posted
There has been alot of talk lately about the growth of democracy in the world. People then point ot elections in places like Iraq and the Ukraine as evidence of this change. These discussion have caused me to ponder whether we are looking at the right indicators.
From my perspective, elections aren't a good of first estate (something we seek for its own intrinsic worth) they are a good of second estate (something we seek as a means to obtain goods of first estate). Food, for example, is a good of first estate. A farm is a good of second estate.
So what is it we seek to obtain by establishing democratic governments? There are many possible answers, but for me the good of first estate is to establish governments that promote human rights (as described in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights ) through out the world.
Even a shallow perusal of history should be enough to prove that elections are not suffient to guarantee that the resultant government will promote human rights. Hitler, after all, took power through an electoral process. It is also possible to identify benevolent dictatorships that do as well as most democracies in protecting the human rights of their citizens (take Singapor as an example).
What are the goods of first estate that you would expect to see arise from democracy?
Is democracy the only way to reach these goals? Is it the best way to work towards these goals? Is democracy, alone, sufficient to insure these goals are met?
What indicators (other than elections) should we be looking for to see if our real goals are being met?
And finally, what constitutes democracy? Was the US a democracy before women's sufferage? Was the US a democracy before the civil rights movement?
Is the US system of regional representation more or less democratic than parlementary systems?
[ March 29, 2005, 09:00 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure about the goods of first estate, but it seems to me that there can be degrees of democracy - it's not an either-or thing. So your questions about 'was the US a democracy before X' are a bit badly phrased. Was the US more democratic after women's suffrage? Unquestionably. But was it undemocratic before? I think not.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
I have wondered before - what would happen if we were to, say, "liberate" Iran and demand democratic elections and a majority of the people then voted for a theocratic regime? Isn't that the will of the people? What about when everyone votes for a king? What about when overwhelming popular support is in favor of something bad?
That's when you're back to Rousseau and Locke and figuring out whether or not people deserve what they get or should get what they deserve.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Was the US more democratic after women's suffrage? Unquestionably. But was it undemocratic before? I think not.
What would you consider then a minimum to be democratic? If elections were held but only members of a particular party were allowed to participate, would that be democratic?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Let me suggest another way to think about this question.
Supposed you lived in a society which guaranteed you everything in the Universal declaration of human rights except Article 21 section c (the right to vote). Would you find living in that society satisfactory?
Would you prefer to live in a society in which you were guarateed the right to vote, but some other human right was proscribed. For example, what if Article 20, the right to assemble, or Article 17, the right to own property or Article 18, the right to freedom of religion were not recognized. If you had to prioritize the rights listed in the Universal Declaration, where would the right to vote fall?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, I guess it would be more democratic than no elections at all, but I see your point. If it comes right to it, even an absolute monarch has to please a sufficient amount of the more powerful nobles to keep revolts from springing up - there's no such thing as a totally undemocratic regime.
One should perhaps also judge in accordance with the times and the situation. Universal manhood suffrage was at one time the cutting edge of radical liberties. But I think one reason the US could afford to be a laboratoty of democracy was that it had no powerful neighbours to threaten it. The counterexample I'm thinking of is Prussia under Frederick the Great, as absolutist a military state as the logistics of the eighteenth century could manage. What was he supposed to do, with Habsburg Austria on his southern border, Poland (with Russia lurking in the background) to the east, and a still-powerful though decaying Sweden to the north? Democratic institutions are expensive.
Who knows what rights our descendants will consider completely natural, which today we consider radical, or haven't even thought of? Gay marriage and freedom from religion spring to mind, but it could just as well be something that would shock me.
Perhaps, like energy, democracy is a concept that only makes sense in comparison. Thus one might say 'State A is more democratic than State B', but it makes no sense to say 'State A has X amount of democracy.'
