Does democracy work?

Colonel Sanders

Btw please no 'if FF get back in it'll be proof that democracy doesn't work' type posts.

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't. I assume it would be necessary to make certain assumptions which one may agree or disagree with (eg voters are rational). I would guess that different people could possibly come up with conflicting ideas either proving or disproving the argument (similar to arguments for/against the efficcient market hypothesis).

Is thre actually an alternative that has worked in other countries/societies/times?

Avns1s

Of course democracy works.... so long as it's controlled!!!!;)

Aesop

For me the problem is that "all politics in ireland is local"

We elect representatives to represent us locally and elect them on local issues. National issues don't get the attention they should from the voters. I would like to see a seperate body/office that get's elected purely on national issues (no constituencies). This of course would be in addition to the Dail.

In america they have the office of president. Problem there is of course he has too much power and if you get the wrong guy there is potential for huge damage. Maybe a Seanad elected by the people and given more power to drive legislation?

RalphCifaretto

Party democracy is more about manipulation than representation.

Akrasia

direct democracy is the only true form of democracy. All this 'representative democracy' is just legalised gombeenism political clientelism and cronyism.

For examples of direct democracy in action, have a look at Switzerland and the participatory budgeting system they have in Porto Allegre in Brazil. They're no perfect but they're a good indication of what a true democracy would look like.

Considering the massive improvements in communications technology over the past few decades, it is becoming more and more feasable to allow fuller participation for every citizen in the decision making process.

cavedave

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't

Popper in "the open Society" came up with a structured argument as to why democracy does or does not work. It is an easy read and an interesting one. Basically his conclusions are
1. An open society will innovate and fix problems quicker then a closed authoritarian one.
2. An open society cannot allow people who want to destroy it to be elected. For example the Nazi's always wanted to remove democracy so they should not have been allowed be a democratic party.

A number of criticisms of these views exist.
Hayeks road to serfdom also critiques democracy http://www.mises.org/TRTS.htm

MontgomeryClift

I'll have to live in a democracy before I can find out whether it works.

egan007

Churchill's famous dictum: "Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."
(from a House of Commons speech on Nov. 11, 1947)

marco_polo

Best of a bad lot I suppose? I with Aesop that gombeen man local politics is the bane of Irish society.

**EDIT or what Egan007 said. **

DadaKopf

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't.

You can't 'prove' or 'disprove' democracy. It's not a scientific theorem.

There are many models and critiques of democracy. There were a number of powerful critiques of post-WWII democracy in the 1970s, which are interesting as both Left and Right reached a point of agreement.

If you're interested enough in this, you could consider reading David Held's 'Models of Democracy'. It's an excellent introduction of democratic theory from the Greeks to the present day.

Tigger

DadaKopf wrote:

You can't 'prove' or 'disprove' democracy. It's not a scientific theorem.

There are many models and critiques of democracy. There were a number of powerful critiques of post-WWII democracy in the 1970s, which are interesting as both Left and Right reached a point of agreement.

If you're interested enough in this, you could consider reading David Held's 'Models of Democracy'. It's an excellent introduction of democratic theory from the Greeks to the present day.

our democracy is simply a form of mob rule

the main problem with it would be the pandering to the many at the cost of the few
we here hear (and will hear more and more) of minorities getting "special treatment" of quotas and sqewed selection
its deemed nessiciary to make up for the issue that democracy is for the many
what we have going on at the moment the politicians would like us to believe is democracy in action but it is not its a popularity contest to choose two or three characters for us to support or disparage for the next few years
but it will matter little who is elected as they will all be proven liars in a couple of years and again will panderv to their voting blocks
voting machines for this specticale were decried because they would "take the fun out of the count"
what a load of toss
its not ment to be fun or celebitary (i never learned to spell get over it)
its ment to be work
with all the technology available now we should simply elect these celeb politicians to debate the issues then vote weekly on what way to go
a referendum on each topic
direct democracy for the future
so i throw that to the floor
why would it be any
worse?

politics
poly=many
tic=a small blood sucking parasite

Define "work" plz

Pride Fighter

Democracy works as long as their is stability in that particular nation. France and the US have very stable democracies that work because the president has the power. Look at Weimar Germany and the 3rd French Republic. They did not work as there was too many political parties for stability in those nations. Looking at Iraq now that country is going to tear itself apart as soon as the Yanks leave. What France and the US have is a type of democratic fascism which gives them stability. Our system is stable as there is only 7 political parties. In Iraq there is something like 100 which can never work. Democracy works, under the right circumstances.

