What is a democracy?

Ok, recently I was thinking about this. My reasoning was that if the leaders of a nation don't do what the people of that nation want them to move to it is not a democracy (democracy coming from the words ruling and people in Greek if I'm not misstaken).

Therefore I concluded that the Netherlands are not a real democracy.

This (offcourse) caused quite a few heckles to rise (on another forum) but it became clear to me that the word Democracy has many different meanings to different people.


So what's a democracy to you?

Democracy as it was invented by the Greeks was the system where all free males (not women obviously ;)) convened in the city hall to decide on majority vote principle.
In the long run this was not a viable option (try organizing a vote on 10 proposals with 10000 people, every week).

Democracy means that you elect government officials to make decisions for you.
The key thing to keep in mind here is that you give them the right to decide.
So if they do things you don't like, vote different next time. I do not expect a government to bow to the wishes of the majority on a per-incident basis, because then we get mob rule, steered by demagogues and mass media.

By taking ourselves out of the daily basis, we have a system where people could use rational arguments to decide on matters instead of following the people's emotions.

ok, interesting viewpoint? Anyone else?


I would counter this though and say that in a democracy the leaders that are elected do things for the good of the people. And in the past few years I've not seen that.

I can't come up with an original response to this one but
I have a paper that sums it up pretty well.

This is a analysis of Aristotle's Politics book six (Concerning the Proper Organization of Democracies and Oligarchies) authored by Benjamin Jowett:

Chapter I: Democracies differ according to the character of the citizen body, and according to the mode in which the characteristic features of democracy are combined.

Chapter II: Liberty is the first principal of democracy. The results of liberty are that the numerical superiority is supreme, and that each man lives as he likes. From these characteristics we easily infer the other features of democracy.

Chapter III: In Oligarchies it is not the numerical majority, but the wealthier men, who are supreme. Both these principals are unjust if the supreme authority is to be absolute and above the law. Both numbers and wealth should have their share of influence. But it is hard to find the true principals of political justice, and harder still to make men act upon them.

Chapter IV: Democracy has four species. The best is an Agricultural Democracy, in which the magistrates are elected by, and responsible to, the citizen body, while each office has a property qualification proportionate to its importance. These democracies should encourage agriculture by legislation. The next best is the Pastoral Democracy. Next comes the Commercial Democracy. Worst of all is the Extreme Democracy with manhood suffrage.

Chapter V: It is harder to preserve than found a democracy. To preserve it we must prevent the poor from plundering the rich; we must not exhaust the public revenues by giving pay for the performance of public duties; we must prevent the growth of a pauper class.

Chapter VI:The modes of founding Oligarchies calls for little explanation. Careful organization is the best way to preserve these governments.

Chapter VII: Much depends on the military arrangements; oligarchs must not make their subjects too powerful an element in the army. Admission to the governing body should be granted on easy conditions, not a source of profit.

Chapter VIII: Both in oligarchies and democracies the right arrangements of offices is important. Some kinds of offices are necessary in every state; others are peculiar to special types of state.




I'll add my own thought about this later, but I've got to go now.

actually, Bruno, what you are describing is called a "representative democracy" that is, you democratically elect someone to represent your views and the views of your fellow compatriots to simplify things.

pure democracy is nothing short of mob rule with a fancy name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jockeys

pure democracy is nothing short of mob rule with a fancy name.

---

You stole my thunder!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JMS

You stole my thunder!

---

More of a sizzle really. But nevermind. :w;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruno

More of a sizzle really. But nevermind. :w;)

---

......";"";"

My own thoughts upon the matter of democracy.

After reading Aristotle's politics I find that most of todays "Democracies" are not in accordance with the definition of the term, in fact many have become more oligarchical over the time since their transformation to democracy from tyranny.

I think there is a lot to be learned here from the past, yet very few seem inclined to look at it. Here in this book, written before the birth of Christ we have cautions that are as relevant today as they would have been to the romans a millennium ago, yet We (collectively worldwide though also specifically here in the US) seem to be ignoring both the lessons of the scholars and of history almost as if deliberately.

The Roman state, the first superpower, started out as a Republic (or representative democracy) of Aristotle's agrarian type. Through time it warped and changed to an oligarchy and eventually to a monarchy simply because those in power did not tend to but instead pandered to their base constituencies. They did not pay any attention to the very simple cautions laid out in chapter 5 and I think this led directly to the eventual collapse of every bit of progress the had made throughout their reign as the world leader.

I'm afraid I see much the same pattern happening in today's democracies, and not in its very earliest stages either.

The problem with that, Tim is that Rome did not really become a superpower until well after they became that oligarchical Republic, and only came to it's highest reaches of power and knowledge under the Emperor. Though I think I do agree with you that socially speaking, the Roman Republic and later Empire did not meet all it's citizens basic needs for a government.

