UKking

In March, the Kingdom of Bhutan transitioned from Monarchy to Democracy. it a bit. (check it out, it's a great story)

I don't know much about Bhutan, but after watching that video, and having read things here and there regarding various countries' moves to democracy, I'm left wondering if their future is about to become brighter or dimmer.

Africa's democracies seem to have trouble developing, and some of them are practically a sham. It's pretty debatable how much net good or bad has come from it all. Or take places like Iraq, or Afghanistan. Their transition has been very rough. And as Arab nations, Sharia is very, very important... Is it even possible for our interpretations of democracy to flourish in their culture? The pervading idea seems to be that democracy is best, but what if there are fundamental disconnects between a culture's values and the presupposed values of democracy? Will the peoples' lives (eventually) improve, or are there more pitfalls and hardships in store which we're blind to, perhaps through bias?

Another question raised: what's better? Things like knowledge, technology, wealth, freedom? Maybe culture, peace, health, and happiness overshadow those? Are some of these qualities mutually exclusive to each other? What among these does democracy promote?

Does it tend to stifle other areas? Certain ideals of peace, or harmony for instance? China's rise has seen an increase in a lot of the mentioned qualities, and quality of life seems to be improving broadly. They would have us believe it's people have a lot of faith in their government as well, which is not a democracy. Would their solution be better for some countries' situations?

This is, of course, on the assumption the form of government isn't prepackaged with a predilection for monstrous human rights violations like China...

Or is that actually a very pressing part of the equation? Are non-democracies naturally prone to disregarding human rights? Is this the reason Bhutan's king stepped down, to prevent the eventuality of a bad guy becoming king, and irreparably damaging their society? But then compare the the potential damage of westernization...

Modern western democracies seem to be doing alright, but the political and economic climate of the world was also much different when our current governments came into existence. Perhaps our countries had it easy 'growing up' in this respect. That newer democracies face more obstacles to political 'modernization.' Or does this matter?

It's certainly risky, changing a country around nowadays. That said, what kind of risk is a shot at freedom worth?

(In general though, those were all meant to be hypothetical questions.
Uh, except for the last one.)

I think there are many ways that democracy can evolve and there is no right way. While there are a lot of developing countries out there that are having a rough time getting to democracy, its not to say that the U.S. didn't have its own road blocks. I think that the U.S. likes to gloss over that a lot.

We point out the failures of these developing nations as if we've never been in the same situation. I think just in the last few years we can point out several violations of a democratic ethic in the U.S. government.

I think the U.S. as one of the Imperialist powers of the last century needs to get over itself in thinking that we can force democracy on the world. It may not be what the world needs. So far its just created a lot of strife.

Willravel

Wait, is this thread about democracy being flawed or people being transitioned into democracy too soon?

filtherton

A democracy is only as good as its people are willing to make it. See: America's current downward trend.

allaboutmusic

A system of government where the needs of the people are listened to, and action taken in their interest rather than in the government's self-interest, is a good thing. This can take place in a democracy, a monarchy, even a dictatorship. I'd say that a good example of any of them is as good as any of the others. I'm all for being ruled by a king / queen, if the king / queen in question clearly has a heart for the people and does what is possible to keep the people of the country comfortable and happy.

I think democracy would work much, much better if politicians earned the national average wage by law, and had to live as regular people do rather than getting huge salaries, expense accounts, donations and privileges. If they are really doing it for the love of the country, why should they earn several times what soldiers, teachers and doctors do?

samcol

America bought a constitutional republic, but has been swindled into democracy as of late. Democracy should not be the form of government these countries strive for.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

dc_dux

I dont particularly care what you call it.

As long as it:

* reflects the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority

*guarantees certain rights and freedoms to all citizens, mostly notably the right to vote, freedom of speech and a free press

* includes an indepedent judiciary and the rule of law

* ensures civilian control of the military

The rest may be reflected in the culture and history of a particular nation or people.

__________________
"The perfect is the enemy of the good."
~ Voltaire

samcol

I could agree with that, but of course I'd probably add a few. That's the basis of a free society though. Most failed democracies seem to be a larger group of people oppressing the smaller group or minorities in their regions. It's pretty hard to make that scenario work.

I think the key is respecting the minority whether the minority difference is political persuasion, religion, race, or whatever. If they aren't treated as individuals instead of a group it's all over from the start. Everyone has to have the same basic rights and freedoms that are inalieanable.

__________________
It's time for the president to hand over his nobel peace prize.

robot_parade

"Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried." - Winston Churchill (I think)

Democracy has lots of flaws. There are many ways that democratic governments can be oppressive to their citizens, and fail in lots of other ways. However, other forms of government are worse.

Willravel

Democracies fail because the populace is stupid or lethargic.

Uh oh.

UKking

It's whatever you want to make of it, really. I was just hoping to hear the thoughts it evoked in people. How the idea relates to their thoughts and experience.

Ustwo

Perhaps the best form of government is in fact a benign monarchy with a wise king. The problem is when you get a wackjob king. Democracy sort of evens it out and limits the damage any single leader can do. The problem with the will of the people is that people are often idiots.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

abaya

The only one of those that I could ever have seen working is the King of Thailand... not that he has any actual powers, but he definitely has the hearts and minds of his people after 60 years as king. He's bloody amazing, when you think of it. I think Thailand would be in a much better place if HE had the power, instead of the corrupt leaders who were "elected" into power, but unfortunately that will never happen, and he's probably not going to make it much longer. Every Thai household has a picture of the king... can you imagine doing that with your current country's leader?!

