Democracy, flawed?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Captain_Crunch, Feb 3, 2005.

  1. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    Democracy appoints one man and his party to dictate over the rest of the nation, giving them the real ultimate power of majority in parliament. One person dictating to other persons their beliefs and values to all others in that country. The people being dictated to must obey the law which is the tool that the government will use to excercise its agenda, with the threat of punishment or criminal record to keep them in line.

    As long as the party has majority it will go unchallenged to force through anything it wants. It puts the leader of the party in the unique position to dictate to the nation, it even allows them to mold society to whatever they see as being 'right' by using the law. The safeguard in this whole system is that people can vote for whoever they want to government, they rely on those in parliament to vote out the things they see as being wrong. Those in parliament vote in accordance with what their party position is which is decided by the leader because by in large they are professional people, usually with lawyer degrees whos full time job is politics - they rely on the income from the party. Those in politics are there to make money by in large as it is their job. They are skilled in argument and could argue black is white if they wanted to.

    This leads one person to dictate to the country, one human telling other humans what is right and wrong and regulating their life in accordance with what they believe. Didnt we abolish monarchy for this very flawed reason?

    Is it just me or am I missing something?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. HallsofIvy Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    307
    Since you say "parliament", I presume you are thinking of England or one of European countries.

    It is a fundamental concept of the United States Constitution that there exist certain "rights" that cannot be abrogated even by the majority. Many of the laws passed by Franklin Roosevelt and a Democratic majority in congress, for example, were overturned by the supreme court.

    There are, fortunately, a number of safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority" which, like anything else, work with varying degrees of sucess.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    Yes, I was thinking of european countries where there exist no system of laws which prescribes the functions and limits of government. Here, the majority rules, that is the very principle that our government is based on, its flawed however as the leader is elected then can do what they want if they have that majority. There is always a majority because alliances form between two parties where there is no majority for one party - a slightly better scenario because then you have a spread of principles from the two leaders.

    Where the new war in this global society of ours is terrorism, the government are slowly stripping away our rights and freedoms that are not protected by any constitution. They are going to hold terrorist suspects under house arrest indefinetly if there is not enough evidence to prosecute the suspects in a court of law. They are introducing a national ID card that will be required to be produced when trying to access places of government such as hospitals and parliament. They are planning to introduce terror trials where suspects can be given a trail without jury. Government is becoming a tyrany?
     
    Last edited: Feb 3, 2005
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Anyone in any country, regardless of national laws or constitution, can do whatever they want if they have a big enough majority. With enough people on their side somebody could just say 'to hell with the laws' and just go do it. Laws only exist as long as people agree to or are forced to follow them. When the majority wants to do something, it can do so with the law of the gun if refused the law of the ballot.

    Often times it is better to humor the majority than be on the loosing side of a civil war.
     
  8. grazzhoppa yawwn Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,277
    Although you might not have thought this as a reference to GW Bush and his "extended" presidential powers given to him by Congress when you wrote it, the stituation matches your description. Bush can do a lot of things a president shouldn't be able to do without the check from Congress. And sadly, the Judicial branch of government is so slow and undecisive when it handles things, by the time Bush's second term is over the American democracy with checks and balances will have failed to "check" the presdiential powers. So ultimately he is dictating the entire government, when dictate's definition is not slanted and skewed to include "evil doer" as a prerequisite

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    .

    Truthfully, I don't know if the extended powers given to the president to do things without Congress' permission is still active. If it is, does it continue into future presidencies until the "war" on terror is "officially" over?....which will be the day the US ceases to exist.

    Although I agree the similarities between democracy's party system and monarchy are strong, I see a fundamental difference in that democracy is a much slower system of government and its guided by some sort of document ie a constitution where as a monarchy is willy nilly up to the ruler. A ruler in a monarchy could (and it has been done) decide to create a law outlawing some inane thing and it would be inacted and enforced with haste. It could also be something like declaring a measurement system where there are things like "feet."

    Then you have today's forms of democracy, which are all set up so that any laws or decrees are within reason - governed by a sacred document. Is this correct in the UK, you guys have some form of a constitution? All the US "liberated" countries are following this constitutional democracy too. So even though there is such a dictating force leading the government, things in the sacred document limit the scope of laws that can be made. For example, in the US, no president...even if the KKK Grandmaster was in office...could outlaw voting for non-caucasians 'cause the Constitution states that can't be done.

    Although, yes, that sacred document can be altered, it requires a great deal of public support. That's where the people (and "free" media) can actually affect the dictating president of democracy. For that reason, GW Bush won't be able to outlaw gay marriage by adding it into the Constitution, and how the American prohibition of alcohol never worked out.

    Democracy does not resemble the idealistic version that's being toted around the world like a giant Crucifixion of redemption. Although its sad for me to say this, the US would not be "giving" democracy to Afghanistan, Iraq, (insert future country) if the USSR was still around and pointing nukes at the US. As much hurt as the US-democracy vs Soviet-communism battle brought to people around the world, it kept either from completely enacting the "we have the best government" policy. Having both sides active allowed their flaws to be brought out.
     
  9. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    I wasnt thinking of Bush when I wrote this, I was just dismayed at the apparent unstoppable government machine in the UK. They pass what they want infringing on things that should be basic freedoms without challenge even if there is opposition from the 'opposition party'.

