Is democracy failing?

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by Kami, Nov 20, 2003.

  1. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    What's the deal here? Is it fundamental or transient? Case in point, there have been very few democratic elections recently that have not been contested. I'm not just talking about the last presidential elections... but also the recall in California, the past three failed presidential elections in Georgia (the country not the state), the failure to establish democracy in Iraq (so we appointed a Governing Council), Constitutional problems in Georgia, Burma, Sri Lanka, Rwanda, Liberia, Colombia (where five senior officials have recently stepped down),

    Why such problems lately? To me it seems like people have learned how to manipulate democracy in such a way as to fix the outcomes to a great degree. Sometimes it's direct manipulation, as in Georgia, sometimes it's indirect manipulation through the media and other propoganda outlets.

    Any thoughts?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. A4Ever Knows where his towel is Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,234
    Yes, democracy is failing.

    A premise for politics, and especialy for democratic politics, is that people care about them.

    The Greeks made a distinction between private and public life. Private life was necessary to rest from public life. Public life existed of politics. It was an honor to give ones opinion about the state, to govern a city, to debate each other on important and less important issues.

    With poverty in Middle Ages and individualism in the recent century, the accent has been put heavily on private life. It was about survival, or it is about cumulating wealth for private use.

    The results for politics are dramatic. People vote for populists, those politicians who promise the most, or that person whom they always have voted for.

    Politicians know this, and play on the primary desires of the people. ("Lower taxex!" --> more wealth. "Free transportation for the elderly" --> we save on busses, ...etc) It's all about slogans and oneliners.

    Another reaction to this situation, is that people don't give a damn anymore. They just don't vote, or they vote for protest parties without any significant political viewx.

    People have the faulty idea that a certain level of democracy/civilisation is attained forever. We are through the Middle Ages. Things can only get better. Wrong. Democracy/civilisation is a result of not being hungry and feeling safe to some extent. When things start to go wrong, when people are hungry or feel threatened, the fine coat of civilisation is thrown off, and the animal emerges again.

    The world is going down. (Think about Steve Buscemi singing "He's got the who-ole wo-orld in his hands..." in the crashing plane in Con Air.)
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    I think you hit upon a couple of points that are right on. First, that democracy is failing because of peoples' apathy. What are the current election participation figures? People consider it a good turnout if something like 30% of the registered voters attend the polls. What is this? 30% is a good turnout? And what about all the people who don't even care enough to register to vote?

    The other problem is the politicians themselves and the way they treat the voter. They say something to get elected and then ignore that promise once they get it. And, for some stupid reason, we let them get away with it and vote for them next time anyway. If we keep rewarding the liars, they will keep lying to us.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    There may be trouble with democracy nowadays, but it isn't as bad as during the twenties, thirties, and forties, when democracy really took a backseat to fascism, imperialism, and all that good stuff. As usual, things pretty much sucked in Europe, and they just got worse as country after country exchanged Emperor for Dictator.

    In any case, if I had the authoritau to choose, I would rather have third world countries, or countries that have always been poor, become fascist states as opposed to the powerhouse countries that have the ability to take over the world--the U.S, Germany, Russia, Britain, Australia maybe. As long as the big dogs at least pretend to be democratic we're in good shape, aren't we?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    edit: I think the 30% voter turnout is so stupid. We wouldn't have lying politicians if everyone voted. I think it's logical to conjecture that if a large majority of the population voted we would have more honest politicians controlling our country, for various reasons--firstly, mistakes that they will certainly make will affect many, many people, forcing the bad guys out of office. I think more average joe's and josephina's would run for political office. That sort of thing.
     
  8. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    I don't think it's apathy. It's that there's no point in voting in most Western countries. All the major parties have the same policies, and none of them tell the voters what their long term plans are, usually they don't have any. Large scale democracies develop massive inertia and become locked into a wealth/tax creating partnership with big business.

    Under these conditions there is no point in voting. None of the important issues ever get put on the agenda.
     
  9. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    What can you do then? How do we fundamentally change democracy to make it last. I feel that democracy, especially in the United States has hit a point of stagnation, that people don't see the point of voting and don't see results when they do. Do we have to wait for revolution or is there a way to change things. Personally, I'd like to see a shift from representative democracy to direct democracy. The technology is here, we just have to find secure ways of implementing it. Why am I still voting for someone to represent me in Congress just to have him/her go to Washington and do whatever he/she pleases? Our representatives are not representing us...
     
  10. Canute Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,923
    We should learn from history. 'No taxation without representation' should be our united battle cry as voters. A tax rebellion might work (I've started already). If all else fails there is nothing left but terrorism, and we musn't let things go any further in that direction.
     
  11. Craig Smith Banned Banned

    Messages:
    88
    Democracy always collapses under its own weight. If you give everyone in a room the same amount of power, of course no decisions are made, and in the resulting paralysis the nation is destroyed.
     
