Silent Hunter

Yep. The people still ultimately determine policies via elections.

Parihaka

No it isn't.
In other words your definition above misses the point that you elect representatives, who then make the decision on your behalf. Hence you don't get to decide the colour of tanks unless you're a tank-colour specialist employed by the government (which hires you on behalf of the people) to make that decision.

Silent Hunter

Democracy isn't just rule by the people, it's also freedom and political equality

Feanor

I'm looking at the original concept of democracy. Demos kratos. People rule. Not what it has become as a result of a complex process.

Silent Hunter

Impossible to do in any state above 10,000 people.

Feanor

That was my exact point. Democracy is impossible. And a representative republic is not really rule by the people because the size of the system, detaches the representatives from the population. It gives them interests that differ from those of the average person, and from the national interests of the country. work in the lack of personal involvement and understanding of the complex issues by the average person and we have a recipe for an oligarchy. Welcome to America. Please enjoy your stay.

Silent Hunter

Actually I'm British...

Feanor

I'm not directing that comment specifically at you. I'm just describing the system I'm familiar with. To an extent.

Parihaka

I understand that but we're talking in a modern concept and in the present tense. People'll just get confused if we leap backwards and forwards 2,500 years.

Feanor

The modern concept of a representative republic has devolved (or maybe evolved? I sure hope that's not what progress looks like) into a financial oligarchy that uses the political process to give itself legitimacy. The ancient idea of democracy is simply being used as an attractive slogan and in reality has nothing to do with the political process. That's the sense in which I meant that there is no democracy. Now if we adapt the definition of democracy the way you suggested we come to a generally benevolent, but not particularly stable (in the sense that it's not going to stay that way long, because interest groups are quickly going to start pushing for their own interest in ignorance of the system overall) form of government. Nominally, with the definition of democracy being the one you provided, the United States is a democracy. This does not change that de-facto it's still an oligarchy.

Parihaka

Yeah I keep hearing that and have had the 'US Oligarchy' defined to me on various forums as WASP's, Zionist conspiracists, the military/industrial complex, a liberal/socialist conspiracy, the NRA, etc etc etc. What this tells me of course is that there are many special interest groups and societies to which millions of people belong for common purpose, which last time I checked was exactly how democracy is supposed to work.

Feanor

Those interest groups don't promote 1) The well being of the nation as a whole. 2) The more powerful ones are usually smaller in the numbers they represent, and yet in control of far more of the power.

Keep in mind, money is power, and look at income distribution in the U.S.

Parihaka

So, with all the media advertising effort to attract juvenile and Latino spending, adolescent Mexican-Americans hold the power then?

Feanor

No. The act just happens to have another beneficiary which we don't know, or is aimed at creating a certain impression within the domestic audience, for whatever reason. Just because it isn't a democracy doesn't mean public opinion doesn't matter.

Bigfella

I’m afraid that this article didn’t impress me at all. I’ll comment on it bit by bit and then make some closing remarks at the end.

The Failure of Democracy

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

On this occasion I have to agree with the Overrated One. I’m still waiting to see a system of government that is as successful as frequently as democracy in improving the lives of its citizens in all ways.

[i]Democracy means ‘Government by the People’ (or, if the creators of this term employed the sarcastic undertone suggested by some historians, ‘Government by the Mob’). That definition implies that all members of a community participate in the electoral process; but this is not the case.
The first rule of democracy is exclusion. No country in the world would want all its residents to choose its government, and until this day people have been excluded from elections because of their age, race, class, gender, nationality, religion, homelessness, illiteracy, criminal convictions, lack of landownership, mental diseases etc.[i]

Playing word games is a bad way to start any article, especially when done as poorly as this. On the point of exclusion, all systems of government exclude SOME people. Democracies permit participation by a larger proportion of the population than any other system I am aware of. Some exclusions are universal – such as a minimum age – others are less defensible. Virtually all democracies move toward broadening the franchise over time until it is as close to universal as possible.
As for the implication that all members participate – says who? My understanding is that all adult members of society (except those in prison) have the opportunity to participate in democracy. It doesn’t mean they do.

And it’s not only voters who are being excluded, but parties and candidates as well. Most countries won’t allow a party to compete in the elections who intends to change the political system or whose views differ too greatly from that of the ruling parties; thus the United States and all its satrapies simply offer a choice between the far right and the extreme right.

