voted in then they choose among themselves which they want us to have the only option of a serious vote for. This is not democracy, this is a business for profitering elitests and actors.

And no, you were rich because your world was untouched by WW2 and came out as the only real industrial base, nations have recovered and you are now declining and your politicians are only digging the grave even deeper, enjoy.

Of course they cant complain about others having it easier, USA citizen does have a fairly safe and comfortable life, but that by no means they should sit on their arse, you should always be trying to better yourself, that means trying for a government that isn't corrupt, bureaucratic and idiotic.

It is a possibility if you mix it with some technocracy and some socialism with the motivational factors of capitalism and remove the monetary system and by far and large simplify the politcal ladders so that majority of people can follow it and know whats going on.

[Caelifer_1991]

The number of jobs isn't limited. A person may be limited in their ability, need, or desire to get a job but there are plenty of jobs available. But I do agree with you to a point, it will eventually come down to a competition. But your definition of being favored does not hold up at all. A requirement for a job may be a BS in a particular field, but most Fortune 500 companies have HR departments that have to adhere to some semblance of law, or be sued. That isn't to say that there isn't some form of favoritism that goes on from time to time, but if you were raised in L.A. went to college and got decent grades, there is no reason that you couldn't succeed in the USA.

It sounds overly simplistic, and don't mean to be. But there are over 300 leaders in governments throughout the world that have been educated in the United States. I don't think any other country can make such a claim. Sure there are great schools outside of the US, but those might be considered Elite, as opposed University Of Illinois or Iowa.

I'd be curious though, what political system would do what you propose, and what country is it currently working in?

The amount of employment is dependent upon how much any given company is willing to spend on labour (skilled or otherwise) for their requirements, there are a limited number of companies and none of them are unlimited in size, thus employment is limited. Naturally you could say that they could simply create more jobs by lowering wages instead of increasing efficiency and use of technology but living costs in developed nations largely make that unviable. In boom times there are generally more jobs than people looking for them thus reducing the problem to an extent but on the other hand, if we were to look at say, politicians, only so many are required, with more wishing to be successful in that field than jobs available, connections and wealth (a factor increased by inequality, that is as stated worse in harsher economic times) are on par with merit in regards to the prospects of such people. As such my definition of favoured stands, it is not in formal terms, and as such is barely effected by the law if at all, money need not actually be paid for the bias to exist.

As for your statistic regarding world leaders with qualifications from the US, the US has the benefit of being a signficantly larger country than any other developed nation: that automatically morphs the numbers in it's favour. Education within the US in politics, in some universities more than others, also has many side effects such as political connections within the US, that are more valuable than the same in other countries. There are more variables to consider than the education itself and it's fair to assume that the US's best (hardly relevent to the average or to the rest of the education system) universities are on par with the best elsewhere, that aspiring world leaders will naturally have access to assuming they have the ability (costs may naturally be an impeding factor upon others, im unaware of the exact details of costs in the US university system and so can not go into depth on such), thus removing concern about the rest of the educational system from their considerations. As for universities in other countries being elite, there are some that are, many that are not; and many of those that are not are no doubt on par with their equivelents in the US if not better.

As for alternative and superior democratic systems, any of those in western or northern europe qualify, to varying extents and with their own various problems per system (none are perfect, here or anywhere else), take your pick. In all cases, given my previous economic point regarding democracy, even if the systems are not better (they are anyway) they are supplemented with decent and functioning government programs and services such as national healthcare, more sophisticated benefits systems and more resources diverted to single parents (for the sake of the children and their opportunities, reletive to the rest of the discussion and pretty much everything else).

[phydeaux]

The amount of employment is dependent upon how much any given company is willing to spend on labour (skilled or otherwise) for their requirements, there are a limited number of companies and none of them are unlimited in size, thus employment is limited. Naturally you could say that they could simply create more jobs by lowering wages instead of increasing efficiency and use of technology but living costs in developed nations largely make that unviable. In boom times there are generally more jobs than people looking for them thus reducing the problem to an extent but on the other hand, if we were to look at say, politicians, only so many are required, with more wishing to be successful in that field than jobs available, connections and wealth (a factor increased by inequality, that is as stated worse in harsher economic times) are on par with merit in regards to the prospects of such people. As such my definition of favoured stands, it is not in formal terms, and as such is barely effected by the law if at all, money need not actually be paid for the bias to exist.