democrates

Pride Fighter wrote:

Democracy works as long as their is stability in that particular nation. France and the US have very stable democracies that work because the president has the power. Look at Weimar Germany and the 3rd French Republic. They did not work as there was too many political parties for stability in those nations. Looking at Iraq now that country is going to tear itself apart as soon as the Yanks leave. What France and the US have is a type of democratic fascism which gives them stability. Our system is stable as there is only 7 political parties. In Iraq there is something like 100 which can never work. Democracy works, under the right circumstances.

But look at the prizes won by independants for their constituencies, how many more will we have in 2012? Is this is a structural problem in our democracy, local and national issues mixed into one vote?

liberty 2007

What we have in this country and many other western countries, is an illusion of democracy, but, there's one country in the heart of Europe which is way ahead of the rest of us,economicly,socially, environmentally and politically.
The swiss had a referandum to introduce a system of direct democracy while the famine was raging in this country. I never new of such a system until I stumbled accross it on this machine. (Thank god for the internet) The political ellite and their media allies would prefare to keep us in the dark (political ages)

democrates

liberty 2007 wrote:

What we have in this country and many other western countries, is an illusion of democracy, but, there's one country in the heart of Europe which is way ahead of the rest of us,economicly,socially, environmentally and politically.
The swiss had a referandum to introduce a system of direct democracy while the famine was raging in this country. I never new of such a system until I stumbled accross it on this machine. (Thank god for the internet) The political ellite and their media allies would prefare to keep us in the dark (political ages)

Yes, it's only by getting your news from a variety of sources that the gigantic blind spots in mainstream media coverage become apparent. The Internet is the red pill.

allianz

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

liberty 2007

allianz wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

So, what do you suggest???

allianz

I don't have a solution but i do feel that the current system if fundamentally flawed.
A wise man once said “if you know you’re going in the wrong direction then continuing on will only get you more lost”.

DadaKopf

Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

Say that to people living in developing countries run by dictators or corrupt regimes. People understand issues just fine.

Everyone's discussion in this thread takes place within our existing democratic frameworks which are, generally, constitutionally 'republican' (in that you have parliamentary representatives elected by a citizenry), but actually 'competitive elitist', that is, a system which functions to exchange the rule of different elites, legitimated through the electoral process.

Voting is, however, not democracy. It's simply a feature of it.

I would say, looking at anarchist models, that people are perfectly intelligent and educated enough to make informed decisions about their own lives - as much as any human being is capable of. The point is not that we should transmit power to an elite every 5 years to be abused, but to work together to take collective decisions that affect us in the belief that one man or woman does not and cannot have all the right answers.

Democracy demands this kind of acceptance of difference.

Ultimately, in my opinion, democracy is a way of transforming power-relations in a society from top-down to horizontal - everyone, in the end, should be equally powerful to make decisions that affect the whole.

Saruman

allianz wrote:

I don't have a solution but i do feel that the current system if fundamentally flawed.
A wise man once said “if you know you’re going in the wrong direction then continuing on will only get you more lost”.

Thats the point though... its flawed, everyone knows its flawed but no one has come up with anything better.
Communism and solcialism are great ideas in theory but in practice do not work. Democracy works the best.

At least we can be proud that we have something closer to democracy than the US or France.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

Ultimately, in my opinion, democracy is a way of transforming power-relations in a society from top-down to horizontal - everyone, in the end, should be equally powerful to make decisions that affect the whole.

Nice theory. How does it work in practice?

allianz

At least we can be proud that we have something closer to democracy than the US or France.

Really...do you really feel we can be proud of our government. Cos it seems to me we have the same bunch of shysters in charge as so many other countries have. We did elect them in a slightly different way but the result is ultimately the same.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

Nice theory. How does it work in practice?

In practice, it's a struggle. It always will be. Only idiots base their agruments on the belief that it's a goal which can be attained for all time.

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

In practice, it's a struggle. It always will be.