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Personally, I don't think the right to vote would rank very high on my list. (At the moment, I'm too young to vote but I'm speaking as if I could) I find other rights such as the right to free speech to be more important. I think part of the reason for voting is to assure yourself that your human rights will be met. If they're going to be met anyways, voting becomes less important.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Annie, I have a query for you. How do you know what is best for the people? You say people voting for something 'bad', yet on what grounds is it bad? A king may well suit a people. Not all people want their 'freedoms' as some see it. Let us not forget that Hitler was elected by the people and had he not corrupted Germany, many great things may have been accomplished.
Think also of this, in 2000 the majority of the people favored Gore. The people wanted Al Gore, and yet due to our system, he lost. Is that democracy? Is it democracy to only allow candidates who have the capital to start a campaign? In the United States candidates must gather numerous signatures in order to be a candidate, why can't anyone who wants to run be put on the ballot? Isn't that democracy?
We do not have a true democracy. It is limited by what those in power want the masses to do. If we were spreading democracy and allowing the people to elect someone they want, I'd say, "more power to you". But we are not spreading democracy, we are producing colonies with limited powers.
Johivin Ryson
Those who watch rarely speak up. Those who speak rarely hear all. But those who listen see all there is.
Posts: 119 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I like best the version of democracy where there are multiple (more than 2) parties and the seats in Parliament (or whatever it's called) are divided by the amount of the popular vote a candidate received. In most circumstances, this forces different parties to work together and prevents one group from taking over.
Posts: 55 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
American Democracy? Western European Democracy? "Russian Democracy" (I use that term loosely)? Middle Eastern pseudo Democracy?
And for that matter, Athenian Democracy? Roman Democracy?
None of these can probably claim to be a true ultimate Democracy. The American Electoral College system isn't a true democracy, it's archaic and twice now has not served the will of the people. What rights are necessary for whatever you define to be a True Democracy?
Some of the most stable governments of history were not in fact democracies. The good emperors of Rome were not democratically elected. Sparta had some sense of a democratic appratus but was highly militarized, but it was far more stable and had a better all around quality of life than Athens, which was the champion of Greek democracy.
I think we have to define Democracy first, before we can decide if it's the best.
That having been said, I think America has one of the best democracies, and with minor improvements could be the best.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Interestingly, this was the subject of my politics lecture today. Well, sort of.
Democracy is not sufficient by itself. Without stability and such, democracy imposed cannot suddenly turn a sows ear into a silk purse. There is always a transitional period, sometimes of decades, before a country finally gets on its feet enough to allow real first-world style democracy to take old. It is always easier for a richer, more homogeneous, more equal society to form a successful democracy than one that is poor and divided.
Is democracy "necessary"? I don't think it is that, but I would say that it is divided. If a democracy can provide stability, then it will be preferred to the same stability in a highly controlled regime. They said that some asian states were 'unsuited' to democracy and yet Thailand and Taiwan have proved that theory to be insubstantial. People want to be free (and I hate to use the word now that its got all sorts of connotations with a lack of freedom), but usually after the economy, politics, strife etc. of the country has stabilized.
No democracy is pure. Direct/participatory government is near impossible in a country as huge and as populous as the United States of America. However, a so-called liberal democracy is what is usually aspired to. Although, like Lyrhawn says, democracy varies a lot from country to country, and is never perfect, and never can be, it can be approached through the generally accepted principles of democracy.
With the way we humans see ourselves in the modern world- fundamentally equal at birth, free, with basic rights of our condition- I believe that democracy is the only presently existing (who knows what we may invent in the future) way that can fulfill those beliefs. The society of humans has changed dramatically since the autocracy of Rome, and our government must change similarly.
EDIT: Having studied America and democracy, I am incline to disagree with Lyrhawn's assessment, and say that while America is definately on the upper echelons of democratic achievement, there are hundreds of creases that need to be ironed out before I will call it "one of the best". Only my opinion.
quote:Having studied America and democracy, I am incline to disagree with Lyrhawn's assessment, and say that while America is definately on the upper echelons of democratic achievement, there are hundreds of creases that need to be ironed out before I will call it "one of the best". Only my opinion.