    The thing is that the government may appoint whoever they want in the policy making 'cabinet' who decide what government policy is. They even get to decide how long you are allowed to debate on things in parliament before laws are passed - changes to the law etc dont go up for a vote if they dont think they can pass it. A good example of this is the change to the law that say that 'phone tap' evidence will be legal evidence in court, they have limited the debate time to 6 1/2 hours. Any enquiries into government decitions or scandals etc are decided by the government, they decide the terms in which any enquiry can go ahead. Surely this is basically flawed?

    I dont think there is such a thing as a constitution in Britain, I think though that there will be somewhere regulations that say something to the effect of parliament and monarchy must stay seperate and that parliament is the ultimate authority. There is nothing else to my knowledge limiting the powers of government. Maybe someone can shed some light on this?

    Government in Democracy to me seems like an elected dictatorship. In your job you wouldnt go around telling your boss how to run the company unless you wanted kicked out or demoted, the same is true of party politics, you would go telling the premier that his policy is wrong because he would just kick you out of the party and when the party is your job that isnt going to happen.

    What has Bush done without check from Congress? I havent heard anything about this.
     
  10. marv Just a dumb hillbilly... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    743
    Yup! In a democracy, that "one man" is elected by vote of the majority of the people. Did you fall asleep in high school civics class? Or did you decide that it's your way or the highway?
     
  11. Brutus1964 We are not alone! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    608
    The United States is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. We elect representatives who vote and make decisions on our behalf. Those that we elect are accountable to the voters. We also have a constitution that limits the powers that the government has. The Constitution guarantees our rights and protects minorities from mob rule.
     
  12. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    Brutus: except when the people in power decide that those protections hinder them and so abolish them
     
  13. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    Democracy is mob rule. No thanks.
     
  14. android nothing human inside Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,104
    That's a form of democracy....
     
  15. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Everything else is worse.
    With democracy or a democratic republic you get mediocre results. With any other form of government, what you get is just plain scary. Look at history for some nasty examples.

    Do you want feudalism where the peasantry has zero are beasts of burden to be used by lords in eternal contest with neighboring lords? Do you want a nondemocratic republic where members of the senate are selected by other members of the senate? Do you want a flat out monarchy or despotism where you have one ruler who is, for all intents and purposes, a god who holds absolute sway over every citizen within his borders? What, what do you want?
     
  16. Asguard Kiss my dark side Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,049
    how about this form

    you elect the chef public servents or the cabinate and they are ONLY alowed to make policy\day to day decisions for there ministrys. Anything else like laws they put to a vote by EVERYONE. Anyone can subit a potentual law but they need a cirtan amount of signtures to do it in order that we dont spend our lives voting.
     
  17. Clockwood You Forgot Poland Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,467
    Ok. First of all, that would be a form of democracy. Second of all, it would be cumbersome to nationally elect an official for each and every ministry. Thirdly, who gets the final say when something needs to be decided that falls into the juristictions of two or more ministries. Finally, it would be exceedingly slow to react during an emergency if you need to have the public vote on any course of action.
     
  18. Brutus1964 We are not alone! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    608
    Can we say Chaos? The general public cannot know all the details of a proposed bill to make an informed decision. We barely get people now who vote making informed decisions. Most people are too busy making a living for their families to concern themselves with every detail of government. Not even our elected officials know exactly what they are voting on but at least they have a staff to help them out. Even with the warts we have our system is still the best in the world. We elect people to vote on our behalf and we the people hold them accountable. We have three distinct government bodies that compete with each other for power so one branch does not control everything. It may not be the most efficient system but efficiency in lawmaking is not a blessing. Our system forces the lawmakers to fight and compete for what they want. It is hard to get things done by design. Dictatorships are very efficient in getting laws past. Our you willing to give up freedom in the name of efficiency?
     
  19. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879





    I forget.....who won the popular vote in the 2000 election? :m:
     
  20. Captain_Crunch Club Ninja Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,186
    My way or the highway. No, but seriously I know the way that democracy is supposed to work, the majority votes for a party that then takes decitions on things that effect the general public, namey law making etc. They vote in accordance on how effective their policy is or their character etc; the voted in then carry out their policy.

    In effect that doesnt happen. The majority of people that bother to vote dont do so in an informed manner, electing some party who then does what they want, not in the publics best interest, unchallenged.

    Other forms of government are much worse but surely democracy can be made more efficient?
     
  21. surenderer Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    879
    Well in my opinion one problem is that Politicians arent held responsible for their lies......I mean where is the outrage at Iran-Contra?......at Bush and no WMD's found? Ramsey Clark says that Bush Sr. gave Sadaam the green light to invade Kuwaiit....has this ever been investigated?....Gulf of Tonkin......etc etc etc.... It seems that the American people just dont care that their Goverment electors lie to them so they do it

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  22. Odin'Izm Procrastinator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,851
    When I read all 3 I cant help but think of america at the moment...

    my 3 points for this are:
    1 The florida recount (about which I'm still laughing to this day).
    2 Gw Bush and his self established possy who control the senate.
    3 The state of the poor in the country who are literaly forgotten and have nothing.
     

Share This Page