zen_tom

Some parts of the world are so divided (Iraq, Israel/Palestine, Kashmir, The Baltics etc) that they have often only ever become governable by tough governments that restrict personal freedoms (British Empire, Saddam, Sharon/Arafat, USSR etc)

I just want to explore the idea that, perhaps, democracy just doesn't work in some parts of the world.

To illustrate, say 60% of a nation decides to murder the other 40% - that's still democracy, right?

Lebell

Your illustration is why we are NOT a democracy, but a representative republic ruled by laws that protect the minority.

But to answer the first question, I would quote Churchill who said that democracy was a terrible form of government...but that it was better than all the alternatives.

Ultimately, your question becomes one of whether or not people are capable of governing themselves and I believe that in the end, they are.

__________________
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience." – C. S. Lewis

The ONLY sponsors we have are YOU!

Please Donate!

Rekna

Actually I believe his question is not whether or not people are capable of governing themselves but whether people who are so diveded that they would rather kill eachother than work together can govern themselfs. There is a clear problem with democracy in nations that can't agree to work together.

The_Dunedan

I would say that Democracy is nearly always wrong. Democracy is the rule of the Mob, the rule of the Charismatic over the Righteous, of the Persuasive over the Correct. The French Revolution is a good example of Democracy in action, as is the Russian Revolution. In a Democracy, the Minority have only those Rights which the Majority see fit to give them; the concept of Human Rights is irrelevant in such an environment. If a large enough majority approves of it ( 51%, 75%, 90%, whatever ) anything is permissible; up to and including the physical, genocidal destriction of the 49%, 25%, or 10%.

drakers

I believe that is true, because some cultures are so used to a way of life it is better to leave it be (as long as it isn't harming the people in it).

omega2K4

Very, very well said.

__________________
"While the State exists there can be no freedom. When there is freedom there will be no State." - Vladimir Ilyich Lenin

"Reason has always existed, but not always in a reasonable form."- Karl Marx

Willravel

A succesful government is one that is not controled by self interest. Such a government cannot be, therefore there can not be a succesful government. All we can do is try to limit the destruction as much as possible. Communism could work without self interest, as can socialism, totalitarianism, democracy, or any other form of government. Force feeding democracy calling it "freedom" is lightyears beyond absurd. Democracy is as free as the government lets it be.

People, not governments, are right or wrong; good or bad.

Dragonlich

I'd say that those revolutions were actually Anarchy in action, not Democracy. You assume that a majority of people in France or Russia wanted a revolution, and/or participated in that revolution. This is just wrong; the Russian revolution in particular was organized and carried out by a (relatively) small group of people, supported by a larger group of people that "simply wanted change"; even this larger groups was unlikely to be anything like a majority of the population IMO.

But ultimately, both revolutions replaced a dictatorial system with a more democratic system of government, albeit with a period of extreme violence in between. Hence, if these were indeed examples of Democratic revolution, the results were positive (eventually). Therefore, the examples are not as negative as you seem to imply.

Interestingly enough. there are not many true democracies in the world. The Swiss may have one of the purest democratic political systems, and there, it does indeed lead to some very "strange" laws, sometimes inspired by pure nationalism and bigotry (Not unlike laws passed in other political systems).

Most democracies are actually parliamentary democracies, where the people choose representatives to rule the country. Not unlike the US Republican system, I might add... The main difference is probably in the amount of power the President has; in a republic, he rules the country, in a (parliamentary) democracy, he is a figurehead.

Furthermore, when you suggest that a majority could choose to kill minorities, you ignore the fact that every democratic country in the world has systems in place (laws, etc) to prevent exactly such an abuse of power.

Without those checks and balances, a democracy could choose to become violent, but that's highly unlikely to happen. Given that most humans prefer to have a quiet, peaceful life, it is unlikely they'd choose to go into a civil war; they have to be persuaded by demagogues to do so, and then... it's not a democracy anymore, it's becoming a totalitarian state! But again, that possibility doesn't only apply to democracies, because it can (and does) happen in every political system.