__________________
And think not you can direct the course of Love;
for Love, if it finds you worthy, directs your course.
--Khalil Gibran

roachboy

i dont understand the op, what it is actually asking about.
but i do find the attacks on democracy it has spawned to be funny.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

allaboutmusic

Thailand is exactly the country I was thinking of when I was talking about monarchy. The people there genuinely love their king, he even starts fashion crazes if he appears in a new colour of clothing.

Halx

I'm in agreement.

(Says the owner of the site.)

__________________
You have found this post informative.
-The Administrator
[Don't Feed The Animals]

The_Dunedan

It's been my observation that democracy, as the Enlightenment thinkers warned us, is usually at best a "lateral transfer" of the problems which beset other societies, rather than a cure for them. Frequently, democracy makes these problems -worse-, simply because people will vote in support of every manner of stupidity if they're stupid enough (easy), desperate enough (easier), or mean enough (easiest of all) not to care about the results. France circa 1793 and Zimbabwe circa 2002 are good, rough examples of this. People being people, they will vote in their own (or their tribe's) best interests every time; myself being no exception. However, most people in this world are hungry, illiterate to a greater or lesser degree, and frequently the victims of political con-men like Mugabe or Putin or Bush. As a Cossack professor of mine once put it:

"What for should they have Democracy? Cossacks would vote for Cossacks, Chechens would vote for Chechens, Ingush would vote for Ingush, and all of them for the worst scoundrels, the biggest thugs, the most ferocious murderers among them."

Most of the world thinks in these terms, or similarly medieval ones. Imagine giving the Spanish and Portugese during the Inquisition era the Vote: Torquemada and his ilk would have been Kings of Spain and Admirals of the Deep in no time. The reality was bad enough; handing the Vote to idiots (which most of humanity are, in a large enough group) is asking for disaster.

Human beings are wonderfully intelligent creatures as individuals But a group is only as smart as its' dumbest member, and groups are easily fooled or manipulated. When the group you're talking about has a single-digit literacy rate, fooling and manipulating them becomes child's play. Promise them Heaven and they'll vote for you; deliver them into Hell and they'll -keep- voting for you. Just ask Danton.

roachboy

i'll do this again later.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Actually a king wouldn't have to be loved, hell he could be hated, but doing the right thing and doing the will of the people are not always the same.

Imagine if, as some wanted, George Washington was the first king of the US and he decided to abolish slavery, long before it became the will of a majority of the people?

That is both the benefit and disadvantage of such a system. The same type of decree could be used to ban a religion or confiscate land.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

fear of democracy is rooted in an fear of the public, often as above stemming in equal measure from ignorance and elitism, the worst possible combination. fear of the public in all its etymological senses, to wit:

it is fear of the people, fear of transparency, fear of equality, fear of power-sharing, fear of responsibility, fear of consequences for your actions, fear of information-----of having it, of having to think about it weigh it evaluate it act on it---fear of democracy is fear of debate---fear of democracy is fear of uncertainty, it is fear of being adult: it is wanting a paterfamilias who will think and decide for you, it is wanting an Infantile relation to the Law so that you can Think like an Infant in terms of your own immediate needs and their gratification and fuck everybody and everything else. fear of democracy is about wanting artificial hierarchies between social orders so long as you benefit from them (and only so long as you benefit from them are they natural and when you do not benefit from them they are suddenly unnatural)--fear of democracy is about wanting someone Else to have responsibility so that you can shrink your world, it is about wanting someone Else to have information so you don't need to worry about it, gather it, think about it act on it decide about it; it is wanting power to be Elsewhere so that you don't have any; it is about wanting Decisions to be made Elsewhere in Secret by those who have information and responsibility so that you can bother yourself with neither.

fear of democracy is about fear of education. fear of democracy is rooted in an ignorance of history that is only imaginable in an intellectual backwater the size of america. fear of democracy is rampant amongst those who claim to preserve it, to export it, to defend it, those who send other people's children to die for "democracy" in wars far away, so other people's children are sent to die in wars far away for a political system that it seems americans do not have and do not want.



i am feeling particularly anarchist this evening.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Ustwo

Excellent rant, but its not the topic at hand

No on is suggesting we change systems, just that all is not perfect, and under the ideal (read rare) circumstances another system could be better for a time.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

roachboy

the idea of perfect seems suspect--so i'd rather that the fact that there is no perfection be explicit. an actual democracy would not be perfect. it couldn't be.

besides, if there was perfection, what would we do with ourselves?

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

MSD

Democracy, or at least a system in which a government is held accountable to its constituents, is desirable. The two problems I see with such a system is that 1: such a system must be militarily and economically strong enough to resist coercive forces, and 2: people, as a whole, are really fucking stupid.

Nimetic

A successful democratic system is supported by conventions of accountability, by separation of powers, a free press and relatively good education/literacy.

In a short time frame, a voting system can be set up in a new country - but the other aspects of the system take more time. Specifically, literacy and conventions of behavior take time.

That's my take on it anyway.

If a country has a voting system, only. That by-itself is not a viable democracy.