  12. and2000x Guest

    Democracy has seriously lost steam and this should be a warning to us all! Most people I know have no idea what is going on in the news, what their constitution says, what their rights are.
    They don't vote, and those who do vote have no idea what the issues are! America either needs to get back to the roots of democracy, or scrap it and try something else. Ignorance destroys democracy, and from a look at history this is usually the result of a democracy: people don't bother to govern themselves, and would much rather have someone else do it for them.
     
  13. pragmathen 0001 1111 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    452
    This statement is entirely true. I dated this gal about 4 or so years ago and we were somewhat serious. We professed our feelings for one another and all that stuff, but there was one major point we differed on: she was religious, I was not. I used to be, but then through study and several sessions of Q&A reassessed my belief system. On the very last time I saw her, I was driving back from one of our makeout sessions up the canyon and relating how good it felt to make my own decisions. She clammed up, became very emotional and declared that she never wanted to think for herself. She always wanted someone else to tell her what to do, what to believe, because the alternative (her thinking for herself) was too damn scary. (And I'm not being melodramatic or overstating what happened, either).

    We broke up. I respect authority but do not hold them in complete trust. She adores and worships authority and would never question anything they say.

    So, I just thought that was a good line, because it's so applicable to far too many people out there. "If you just do ... you'll be okay is my motto." Or if you present them with contradictory evidence on the state of the nation or something that's been claimed, there's a shake of the head and an immediate, "Oh, well, that's because ..."

    People find it easier to parrot back what the current rhetoric is; standing on their own two feet is the surest way of falling. For them anyway.
     
  14. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    reminds me of the (somewhat cruel) adage, "Religion is a crutch for those who are afraid to stand up to the unknown alone."

    I think that's true for many people, certainly not all, but many.
     
    Last edited: Dec 4, 2003
  15. pool boy Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Self-government can't be forced on another country. It just doesn't work that way. People have to want it. And it's ironic that the US is the one who is trying to install these democracies all over the place, when our own democracy is so disfunctional. The real reason we are doing this is because in order to do business with these countries we need to be dealing with governments that are friendly to our corporate interests. Saddam wasn't playing ball with our oil companies, so we overthrew him. We did a similar thing in Venezuela a couple years ago for the same reasons. US sponsored coup overthrows a popularly elected government that refuses to deal with our oil companies and replaces it with a new government that is willing. Does that sound like a government that really cares about spreading democracy?

    As for our own democracy, I don't think electoral reform - direct democracy rather than representative democracy - would change things all that much. But after the last presidential election, when the electoral college system backfired on us and Bush got elected despite getting fewer votes, it seems obvious that we should get rid of that antequated system. That little technicality was never supposed to come up. But it did and no one did anything about it! Probably because it worked in favor of those in power, the republican party.

    Media reform is more important. The horrible state of the news media is the main reason people are so uninformed, and so uninterested in politics. This leads to corruption since no one in power is ever held responsible for their crimes. These issues are deep and complex. I suggest checking out this thread and the writings mentioned in it, especially Bob McChesny's... http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=30172

    I think the key to the people regaining control of our government, is the spread of information - the truth. If people really knew what was going on they wouldn't stand for it. That's why the government goes so far out of their way to keep the truth from us.
     
  16. Craig Smith Banned Banned

    Messages:
    88
    In my view, Democracy is not failing - it is and always has been a failure.
     
  17. Pollux V Ra Bless America Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,495
    Kami

    Great quote. Is it anonymous?

    Could you elaborate here? I'm curious as to what you studied, how it was done, how long it took, etcetera. Really anything you're willing to share regarding the topic. Have you ever thought of going back? Were you born into religion? Roughly, how religious were you? Have you ever used what you learned to "convert" someone else?

    I had a friend, a gorgeous, gorgeous girl, who was quite religious. She was what I define as a good theist--she practiced her religion and was open about it but didn't criticize others for not believing in what she did. She was a great person, nice, friendly, funny, and realistic in many ways. This is as opposed to the militant theist, who will laugh at athiests because they are going to hell, who will start fights with people when they say "Jesus Christ!" (real story), who are essentially, in my opinion, posers, afraid of the unknown. Every militant theist I've known has been a moron, and I've liked every good theist that I've ever met.

    Anyway, this girl had perfect grades. Her PSAT scores were only a few points away from a 1500, she told me that months after she had accomplished such a feat teachers were still smiling at her and saying "hey, that's the girl that almost got a 1500." She gradually became pretty angry with her Church (I mean, I'm pretty sure she did. If she read this she would probably correct me on a few things here and there). She was upset with them because they were essentially militant--for example, they were telling her to go home and pray for the souls of three people they knew who weren't Christians.

    Eventually I believe she lost touch with organized religion entirely. She stopped going to Church. I talked to her about this alone for quite awhile once and she said that although she had been ostracized from the Church she still believed that something was out there, watching over her, that sort of thing. Although she was still as nice as ever to me we gradually grew apart and from what I heard and saw of her character I started liking her less and less. She started doing drugs, I'm guessing as a rebellious strike against the authority you spoke of but I'm really not sure. As far as I know she's stopped now and is trying to get her shit back together. Lately I haven't seen her around school, and even then we seem to have taken to avoiding each other entirely. We used to be great friends, even though I had a thing for her for quite awhile if you haven't figured that out (back in elementary school).