Well, what are you basing that on? As I said, we don't have any groundrules for a democracy. I must admit I am curious as to what you think America lacks in making it one of the best. There are what? more than a 150 countries in the world, "one of the best" I would think is somewhere in the top fifteen, maybe the top ten. I'd be hardpressed to find that many democracies better than America. I admitted we aren't perfect. The electoral college, arguably the two party system we're stuck in, there are flaws, but these don't take away from what is great about America.
I agree Teshi, that up until now democracy is the best form we've come up with, and there is certainly room for improvement. The problem with forcing democracy on someone is you end up with a country like Japan, where the economy more or less rules the politics of the nation.
Surely there aren't better democracies than America in Africa, the Middle East (perhaps excepting Israel), and eastern europe.
Let me throw this out there then, what are the top ten democracies in the world? And what do you base that on? Be careful though, the foundation you build your house on is more important than the house.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think I would hold the Scandinavian nations and Canada up as the top examples of democracy in the world : Multi-party, parliamentary, proportional representation, small enough that you can do a national campaign without incredible amounts of money, highest standards of living in the known universe, and filthy stinking rich.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I am having flashbacks of an economics discussion with my favorite professor.
It was his contention that the defining characteristic of a succesful democracy was the right to own private property.
He talked about why a democracy in Russia will fail. When the Soviet Union opened, many American companies set up shop there, but after they started to see success, the Russian government took over the land and individual people/companies took their business elswhere.
Ownership is a key role in democracy.
I will have too look through my old notes and see if I can find all of his contentions and examples.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why did this professor believe that the right to own property was the defining feature of a sucessful democracy? Did he value you ownership of property above all other human rights or did he believe that ownership of property was an essential tool to achieve some other ends such as freedom of expression or freedom from want?
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
What we want is a benign dictator, one who makes all of our decisions for us and has the ability to get them done, and the morality to make sure all of those decisions are the best, or at least favor us.
However, since most dictators are far from benign, a democracy allows us to stop some of the abuses we would face otherwise.
A perfect government without the right to vote does not give its people a sense of security, for the rights they enjoy are theirs only at the whim of those who govern.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Could a Scandinavian or Canadian style democracy work in America? I'm sure it's easier to campaign and cheaper for that matter in a nation with a fraction of the population that America has, and in the case of the Scandinavian nations, a fraction of the size. Of course it's more expensive in a larger and more populous nation, I don't think you can use that as a measuring stick.
Your other points are good though.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that's kind of my point, America would need to be split into a bunch of smaller states.
EDIT : And oops, I didn't intend to include Canada in the proportional representation bit, only the high standard of living and relatively small population. Bad sentence parsing, no cookie!
[ March 30, 2005, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: King of Men ]
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Why did this professor believe that the right to own property was the defining feature of a sucessful democracy? Did he value you ownership of property above all other human rights or did he believe that ownership of property was an essential tool to achieve some other ends such as freedom of expression or freedom from want?
I will not seak for him, but my interpretation was that the right to own private property gave a person/family/company economic power.
Assumption: Land=Power
If land equals power, then the more citizens can own land, the more power is taken from a narrow source.
If power if distributed among the citizens, then they are more apt to take part in and be heard in a representative government that will protect their individual rights.
Posts: 2445 | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:I think I would hold the Scandinavian nations and Canada up as the top examples of democracy in the world : Multi-party, parliamentary, proportional representation, small enough that you can do a national campaign without incredible amounts of money.
Perhaps it would be better to look at Germany and Brazil. These countries have substantially larger populations (Brazil 176 million, German 83 million) and are still able to maintain multi-party, parliamentary proportional representation with relatively low cost campaigns.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
True, but their standards of living are quite a bit lower. And in Brazil's case, there's some moderately nasty things going on with the aboriginal populations.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Actual, the standard of living as measured by per capita GDP is higher in Germany than in either Sweden or Canada.
Do you consider "standard of living" to be the key measure of a democracy? If so, how do you classify Singapore. It has one of the highest per-capita GNPs in the world but is ruled by a dictatorship.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was thinking of the index given out by the UN, which also takes into account things like crime rates, pollution, and civil rights. Which brings us back to your first-order goods; I am apparently using them as a measure of how democratic a state is.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