I suppose our problem with democracy is two-fold. We need the wisest of us to be our leaders, because they will be less likely to turn the advantages of the power government affords them to their own purposes and will have the knowledge to use that power to properly tend the needs of the citizenry. But we have no reliable method of choosing the wisest of us so that they may lead. In the past, it was a god who was or chose our leaders, then their descendants, then, when that system became sufficiently decadent, and it was overthrown, we turned to merchants, scientists and philosophers to lead. But now, by and large, we are dealing with their descendants once again. It seems that inheritance itself is the very source of this decadent and corrupting oligarchic tendency in government.

The simple truth is, money is power, and when a worthy, hard-working, intelligent individual comes up with a way of doing something that makes him a fortune, he deserves the power that comes with that. When the people see how he uses that power, we can have a basis to decide that he has the necessary character to serve in some representative capacity. But when he is allowed to give the vast sum of that power to two or three individuals of his choice, where feelings of family overwhelm nearly all but the wisest of us, our ability to make that choice is occluded, for we are not in a position to determine that the descendants deserve the power they have. Even worse, because we allow such transfer legitimacy, should this individual use his power poorly, we have no basis to challenge him or even to complain about the situation.

So it seems to me that the simple answer is to eliminate inheritance, an answer that is as simple as it is complex. Practically speaking, many would try to evade it by giving away their wealth before their deaths. Morally, no one is so mean-spirited that they would not allow a family member to pass on treasured memorabilia upon their death, and that can mean anything from costume jewelry to a country estate. Where this line should be drawn is for men far wiser than I to decide. Regardless, what is clear is that this would mean a great deal more money, and thus power, that would be going through the hands of government. In the spirit of Democracy where merit is the determinant of deserving, I would propose that all this money so collected be redistributed absolutely equally amongst all the country's citizens and that none of it be allowed for any other use, outside a 3/4 vote of Congress, the signature of the President and a popular vote. This would go a long way toward eliminating that pauper state you warned about, it would retain the meritocracy by putting everyone on an equal base playing field, and whatever else you could attain would be truly yours.

This puts the acquisition wealth on the same order as the acquisition of knowledge, for our inheritance would be a more universal inheritance. When a scientist discovers a new phenomena and a new theory, the import and significance of that discovery becomes everyone's, and the scientist still gains in reputation and ability, despite the fact that he does not keep his discovery to himself and use what insight he gains from it for his own purposes alone. Likewise, when a man devises some new product or service, or way of delivering an old one, that is more effective at meeting a consumer's need, he should gain in reputation and power, and it is only right that he should keep what he has earned. But when his life is done, the wealth and the power should be returned to the people from whence it came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Ok, recently I was thinking about this. My reasoning was that if the leaders of a nation don't do what the people of that nation want them to move to it is not a democracy (democracy coming from the words ruling and people in Greek if I'm not misstaken).

---

It's not democracy purely, no, but then there is the issue of "do the people of the nation actually know what's right?" For instance, there are a great many people who think that the US government should provide jobs for everyone who doesn't have one. They think that the 16,000 people that GM is laying off somehow is the fault of President Bush. I believe it would be a great tragedy to put the economic decisions of this country in these millions of people's hands. This opens up many new problems, but I think that the US's original way of doing things was best when people elected learned individuals who actually stood for what their constituents believed. Oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

The problem with that, Tim is that Rome did not really become a superpower until well after they became that oligarchical Republic, and only came to it's highest reaches of power and knowledge under the Emperor. Though I think I do agree with you that socially speaking, the Roman Republic and later Empire did not meet all it's citizens basic needs for a government.

---

Once Rome ceased to be a Republic I think that only thing that kept it growing in wealth, power and influence was the ceaseless wars it kept fighting and the loyalty to the memory of Rome that was (much todays patriotism). Once it failed to continue its expansion and couldn't send revenue back to Rome they fell quickly. Essentially they were a government based upon deficit spending. Not service to the people but simply obligating them by making them dependent upon it.

Proof of the truth of Aristotle's Fifth chapter. The government should never have more money than it needs for the express expenses related to its most basic needs.

I hope no one here thinks that the United States is a democracy.
It is a Republic.

Here's a decent reference .

A major problem is when the elected officials actually think it is supposed to be a Democracy. Even worse is when laws are written as though it really is.

sticky, it seems your sig is uniquely applicable to this thread. KP had it right when he said that a particular decision was better made by someone wiser than he. True democracy gives everyone an equal voice, which, in my opinion, is nothing short of disastrous.

allowing everyone an equal voice in society is only good and just if everyone is equally qualified, and we all know that is a pipe dream. much as I dislike the money and corruption of the current system, it really does work as an effective filter to weed out the losers in society. however, it does nothing to filter out the corrupt and the high-functioning-insane.

so, under the current rules, the prohibitive expense of a campaign keeps (mostly) the stupid and incompetent from running, and the popular vote acts as a small reduction in corruption and insanity.

it is my opinion that to truly fix the government (and I'm talking about the US here) is to abolish political parties. imagine it: candidates would only be able to tell you what THEY believed, and then vote accordingly rather than just point at some party manifesto and say, "I believe whatever he said." partisan bickering and backstabbing would decrease, although it's naive to think they would vanish overnight.

admit it: there is no political party that you agree with 100% unless YOU made it up. even if you lean more to the left, the DNC most likely doesn't espouse views that are completely in line with yours. you disagree on a few points, but vote for them anyway because they are "closer." a true patriot does not affiliate him or herself with parties, but votes across all lines to select candidates that have voting records showing they agree with the voter's opinion.