“Most countries”. Not a shred of evidence proffered for this. He does imply the banning of left wing parties in the US, again without evidence.

In countries whose citizens had no influence on the form of government by having been excluded from the shaping of the constitution (or ‘basic law’, as in Germany), the general attitude was that a vote for any admitted party denotes approval of the form of government, so that a turnout of over 50% was considered a vote for the political system.

This changed with the constantly dropping numbers of voters for the European Parliament - which is a farce as all important decisions are made by the heads of state (the European Commission), anyway. Since 1999 the turnout for European elections has been way under 50%, which, following the logic of the argument, should be considered a vote against the European oligarchy.

Excuse me? The only purpose I can see for these paragraphs is a swipe at the EU. Fine, but I’m not sure what it has to do with a philosophical discussion of democracy.

Apart from banning parties, there are many other ways of preventing change. In Germany, the emergence of new parties is obstructed by the 5% Clause; any vote for a party that ends up with less than 5% becomes null and void, and the established parties successfully warn the electorate not to ‘throw away their vote’. Thus the three established parties managed to keep the parliament to themselves until in 1983 the Green Party managed to break the monopoly and join the club.

The 5% Clause leads to a good part of the electorate not being represented. In the extreme case of some twenty parties having under five percent each, one single party could get all seats with just 5% of the votes, leaving 95% of the electorate without representation.

First, different systems have different rules. Germany is just one nation. In Australia the bar is dramatically lower, and parties that get much less than 100,000 votes still get government funding.

Second, Mr Ludwig not only uses an absurd example for which there is no precedent, but one that relies on faulty maths. Five times 20 = 100, therefore NO party gets to govern. This guy can’t even get his own dumb examples correct.

In the 2000 US elections, George W. Bush won due to the electoral system, although his opponent got the majority of votes (patronisingly being called the ‘Popular Vote’). And the ‘loss’ of thousands of absentee ballots is a regular feature in US elections that’s hardly deemed worth mentioning.
In Ireland, the 2004 presidential elections were prevented by the main parties who simply agreed on confirming the president for another term; elections, they stated, would have been too expensive. – Well, elections are always expensive, so maybe this cancellation will ring in the end of that farce called democracy altogether.

I’m not going to comment on specifics here. I will point out that there are numerous examples of governments being constituted without a majority of the popular vote. Democracies come in many shapes & forms, not all of which require a simple majority of the vote. Indeed, in some countries a government must have more than 50% of the vote. What Mr Ludwig seems not to understand is that the key is transparency & popular acceptance of the process. In functional democracies people accept that if they don’t like one election result they can change it next time.

‘Rule by the people’ also suggests that people not only decide on their government but also on political issues. This implies that the public could enforce referenda on all topics they feel differently about than their government. But most ‘democracies’ do not give their citizens that opportunity.

The most stressed argument against referenda (apart from the silly ‘We’d have a referendum each day!’) is the immaturity or lack of political insight of the electorate. But if the population lack maturity or political insight, why trust them with electing their government in the first place?

Yes, you decide on policies by voting for a person or a party who agrees with you on policy. Some systems do indeed allow referenda on specific policies. There are actually some very good arguments against holding referenda on each policy decision, but they are not brought up here. Instead we get a sad straw man argument. Again, Ludwig has no point.

The idea of democracy was to give people the right to choose their own government. Now people have realised that their vote doesn’t make a difference, and more and more stay away from the polls. As an unmotivated electorate calls into question the whole concept of democracy, politicians preach that casting his vote is every citizen’s obligation (for those who have one, that is) and treating those refusing to vote as disinterested outcasts.
Some countries, like Australia, even go one step further by punishing non-voters and imposing heavy fines on those who don’t feel represented by (or simply don’t trust) the admitted parties and candidates. I don’t think I have to point out the paradox of forcing people to exercise their rights.

There are a variety of reasons why people do or don’t choose to vote. In many Western societies Democracy has been so successful in creating affluent societies that many people feel no need to engage with politics. They have the luxury of not having to care. Some people do not vote because they do indeed feel that their vote doesn’t make a difference. In a democracy they are free to start their own political party. Some do.