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

PeakOutput

i would say communism is the best in theory but democracy is the best in practice

democrates

The Corinthian wrote:

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

If I may be so bold as to chip in here, some schools of thought in the Anarchist movement propose a hierarchy or representative councils from local to global level, it seems to be morphing into the Swiss model of direct democracy.

I don't think it's possible to create any perfect system based on flawed humans, we don't have to design heaven here, but in general I'd prefer the self interest of the many to guide society than the self interest of a few.

DadaKopf

The Corinthian wrote:

In practice any political system is a struggle - that's a given. However in practice, how would the system you proposed actually work, given that it is purely theoretical (beyond some very limited attempts) and that it would seem to ignore many of the tendencies towards short-term self interest that a population will have that have been raised in this thread?

I could turn your question around on you, Corinthian: how can one prevent dictatorship? Or, if that's too low a common denominator, how can a society move away from dictatorship to democracy?

Rule 1 of democratic theory: there is no universal theory. It's only meaningful when discussing actual situations.

You often seem keen to defend dictatorship against democracy with such rhetorical devices.

heyjude

allianz wrote:

Don't be ridiculous, democracy is a sham. On the surface it sounds like it should work, letting people decide who governs them. But look at how people choose a candidate. People vote for the guy with the nicer teeth or the honest looking guy. They vote based on ill-informed opinions and based on past alliances (how many people vote Fine Fail/Fine Gael/Sinn Fein etc because they’re parents voted from them). Nations, societies and economies are extremely complex and rarely understood by the average voter. If they can’t really understand the true issues how can they make decisions?

Probably true and I've no doubt that the politicians know it too. They know that while a government will deal with hundreds of different issues over a five year term, a high proportion of voters can be swayed by a policy on one particular issue.

Another big issue here is that we actually have government by cabinet not by parliament. Backbenchers are glorified county councillors, got a pothole you need filling.... need help with a medical card.... on a hospital waiting list... Who you gonna call ? Your county councillor, no, your local TD. So when we are told that we are electing a government, we are actually voting for guys and gals to blindly support whatever the cabinet proposes. Only the cabinet members have power.

A final point, during the Thatcher years, there was a degree of snobbery here about how Thatcher with barely 40% of the vote, using the First Past the Post system, still ended up with a huge majority. The point being made that our voting system more accurately reflected the actual vote. But in reality, FF are as dominant here now as the Conservatives were then and with just 41% of the vote, they dominated the last two governments and essentially the Programme for Government of our new government is the Fianna Fail election manifesto, the Greens, PDs and independents seem to have contributed virtually nothing. Which creates an impression that in reality instead of a coalition, we have a FF minority government

We have a democracy in which just 68% of the electorate actually voted and just 41% of those that voted, then voted FF and yet that was enough for them to form the government. A perfect electoral system ?

The Corinthian

DadaKopf wrote:

I could turn your question around on you, Corinthian: how can one prevent dictatorship?

You could, but you'd just be sidestepping my question.

Or, if that's too low a common denominator, how can a society move away from dictatorship to democracy?

I think that was answered at the start of the thread. It also has no baring on what I asked.

Rule 1 of democratic theory: there is no universal theory. It's only meaningful when discussing actual situations.

Of course, just as there is no perfect political system. However, anarchic ones appear to be grounded in very little other than fuzzy and unrealistic theory, unlike other systems, which is why I asked for an example of a practical implementation.

You often seem keen to defend dictatorship against democracy with such rhetorical devices.

Do I? I'll admit I'll play Devil's advocate, but I don't think I've ever defended dictatorship against democracy, to be fair. I can see where it would make sense to have the classical model of dictatorship, as a limited political tool in times of crisis or chaos, but even then I'd have grave reservations as dictatorships are, ironically, the most unstable systems around.

Anyway, are you going to answer my question?

Zombrex

Colonel Sanders wrote:

Btw please no 'if FF get back in it'll be proof that democracy doesn't work' type posts.

Has anyone ever come up with a structured argument either proving or disproving that democracy works/doesn't. I assume it would be necessary to make certain assumptions which one may agree or disagree with (eg voters are rational). I would guess that different people could possibly come up with conflicting ideas either proving or disproving the argument (similar to arguments for/against the efficcient market hypothesis).

Is thre actually an alternative that has worked in other countries/societies/times?

First you have to define what you mean by "works", by what criteria do you define that democracy isn't working