I'm not sure political parties are the source of the problem, but I would like to see more of them with more diverse interests, so that at the very least they had to form some sort of compromising, coalition government instead of the winner-take-all sort of system American politics has become. And while money is an effective filter for the losers or the lazy, it is also the very source of the corrupting influences that seem to be much more problematic for us now, rather than the problems of competence. I don't see the current, nor many of the former Administrations as being remarkably incompetent, or at least surprisingly so given their interests and political beliefs, but I do see them as being very remarkably corrupt, to the extent that incompetence in some aspects of governments seem to manifest.

But since we require this weeding action of money, yet money is the source of corruption, we have to blunt that double-edge. Money, or power, is most especially corrupting when it is not earned, and I maintain that it is not earned when it is inherited. Of all the transfers of wealth and power that may not be deserved, inheritance is by far the largest. We still have Rockefellers and Kennedys and Bushes and Clintons in Congress and government, and for no other reason than that an ancestor managed to earn that power, and was simply allowed to give that power away upon their deaths to individuals who did not earn it, and thus we are not in a position to determine whether they deserve it. Entitlement, especially an entitlement limited to an arbitrary set of individuals, is one of the biggest sources of social dissatisfaction and division. There is no bigger arbitrary entitlement system than private inheritance. My firm belief is that a democracy is always on the path of equalizing and eliminating the arbitrariness of entitlements. This allows for those individuals who are best and wisest to rise to the top based on their own merit, rather than some entitlement limited only to them or their limited social group, and it frees them of the corrupting influences of these limited entitlements so that they can more adequately represent what is truly best for the people should they find themselves in the halls of government.

To be more concrete in terms of government programs, I do not believe that Social Security insurance is an especially corrupting entitlement, as its benefits are shared mostly equally amongst all citizens and is payed for is a way that, while somewhat regressive, is not oppressively so. Medicare and Medicade are more corrupting, but this is because their benefits are limited to those who pass means tests, while it is payed for in that same, somewhat regressive way, yet many of those who pay for it don't qualify for its benefits. Eliminate Medicade, and make Medicare universal, and much of the corrupting tendencies of this program will vanish. Affirmative action is perhaps the most disturbing entitlement, because the limited nature of it maintains its corrupting influence, and the way in which is it limited, on racial lines, fosters and promotes already existing and destructive social divisions. The key to all entitlements, whether government or private, is to make them universal both in benefit and in paying for them.

I think of democracy the way Jockeys describes it. I have four siblings. When I was growing up, a sibling democratic government was one where the majority make all the rules. So the two girls lose every time :)

A democracy might choose to form a representative forum to handle issues, but the power of decision is maintained by popular majority vote in yea or nay contests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

My reasoning was that if the leaders of a nation don't do what the people of that nation want them to move to it is not a democracy (democracy coming from the words ruling and people in Greek if I'm not misstaken).

---

I only agree with that statement if the people of that nation can't choose at will by majority decision to change the situation. If there is any rule that cannot be changed by a decision like that, then I don't think of it as a democracy.

I'd rather elect people I trust to hear his or her voters and make descisions based on their concerns and his or her decision making process (why does it seem to me that this only happens at the most local of local levels?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hoglahoo

I'd rather elect people I trust to hear his or her voters and make descisions based on their concerns and his or her decision making process (why does it seem to me that this only happens at the most local of local levels?)

---

Because at the local level, we are personally acquainted with the people who represent us. We often know our city council members or school board members on a first name basis and go to social events with them. But when you are elected by tens of thousands or millions of people, it's impossible to understand, let alone represent, their interests in anything but the most abstract. Abstractions can easily be false and corrupted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kantian Pragmatist

Because at the local level, we are personally acquainted with the people who represent us. We often know our city council members or school board members on a first name basis and go to social events with them. But when you are elected by tens of thousands or millions of people, it's impossible to understand, let alone represent, their interests in anything but the most abstract. Abstractions can easily be false and corrupted.

---

It was a rhetorical question - thanks for the insight though. It leads me to ask another question: Why should it matter so much to understand the interests of millions of people if one is being elected based on one's own approach to politics, decision-making, and life itself? See, I am so simplistic in my thinking that it is hard for me to really grasp why being honest is not enough to present to voters. Maybe I don't see clearly enough myself to know whether or not if that is how I vote

I always thought Ben's quote sums up my view of Democracy vs. Republic vs. Liberty very neatly. No one ever really has all three. Unhappy minorities in almost all categories will be the rule.

There will always be an imperfect balance between them. Those who get elected are generally supported by big money interests (i.e. special interest groups/businesses). You only have two choices to pick from anyway, and I usually can't decide which party to vote against (both of which are supported by the same money sources...). In all the basics, they seem quite the same; offering the voter the illusion of having a real choice.