Democracy is government for the highest bidder. Not all countries practice the baksheesh tradition as openly as Costa Rica or Ireland, but when we hear about the innumerable indications (and the odd conviction) of bribery, corruption, embezzlement, favouritism, self-service, abuse of power etc, we all know that this is not even the tip but a mere splinter of the iceberg. Whatever they tell us, people don’t go into politics to look after others; and the few who actually put their beliefs and principles above their bank accounts are soon found out and consequently will not make it into the decision-making elite of their parties, anyway.

So, there is corruption in democracies. Guess what? There is corruption in ALL systems of government. What democracy provides is rule of law, a free press & a process by which people can remove corrupt politicians. Other systems provide none of the above.

An election promise is a contract between the candidate and his potential voters: You give me your vote, and I will protect your interests. As with any contract, the stronger side makes sure to keep the upper hand: a tenant has to pay a deposit to the landlord before moving in, an employee has to work for a couple of weeks before getting paid (which, in fact, is a deposit he pays to his employer), and the voter has to cast his vote before he can expect to be represented.
If a plumber doesn’t show up on the agreed date, I can terminate the contract; if I hire a cleaning woman who doesn’t clean, I can fire her; if I vote for a candidate who claims to introduce free medical care for senior citizens and who doesn’t, I’m ****ed. An election promise is the only contract in the world which is not binding, and politicians make sure it stays that way.

What a load of tripe. A vote is not a legal contract & never will be. It may be seen more broadly as a ‘social contract’, but this is a philosophical notion which is a great deal more flexible than the narrow definition Ludwig is trying to use here.

Democracy has also brought the delegation of governmental crime. In other forms of government, the ruling class are free to do and take whatever they want, even if it is against their own laws. In a democracy, theoretically, the government could be held responsible for its crimes; on top of that, voters might remember at the next election. Therefore it rather tolerates crime on a great scale, provided that it gets its share without being brought into connection with it. Organised crime is a product of democracy, and organised crime would not be possible without the support of the authorities!

If anyone can make sense of the above paragraph they are welcome to try. At this point the author is just babbling as best I can tell.

Democracy is the god above Christ, Yahweh, Allah and Buddha - the one who can’t be questioned because he creates the illusion of capitalism serving the people rather than the other way round.
Democracy has brought us Hitler and Kennedy, the men responsible for the nastiest wars of the last century. Democracy has encouraged and even caused racism, genocide, exploitation, intolerance, inequality and so forth.

If democracy is a God, it is a very strange one indeed: It is a God that simultaneously takes dozens of different forms; a God that encourages questions about itself; a God whose form can be changed by popular vote. Yet one more poor example.

I have already dealt with the Hitler example. I am wondering what Kennedy did that was so bad. By my reckoning the most costly wars of the last century were WW2, WW1, the Russian Civil War, the Congloese Civil War, the Second Indochina War, and then a bunch of wars that killed around a million lives or so. The only one of these that can be remotely tied to Kennedy is the Second Indochina War, and that requires some fairly hefty leaps of fact & analysis.

Democracy has indeed been guilty of all the crimes Mr Ludwig lists in his final sentence. Compared, however, to the crimes of various dictatorships in the C19th & C20th, these crimes pale. Churchill’s point stands.

Democracy has failed us - and no, I can’t offer an alternative. But if given the choice of entering the arena with a bull, a lion or a gladiator, I won’t automatically choose the gladiator just because he has a human face. I certainly don’t favour monarchy, tyranny, oligarchy or any other form of government over democracy - but neither would I choose democracy over the rest!

I find it telling that when searching for an example of the failure of democracy, Ludwig has to use the Roman arena – a brutal device used by a non-democratic government in an attempt to keep the masses happy. He can’t even find a relevant example for the failure of democracy. Not only does he provide no answers, even the questions aren’t all that good.

Democracy has, on occasion, failed. As a system, however, it has proven itself a stunning success. Much of this article focuses on voting. It seems keen to reduce democracy down to the act of voting & not much else. Democracies are much more than this. The popularly elected government is just the tip of an iceberg of structures that allow it to function. Free speech, the judiciary, freedom of association and the rule of law are but some of the key principles underpinning democracy. Without them it is much more open to abuse. They need to be encouraged & protected.

Democracy can be fragile. It is not always easy to establish & it is not always successful. There may be false starts. I cannot, however, think of a system that has governed the range of societies democracy has as successfully as democracy has. Anyone who thinks different is welcome to put forth their alternatives.