    Maybe that's a good thing. The reason we're getting shitty politicians in power now is because American media is no longer interested in marketing the truth but rather marketing what sells the most money. Liberal, Conservative, neither matters, it's all about the profit. To learn about candidates you have to do some work on your own, that's why people don't "know" about the issues--they don't have the time or the inspiration to go frolicking across the internet trying to find a viable source to criticize their choice as a candidate. I'm certain that if people were given a day off from work, from life, basically, to do this, we would have a much higher turnout. But even then you run into plenty of problems. Reliable sources would start to dry up--it happened with the radio, it's happened with the magazines and newspapers, it's happening to the tv, and it will happen to the internet sooner or later. Then we'll be out of mediums with which to discern as much of the truth as possible. Every person who votes should be able to answer this question--"Based on your choice's past, do you think he/she will accomplish or try to accomplish what he/she has promised during his/her campaign?"

    I think now we're closer to a true democracy than anyone ever has been before. Almost everyone is allowed to vote, excluding convicts and children. I'm partial to the opinion that age should not be a restriction regarding the vote. The founding fathers would have scoffed at us, they would have argued that Blacks and Hispanics and the Irish are too stupid to know who to vote for, that people without certain property qualifications shouldn't be allowed to vote or run for political office, that sort of thing. We are not living in the America they established.

    I'd rather not speak until after the next election, but in spite of our rampant democracy the Union is still in one piece. Plus, what examples are you using to draw this conclusion? Name some pure democracies that have collapsed, or have even existed at all for that matter.

    We could have a pure democracy now. With the internet, it could be done. I don't think it will happen, however, the ones with power are always reluctant to give it up to the masses.

    Voter Turnout from 1924-2000

    Ha! Look at that! If the other half of the country had voted we could have had a completely different president! Go figure.

    I'm trying to find voter statistics for the entire history of the U.S but I'm not having much luck. Today in my A.P History Class we were looking at the statistics for the 1824 election between J.Q Adams and A. Jackson, I believe the turnout was in the range of 80-90% for the entire union. I asked the teacher why and when turnout began to stagnate, he said it was a good question and invited me to find out why (voluntarily). It's possible that it just gradually declined to the state it's in now, it seems to be in the general range of about 50%, but it would be interesting to see if there was an event that really turned people off from voting. Maybe the Civil War?
     
  18. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    Pollux,

    I'm not sure where the quote came from anymore. I get the feeling that it's an old Robert A. Heinlein quote (sounds like him, anyway) that I still remember. I misquoted it slightly, but I've edited it now.

    As far as your numbers go, that is undoubtedly a figure based on the turnout of REGISTERED voters. That doesn't even count the people who are eligible and don't register (generally due to some notion of avoiding jury duty, another obligation of the conscientious citizen). I would guess that the percentage turnout of ALL eligible citizens would be around 25-30% maximum.

    Another point you brought up and that I mentioned earlier as well was that politicians get elected on lies, then we vote for them next time anyway. That just encourages the lies they use to get elected. Case in point, Reagan v. Carter. Carter said that the only way out of the economic crisis of the time was to raise taxes. He was being honest. Reagan said he would NOT, under any circumstance, raise taxes. Reagan got elected and passed a huge tax increase. So, they both would have done the same thing, but one was honest about it and one lied. But Reagan got re-elected anyway. What sense does that make? Until we hold them accountable, there is no reason for them to stop lying, even worse, it's more profitable if they DO lie.

    I also agree about the media being a part of the problem. I don't buy the idea that they have a left or right bias to the news, maybe they do but it's irrelevant, what they have is a PROFIT bias and that's what's dangerous. We are approching a new era of "yellow" journalism. Check out that term for some real eye openers.
     
  19. BigBlueHead Great Tealnoggin! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,996
    If you only make one decision every four years, is it a democracy?
     
  20. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Not necessarily. I get confused by the way people argue about it. i know that the uSA isnt a democracy, its a republic.

    What we actually need is a more direct democracy. But there is a good case to be made for democracy working best in small, ie tribal sized groups.
     
  21. Kami Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    61
    That's actually the intent of a Republic. The difference is that in a Republic the government is constrained by laws, in a Democracy there is no constraint on the govenment as long as the people vote for it. So a Democracy could actually become much larger than a Republic. Kinda like the EU to the US.
     
  22. and2000x Guest

    There are many examples of democractic societies voting in dictators throughout history (A place bordering the right side of France comes to mind). In fact, a dictator was often placed into power in Athens during times of crisis. Also, here in Wisconsin, a communist was voted in for a congressman with a majority vote, mostly because hardly anyone bothered to research his background.
     
  23. and2000x Guest

    That's scary.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Certain people are simply raised to be followers, it could be nurture, it could be nature. In all nature there is this type of rank and order. Judeo-Christianity is a mental disorder.
     

Share This Page