But is democracy good after all?

[Macunaíma]

Everytime democracy is quoted anywhere it is like a "point maker" or something like that. But, thinking deeply, what is democracy? Is it really the "government by the people"? Well, the history can tell us otherwise.

Democracy was born in ancient Greece, everybody knows that. Everybody knows also that only rich people voted back then. The power itself remained in the hands of who possessed them in other forms of government, but now it was equally (I guess, I don't quite remember the history class...) divided between them (after all, you can only vote once, right?). Of course, I'm not counting the possibility of using your influence to get more votes for your candidate (what sure happened back there and still happens today).

After all, what is a democracy if not a dictatorship by the majority? Or, maybe, the dictatorship of the MINORITY? We all know that voting depends on an opinion, and this opinion can be manipulated. Who manipulates? Who is manipulated? It is well known that the media have some friends, right? And they decide what news they publish, and it is not random. Maybe I'm being too paranoid for you. I'm wiriting this based on my personal experience with my country. But I guess it isn't different around the world. What do you have to say about this?

Is the well-applied democracy a good thing, or it would still be just the majority ruling the minority? Or the democracy we have today, where the minority rules, is doing it right, the people is too dumb to choose for themselves? Or democracy itself is a bad idea, we shoul try a new system? Say what you think!


Obs: Sorry for my bad english, I know I may have made some weird mistakes. Also, I tried to make my point clear as much as I can. At first I was writing then I realised all I had done were pointless metaphors and stories that didn't contribute to the theme. I hope you got the topic here.

[LSJ]

I think modern democratic systems are flawed;

- The majority sometimes wants things that destroy a minority's way of life (ie. banning religious practices)
- Most people are not schooled in economics and don't have relevant experience to make the best decisions about such things as social services and business regulations
- Wealthy people will always have an advantage in political campaigning and lobbying and so have disproportionate influence over politics
- Only about half of people bother to vote so you don't know what everyone really wants, and if you have mandatory voting people will treat it as a chore and won't think deeply about who to vote for
- Societies are culturally diverse and there are differing opinions in every city or state (ie. Scotland vs England). If it is a national (not a local) issue then one party may be negatively affected no matter what is done

Though it is still the best system out there. The alternatives either have tendencies to corruption, repression, and inflexibility (single party states), only work in theory (ie. marxism and meritocracy), or are currently too expensive to implement (ie. direct democracy for every issue). At least democracy in the current western incarnation allows the people to express themselves and somewhat direct the government.

[Veliky Kaiser Theos]

In the words of someone who I can't remember, "It ain't all good but it's what we got". I'm sure you would prefer to live in the decadent, fully democratic Western nations, rather than the far more repressive and violent theocracies and dictatorships.

Also, it doesn't matter if people are manipulated into voting. They'll get what they deserve, as how easily manipulated they are depends on how capable they are of critical thinking.

[Macunaíma]

Well, I know in my country people aren't getting what they need, and that's sad.

The alternatives either have tendencies to corruption, repression, and inflexibility (single party states), only work in theory (ie. marxism and meritocracy), or are currently too expensive to implement (ie. direct democracy for every issue).

Well, I guess corruption is almost a part of the human soul. And, considering this year that is passing, "democracy" can be repressive, too. And I guess almost everything works in theory, the problem always is applying it. Marxism was never well applied, the reasons are diverse. But I don't think it's impossible, it would only be really hard, since the nation in question would be kind of isolated from the rest of the world, in many aspects.

They'll get what they deserve, as how easily manipulated they are depends on how capable they are of critical thinking.

And that is the problem. And don't know how it is where you live, but here in my country (Brazil) the public education sucks. And nobody does nothing about, guess why? Keep the people dumb, they'll keep voting for who the TV tells to vote. Of course there are other forms of manipulation (that includes USA).

[PointOfViewGun]

Democracy combined with universal rights is what we need. Such a system can materialize the will of the people while not inferring on the rights of others. Even if you prove it to be bad after all, it's still the best of the worst. When it's executed properly it's the best system out there.

[Big War Bird]

Democracy combined with universal rights is what we need. Such a system can materialize the will of the people while not inferring on the rights of others. Even if you prove it to be bad after all, it's still the best of the worst. When it's executed properly it's the best system out there.

If only we could agree on universal rights then we wouldn't need democracy.

[PointOfViewGun]

If only we could agree on universal rights then we wouldn't need democracy.

There is this funny little thing called the International Bill of Human Rights... Democracy is a system. It's not comparable to universal rights in the sense you're using.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Democracy is the rule of the rich disguised as the government of the "many" - which is the same designation for nothing whatsoever.