I'd say historical evidence suggests that democracies, once in place, are typically less likely to start a (civil) war than any other political system... .

Zeld2.0

I think its too early in the scale of human time to decide which is less likely or more likely to happen - i mean sure, most democracies have had few civil wars, but there is no doubt many countries have had major ones - i suppose the difference is, most learn from them, and make sure to take charge to prevent future ones, which could be filed under checks and balances.

Democracy, like all other governments, however, come down to human nature - even a well built democratic nation can be bent under the will of the masses no matter the size as long as its the majority. A government ruled by one man can rise and fall as his emotions go. Checks and balances of course are there to limit the possibility of such things happening but ultimately in the end its how the people think and act.

Dragonlich

I think that democracies are less likely to see extreme measures introduced than any other type of government, simply because everyone has a vote. It's *very* difficult to get a majority of people to support a cause. It's much easier for a strong leader to force his people to do something, than to persuade them. If the USA had a democratic system like my country, you couldn't have gone to war with Iraq; It takes a strong leader to do that, and democracies generally don't have strong leaders. Not strong enough anyway.

Democracy has good points and bad, just like every other form of government. I just feel that democracy has less flaws and more vices than those other types. I also think that a country the size of the USA couldn't be a democracy if it wants to remain a super-power, so in that case a republic is a better choice. Likewise, if Europe should ever become one country, it would need to be a republic too; that is, if it wants to stay together, and wants to be powerful.

Going back to the original question: is a (pure) democratic system good for every country? No, probably not. But are democratic *rights* good for everyone? Of course! The US may be a republic, but the people still have a (democratic) right to vote.

Let's look at a country like Iraq (or Afghanistan).

There are many different factions trying to gain power. A democratic system of government may be the only way of keeping them in check without force. You should probably create a system like the USA has, with smaller states forming one big government. That way, the factions have their say, but the combined country becomes more powerful. The question then becomes: how much power do the states have, and how much power does the nation have? That is a question that is still being debated as we speak, particularly in the USA...

I can't say that the country should become an "official" democracy (with a pretty much powerless President) or a republic (with a stronger President); that depends on many different things (such as it's neighbors).

An alternative to a democracy would probably be some form of dictatorship, which has it's advantages and disadvantages; But it's not an option that is *better* than a democracy. A dictatorship would need to use force to keep the factions in check, and that produces many problems. Dictatorships also cannot afford much freedom; this has a negative impact on the economy, and on scientific progress. A possible "advantage" is that the country has to create a large army to maintain order, which allows it to be more powerful militarily; but is that really such a good thing???

One last note: some Greek city states had a system where there'd be a democracy during peaceful times, and a dictatorship during war. Think about it...

flstf

I fear that some of the countries that are in the process of ridding themselves of dictators etc.. will eventually just vote themselves an Islamic regime and be back where they started in the not distant future. I hope I am wrong but I guess if that's what the prople want who are we to tell them otherwise.

alansmithee

I think it's highly debatable that the communism of Lenin (and especially Stalin) was any better than the Tsarist regime.

And as for democracy having safeguards to defend against great injustices, one needs only look at the short lived Weimarr republic in Germany to see that these can be gotten around. Everything that Hitler did politically was technically legal, according to the Weimarr government rules (which were quite well designed from a democratic standpoint).

I think Plato described what would be the optimum governmental structure, the problem being finding people who would work without self-intrest or much reward for the good of the community. As for governmental structures that have actually exsisted, I think the best was probably France under Napoleon which was the closest to a benevolent, constructive dictatorship that has been seen.

chateau_margaux

Bush's speech can best be described by listing what it did not say.
Although the speech clearly was attuned to the nation's response to the 9/11 terrorist attacks, there was no mention of "terrorism" or "the war on terror." Neither "Iraq" nor "Afghanistan" was mentioned.

How could the president make these omissions when the war in Iraq, fought as a battle in the war against terror, is his major second-term problem?
This does not define the optimum governmental structure defined by Plato in the above post

irateplatypus

a representative form of government where...