As for your statistic regarding world leaders with qualifications from the US, the US has the benefit of being a signficantly larger country than any other developed nation: that automatically morphs the numbers in it's favour. Education within the US in politics, in some universities more than others, also has many side effects such as political connections within the US, that are more valuable than the same in other countries. There are more variables to consider than the education itself and it's fair to assume that the US's best (hardly relevent to the average or to the rest of the education system) universities are on par with the best elsewhere, that aspiring world leaders will naturally have access to assuming they have the ability (costs may naturally be an impeding factor upon others, im unaware of the exact details of costs in the US university system and so can not go into depth on such), thus removing concern about the rest of the educational system from their considerations. As for universities in other countries being elite, there are some that are, many that are not; and many of those that are not are no doubt on par with their equivelents in the US if not better.

As for alternative and superior democratic systems, any of those in western or northern europe qualify, to varying extents and with their own various problems per system (none are perfect, here or anywhere else), take your pick. In all cases, given my previous economic point regarding democracy, even if the systems are not better (they are anyway) they are supplemented with decent and functioning government programs and services such as national healthcare, more sophisticated benefits systems and more resources diverted to single parents (for the sake of the children and their opportunities, reletive to the rest of the discussion and pretty much everything else).

I'll take America any day, and I'm glad that others are equally happy with their own countries. I do believe in American exceptionalism in many areas. National Healthcare for the USA is a myth and will never happen. It's just too large of a country to do so with an affordable solution.

I will agree with another post that it's always a work in progress, but I like our system here. Although we do have a government that is putting too much on the backs of Americans. It needs to be significantly smaller.

[Caelifer_1991]

I'll take America any day, and I'm glad that others are equally happy with their own countries. I do believe in American exceptionalism in many areas. National Healthcare for the USA is a myth and will never happen. It's just too large of a country to do so with an affordable solution.

I will agree with another post that it's always a work in progress, but I like our system here. Although we do have a government that is putting too much on the backs of Americans. It needs to be significantly smaller.

Fair enough but if the US is exceptional in any way democracy is certainly not one of them. As for national healthcare if ever it doesn't happen in the US it's so that it can maintain a higher percentage of the expenses for such in the private sector (even if over all expenses are significantly higher) thus preventing the need for a raise in taxes and so allowing for greater military expenditure, the sort that it has been maintaining largely since WW2: something that is rather crucial to it's position as a superpower in the way it is now, particularly as rivals start to expand their own relative sphere's of influence (as archaic a term as it may be it still applies). Certainly more social democratic policies are more suitable to the EU given that we are not integrated and unified enough to hold ourselves on the world stage in the same way that the US can, thus making an equivelent economic, political and military model a lost cause, that is despite of course having a significantly larger economy. The US shall tread it's own path and the EU it's own, as it should be... and I think it's fair to say both systems have the most benefits for the states conducting them.

(semi serious) I still think our system is better though

[Poach]

Most of Scotland votes Labour by default because they're all too lazy to bother learning anything, so no I don't think it works.

That said, I've long held the view that the Universal Franchise is a grave error and would willingly vote to see it reduced. You should require a qualification to have a say in how the Country is run: be it a certain level of academic success or some sort of liscence in the manner of Driving Liscences.

[Rolling Thunder]

Most of Scotland votes Labour by default because they're all too lazy to bother learning anything, so no I don't think it works.

That said, I've long held the view that the Universal Franchise is a grave error and would willingly vote to see it reduced. You should require a qualification to have a say in how the Country is run: be it a certain level of academic success or some sort of liscence in the manner of Driving Liscences.

The reason you need a licence to drive is so you don't cause direct harm to others. There is no such logic in having a licence to vote.

[Poach]

The reason you need a licence to drive is so you don't cause direct harm to others. There is no such logic in having a licence to vote.

Where did I state there was a safety hazard inherent to voting? (Though Labour's international galivanting has proven to be quite the health hazard...)

In my opinion, you should have to pass a test in order to be given the right to vote. Similar to passing a driving test to be given the right to drive.

[spanish_emperor]

Where did I state there was a safety hazard inherent to voting? (Though Labour's international galivanting has proven to be quite the health hazard...)

In my opinion, you should have to pass a test in order to be given the right to vote. Similar to passing a driving test to be given the right to drive.

It would be manipulated by the groups of power and would solve nothing. Ignorance the the only evil and you can only destroy ignorance by providing knowledge. The fault here is failure to inform the people on actual, unbiased facts which are important rather than what is popular like Britney spears got drunk again.

[Rolling Thunder]

Where did I state there was a safety hazard inherent to voting? (Though Labour's international galivanting has proven to be quite the health hazard...)

In my opinion, you should have to pass a test in order to be given the right to vote. Similar to passing a driving test to be given the right to drive.

So in your opinion, you should have to pass a test to democratically express your political opinion. Makes sense, and totally not open to being abused mercilessly by the government.

I don't believe in democracy as a working system. Democratic elements yes, but on practice democracy always goes down to oligarchy at some point.

Much as all attempts at other governments will invariably devolve into murderous dictatorships.