[Romanos IV]

Democracy was born in ancient Greece, everybody knows that. Everybody knows also that only rich people voted back then. The power itself remained in the hands of who possessed them in other forms of government, but now it was equally (I guess, I don't quite remember the history class...) divided between them (after all, you can only vote once, right?).

You seriously need to check your sources again.

[bbc]

You seriously need to check your sources again.

Idk about you but that's what I've been thought also. Persia used to be an empire AFIR so no democracy there. Germanic tribes up north used to be ruled by war chieftains so, well, no democracy there either. The closest you will get to the athenian democracy is in Scandinavia where they used to have "Things", which were like a senate where wealthy people decided the fate of the nation, but I think greek democracy came in first, IIRC.
Now idk about other nations in Africa, east of the Achaemenid Empire or in the steppes of Russia or modern-day China or Japan. Democracy in EUROPE was born in greece.

[Remember1843]

We have to separate real democracy ,where the citizens take decisions for almost everything,from its modern version ,parliamentalism ,where the decisions are taken by the representans.
Democracy ,as Darklordseth said, is ideal if it's combined with the human rights.

I believe Switzerland has the best version

[Prodigal]

There are two main types of government in the world. Monarchy and oligarchy. Democacy is a good example of said oligarchy.

[NotYetRegistered]

There are two main types of government in the world. Monarchy and oligarchy. Democacy is a good example of said oligarchy.

Why?

[hellheaven1987]

There are two main types of government in the world. Monarchy and oligarchy. Democacy is a good example of said oligarchy.

Direct democracy is neither monarchy or oligarchy.

[Enemy of the State]

I've often heard it claimed, that democratic governments gain their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That since a majority of people want a democratic government, democracy is valid. However at the same time, there need to be restrictions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority, to stop for example, one group of people from voting to exterminate another group of people. I see a fundamental conflict here. If such a situation were to actually occur, then how can now speak of the consent of the governed? The government would no longer be backed by the support of the majority of society. There are 2 ways you can look at this, either

a)People do not have natural rights. To maintain that the social contract theory is valid, democracy would have to be absolute, without any restrictions.
b)People have natural rights. They are inalianable, universal and independent of majority opinion. This would however totally invalidate the theory of social contract, and indeed put into question the legitimacy of the state as a whole. How can a government have legitimacy, if there is even one person who does not consider it legitimate?

[Time Commander Bob]

I've often heard it claimed, that democratic governments gain their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. That since a majority of people want a democratic government, democracy is valid. However at the same time, there need to be restrictions in place to prevent a tyranny of the majority, to stop for example, one group of people from voting to exterminate another group of people. I see a fundamental conflict here. If such a situation were to actually occur, then how can now speak of the consent of the governed? The government would no longer be backed by the support of the majority of society. There are 2 ways you can look at this, either

a)People do not have natural rights. To maintain that the social contract theory is valid, democracy would have to be absolute, without any restrictions.
b)People have natural rights. They are inalianable, universal and independent of majority opinion. This would however totally invalidate the theory of social contract, and indeed put into question the legitimacy of the state as a whole. How can a government have legitimacy, if there is even one person who does not consider it legitimate?

That's why most democratic countries elect representatives on our behalf to govern us, rather than the majority governing directly. Although I've always found the concept of legitimacy extremely artificial and often it is just a way of codifying what essentially is what people want. The assessment of the degree of democracy as a system should be based on whether it is stable and the utility it provides for its people and this does not require introducing natural rights, a concept I consider completely unverifiable. Also I think that the stability and utility provided by the same system will vary between different countries and at different times, so it is difficult to generally one can say whether democracy is actually good or not. What can be done more easily is to see how current systems in each country could be improved.

[Lazy]

Edit: Did misread a post... letting the picture still here as it is interesing.

World´s countries Democracy Index of 2011

It´s out of date since the Arabic Spring...

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Claudius Gothicus]

Meh it depends, it's far more important to have competitve parties and a strong constitutional ethos(this means the possibility of having an independent Juciary System as well) that helding elections every 2 years.

[Lazy]

Churchill says: "Democracy is the worst form of government, exept for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

What choices have we left?
Its not about "Is democracy good?"
It is about "What is better?"

The first question can be discussed... the second not! Exept you mean it were good if you are the king/dictator

[Macunaíma]

Churchill says: "Democracy is the worst form of government, exept for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

What choices have we left?
Its not about "Is democracy good?"
It is about "What is better?"

The first question can be discussed... the second not! Exept you mean it were good if you are the king/dictator

In theory, there's sure a lot of better forms of government than democracy. But it happens that it seems we can't correctly apply a government system, and also that bad applied democracy is better than any other bad applied thing. So, if we could correctly apply a government system, there would be some better options.

In the end it all comes to respect and honesty.