1. politicians are elected in fair elections by an unintimidated and educated electorate
2. people are free to make their living in a free market independent of intrusive government regulation or excessive taxation
3. rights of the minorities are guaranteed to be equal to all other citizens.
4. freedom of speech, press, and worship are guaranteed and not subject to political whims or trends.

is the finest form of government we have yet devised. this describes the U.S. as well as many other governments around the world. perhaps not every culture and region is ready for the immediate transition to this system. however, when all peoples do live under the aegis of such a government the world will be a more peaceful and just place.

__________________
If you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not too costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves.

~ Winston Churchill

El Kaz

The thing is, the population as a whole takes rather short-sighted decision. If lowering all taxes on the spot was to be voted by the entire population, I'm pretty sure it would pass.
Elected governments, knowing better, have more far-sighted policies.
So in this sense, a government can work "agaisnt the will" of its electors, for their own good.

Isn't a good example of this California? Being a Canadian, I MIGHT be talking nonsense on that, but I think it's one of the strongest democracy, as in, the population itself has a lot of powers? And isn't it THE most in-debted state, by far?

I don't think democracy is wrong.. but the people can be.

__________________
"Write a wise saying and your name will live forever." -Unknown

Hardknock

Is Democracy always right?

Mabye or mabye not. What scares me though is that Bush wans to spead it all over the world and at the same time he can't get it through his thick skull that the rest of the world might not necessarily want to be just like us.

Hope we don't go down with him.

RogueHunter65

"Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time. "
Sir Winston Churchill, November 11, 1947

Could not have said the way I feel better myself.

__________________
I suffer from amnesia and deja vu at the same time... I think I have forgotten this before

MSD

Until people are willing to be responsible and self-reliant, what we have in the US is reasonably good for now. If people were to fight apathy and ignorance, we could start doing away with a lot of laws and restrictions that we don't really need. We need to do that now, but it isn't going to happen, because almost nobody with power is going to let any of it go.

We have problems with our government, but I would rather be here than anywhere else for now.

Dragonlich

But these weren't really communist, but rather dictators posing as communists. In theory, communism is a very nice system; too bad human nature doesn't cooperate.

But the Weimar Republic didn't start wars, nor did it murder millions of people. Hitler abused the rules to create a dictatorship, which allows such things. If Hitler had kept the democratic system, he would never have been able to do the things he did.

Napoleon wasn't as benevolent as you suggest; he was a megalomaniac, didn't care one bit about his soldiers (left them to die in Egypt!), and killed a lot of people during his reign. As far as dictators go, he wasn't bad, but that doesn't make him good.

roachboy

in the united states, the citizenry is free, in political terms, one day every four years.
on that basis, the governmental apparatus like to talk about democracy.
it has never been an easy fit.
the bush administration is to democracy what stalin was to socialism: both destroy the language they use, both reduce the ideals they claim for themselves to dust or less.

as for speculation about democracy: the informational and social conditions that might enable an actual democracy to operate are simply not in place in the states. so americans do not have much in the way of experience thinking in pragmatic terms about democracy. but they like to talk about it.

second: one reason they like to talk about it is because the "founders"--fetish objects for conservatives, sadly---oriented their view of democracy via plato and aristotle,. both of who opposed it because they were both appalled at the notion of equality. so are conservatives. but no-one should confuse plato/aristotle with meaningful theorists of democracy. they arent.

all this written between moments of laughter at the idea that napoleon bonaparte (or is it napoleon III?) was a benevolent dictator.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

You are definately full of it.

I'm conservative and not at all appalled at the notion of equality.

roachboy

stevo:
the sentence in which they came up did not refer to you personally--the argument is not affected one way or another by your noting that you personally are not appalled at the notion of equality, unless at some level you are trying to demonstrate that you are not plato or aristotle, which i think could have been done even more directly that you managed.

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

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

stevo

Then what is the point of adding "so are conservatives" after "...they were both appalled at the notion of equality"? It was only a cheap attempt by you to insult others that disagree with you by claiming they are against equality. Don't try and spin in any other way. We all read what you wrote. Grow up.